Lords Sitting of 4 April 1856

AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read: Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I wish, before the House goes into Committee on this Bill, to make a few observations with reference to one or two of its provisions. There are one or two points connected with the machinery of this measure, the objections to which, I think, can be more conveniently considered now than at any future stage of the Bill. On the second reading, although I expressed my concurrence in the objects intended to be effected by the Bill, I at the same time expressed some doubts whether its machinery was the best calculated to carry out those objects. My Lords, the many communications which I have since received from various quarters of the country, in regard to this measure, all tend to confirm the impression which I then entertained. Though from some agricultural counties I have received remonstrances against the whole form and frame of the Bill itself, yet I cannot say that the reasoning by which they are supported has convinced me that it is not one eminently calculated to benefit the country; at the same time these communications have shown me that the objections to some of the provisions of the Bill are very much greater than I stated to your Lordships. What I object to, as against the whole of the proposed machinery, is the employment in any way of the Poor Law Board. I consider that this Board is utterly unfitted for the discharge of the duties which, this Bill would impose upon them—duties
446
totally unconnected with those to which, in my opinion, the Poor Law Board should be specifically confined. I am sure, also, that your Lordships will concur with me in thinking, that as in at least some parts of the country considerable prejudice exists against this Bill on the part of occupiers of land, it is desirable that its promoters should seek, as far as possible, to conciliate that class, and so far as practicable to remove the objections they may entertain to the Bill. I feel quite convinced, too, my Lords, that no body could be selected to carry out this Bill which would be as unsatisfactory to the occupiers of land as the Poor Law Board. With regard to the objection taken to the publicity that would, under this Bill, be given to the private concerns of individual parties, that objection may or may not be exaggerated; but I am quite sure that a board of poor-law guardians, consisting of a very numerous body of the magistrates and farmers of the union, and numbering perhaps sixty or seventy members, is a body composed of the very persons from whom the farmers of the union would be most desirous to withhold the information which is intended to be elicited by this Bill. The objects in view—that of acquiring accurate agricultural statistics—being one of public concern, is one that ought to be effected, as far as possible, by the immediate instrumentality of the Government. I think, therefore, that for the words in the first clause providing that the Poor Law Board take every year measures to obtain so and so, words should be substituted providing that the Board of Trade should each year take measures to obtain this information. I think, my Lords, that the means by which the desired information might be obtained most efficiently and with the least objection to the farmer would be through the agency of courts of petty sessions established throughout the country. These courts possess a peculiar facility for obtaining this information, by reason of the acquaintances of their officers with the farmers in their respective localities. And now, as regards the two classes of information proposed to be obtained. I do not think this Bill draws a sufficient distinction between those two classes—first, the quantity of land under cultivation, and the description of the crops; and, secondly, the estimated value of those crops. With regard to the statistics of cultivation, and the nature of the crops, I cannot but think that the 1st of June, the

447
day named in the Bill for filling up this schedule, is considerably too early. At that time of the year the turnip sowing has barely commenced; and the farmers generally could not at so early a period make a proper return of what their crops were, but would probably be obliged to return, as "fallow land," portions of their farm, though this land was intended to be cultivated. Consequently, a very fallacious return of the amount of turnips available for food in the year would be obtained. I, therefore, think, my Lords, that the 1st of July would be quite early enough for the information required to be furnished by this clause of the Bill. Again, although this information is required to be given by the farmers at so early a period, I do not see any provision for giving back that information to the farmer within such a period and in such a way as it may be useful to him. I do, my Lords, think that if the farmer furnishes his individual information, he has a right to expect that he shall as soon as possible be put in possession of that aggregate of statistical information of which he has supplied his part. In this Bill there is no provision for supplying him with those statistics, except the clause directing that publication shall be made of those returns in such manner as the Board of Trade may think fit. If information of the extent of cultivation and nature of the crops are not given to the farmer till the mouths of September, or October, or November, up to which time it is not likely you would be able to get any information as to prices, it would be utterly valueless to him. The small farmers thrash out their corn early, and, therefore, if such information is not afforded to them before October, they would derive no advantage from the return, and consequently they would have no interest in giving you the information which you ask of them. While on this subject, I must say that while I do not at all deny that it may be possible to obtain something approaching to a correct estimate as to the amount of crops, I entertain very much doubt whether by a return made up in the way this Bill proposes you will be able to approximate to the correct amount. At all events, I think, on the ground of the time at which the first schedule is required to be furnished, you must separate the two returns—the amount and kind of crops and the valuation. [Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: It is proposed to do so.] The noble Lord says it is intended to do so;
448
but I find that by the 4th clause the Poor Law Board may appoint such persons as they think fit to collect information and make an estimate of the valuation. Now I think the collection of the information and the making of the valuation should be kept separate. I am of opinion that the courts of petty sessions should, by the first part of the Bill, be appointed to do that which it is now proposed to confide to the boards of guardians—obtain information; and I think you should introduce a clause providing that the Board of Trade should, from such information, have prepared and circulated an estimate of the value of the crops. I am sure that the poor-law Board is not the source from which you should obtain such an estimate, which would, coming from it, be founded on the information obtained by the different poor-law guardians throughout the country. If you be desirous that the estimates should at all approach accuracy, you should take the course adopted by speculators in corn—that of sending people invested by you with authority to make investigation, as far as personal investigation is possible. For this purpose you should employ a limited number of persons on whose ability you could place reliance; but I do not think you could place reliance on the valuations of persons appointed by the poor-law guardians. As regards the payment of the officials, this Bill provides that the boards of guardians should employ persons to make returns and estimates; but the Board of Trade is to draw up a scale of allowance, which is to receive the confirmation of the Treasury; but it is after those persons have been employed, and after the returns have been made, that, for the first time, they will learn remuneration is to be given to them. If that be the case the poor-law guardians will take very little trouble to employ efficient persons. According to my view, the petty sessions courts should in the early part of the year call for a return of the facts you require; I think, too, that the form of schedule might be made much less complicated than it now is. It appears to me sufficient if in one column you call for a return of the principal corn crops, and in a separate column for a return of the potato—because that is food for man; but if you get a return of carrots, turnips, mangel wurzel, and other green crops, you will, as regards such crops, have information sufficient for all practical purposes. There are no less than four columns of separate

449
returns of sheep, lambs, calves, &c., framed in such a way as in my opinion to only complicate the return. I think you should provide that the petty sessions court, communicating with the occupier, should get from him a return; and that by each petty sessions court an abstract of the various returns furnished by individuals of the district should be made; that this abstract so prepared should be sent to the Board of Trade, and that from the aggregate of those abstracts the Board of Trade should afford to the public the information in gross, without expressing the names of individual occupiers, whose individual returns would only be known to the magistrates of their own petty sessions district. Now, my Lords, it may be said that occupiers of land would be very unwilling to have their returns exposed to those magistrates, who would thus become acquainted with their available means, those magistrates being in some cases the landlords of those individuals. Well, supposing the magistrate to be the landlord of the individual called upon to make the return, he is asked to give no information but that which the landlord has power, at any moment, to ascertain. I should hope that there are very few cases in which the tenant feels that he has any reason for concealing such information from his landlord; but be that as it may, the occupier is not by this Bill called upon to give any information which the landlord cannot obtain for himself. Therefore I cannot entertain the idea that there would be any difficulty in the way of the magistrates of petty sessions courts procuring from the farmers of their districts returns relating to the distribution of the different crops; nor in those magistrates returning the acreages of the crops in their neighbourhood to the Board of Trade, and this Board drawing up a general statement from those returns. I can also see no objection to a provision requiring that the Board of Trade, in a limited time after this information has been furnished, shall, not by publication in the ordinary way, but by sending those returns, or the substance of them, back to the various petty sessions districts, impart to the farming classes the information which they have individually contributed. I think it would also be of considerable importance, and tend to ensure a more complete return, if the parties engaged in collecting the information were provided with the returns of the previous year, so that by comparison they would be
450
in a better position to judge of what the result of the returns would be. I do not mean to say that any information would afford a perfect criterion, or that the closest inquiry would not be necessary. I think, my Lords, that in introducing these returns, the object we all have in view is to make them as perfect as experience will enable them to be made, and the more you enlist the feelings of the occupier in the objects of this measure, the more disposed will he be to render you his assistance in the making up of those returns. For this purpose let those returns be as simple as possible; let the machinery of the Bill be as unobjectionable as possible; and let the occupier at the earliest possible period get a return of the information affecting the entire country. My Lords, I have taken the liberty of throwing out these suggestions before the House goes into Committee. I have not prepared any amendments to the Bill; but if your Lordships approve of the course which I have proposed to the House to adopt I shall, in Committee, move such alterations as may carry into effect the suggestions which I have thrown out with respect to the machinery of the Bill, and those other matters to which I have directed the attention of your Lordships.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYunderstood the noble Earl to approve the principle of the Bill, but to suggest certain alterations in its details. He would shortly state the reasons which induced him to prefer the machinery provided by the Bill to that suggested by the noble Earl. In the first place, they had availed themselves of the Poor Law machinery for the last two years in the counties of York and Norfolk with complete success, a very small percentage of occupiers in those counties having abstained from making returns. In the next place, that machinery provided them with a central body in London—the Poor Law Board, composed of most efficient gentlemen, who were in direct communication with every parish in the country, and who had the best means of knowing the most proper persons to employ in order to obtain the information they required. The Poor Law Board would not be fettered as to the means by which they obtained information, and if the boards of guardians were unwilling to furnish it they were empowered to obtain it from other persons; but he had no doubt that in ninety-nine cases out of 100 there would be no reluctance on the part of the boards of

451
guardians to lend their assistance towards carrying out the object of the Bill. Another advantage was that in all the agricultural districts the boards of guardians were composed of the principal, and generally of the most intelligent farmers in each parish. They would meet together, and having communicated with the clerk of the union would proceed to distribute the papers and collect information. He did not think that any other machinery would be attended with as many advantages as this, and he would point out some of the inconveniences of the machinery suggested by the noble Earl. There was no direct communication between any department of the Government and the clerks of the petty sessions, and he was not sure that they would be much disposed to carry out the arrangements necessary for obtaining information; at any rate, it could not be obtained from them without additional expense. Again, if there were any unwillingness on the part of the farmers to make these returns to their landlords, surely that objection would apply more strongly if the returns were to be sent to the magistrates sitting in petty sessions, almost all of whom were landlords, instead of to the clerk of the union. The same advantages which the noble Earl anticipated from the transmission of the returns to the clerk of the magistrates, would be obtained by their transmission to the clerk of the union, and by him to the Pool Law Board who knew nothing about the individuals, and only sought information for public purposes. In many instances, indeed, the clerk of the union and the clerk of the magistrates were the same person. Then, as to the period for making the return. The noble Earl thought that the 1st of June was too early a period for the return of the first schedule. But it was desirable to have the return as early as possible, for, otherwise, no calculation could be made upon it in time to be of much service to the country, and in this respect the example of Scotland had been followed. The 1st of July had been found to be too late, but, if the 1st of June appeared to their Lordships to be too early, he would have no objection to substitute the 15th of June, or even a later day. He was anxious to have the returns of acreage made not later than the beginning of August. The noble Earl said that no definite period had been named in which these returns were to be published; but that was a matter of detail; and it
452
might be considered hereafter whether the result should be laid before Parliament in the form of returns, or published in the ordinary channels of public information, if Parliament should not be sitting at the time. All estimates of crops like those to be made under the Bill must be more or less in the nature of approximations; yet, anything like just approximations must be of service to the country; but in Scotland the estimates made of the crops were, upon the whole, a fair and accurate representation of the crops of that country. In each district of that country a portion of the crop was thrashed out, measured and weighed, and an average was struck which was accepted as a return of the average of the whole district. This afforded a fair representation of the produce; and something of this kind was proposed to be adopted in this country. The Poor Law Board, if Parliament should intrust the duty to that body, would direct the clerks of unions to communicate with some of the principal farmers of the district, who would make actual experiments of the produce of the union or the district, or the two or three parishes in question; this would give reliable information whether the crop was an average crop or above or below an average in that district. With regard to the time to which these statistics ought to be made up, he thought the House could not expect to have them before November in each year. Until the harvesting was over and the agricultural labours of the years closed it would obviously be impossible for the farmer to give accurate information. Although, therefore, objections might be taken to the lateness of the date, he felt assured that practically no earlier date could be fixed. The noble Earl said that the second portion of the schedule was too diffuse and too much encumbered with details. To the columns relating to grain the noble Earl had no objection, but he did not approve of the details relating to the green crops, and the numerous items into which they were divided. In the first place, he (Lord Stanley) had to answer to this, that the schedule was framed upon the course of practice which had been pursued in Scotland, where no difficulty of the nature apprehended by the noble Earl had been felt in practice. And really he was at a loss to see how the matter would be simplified by diminishing the number of columns. Whether a farmer set out the entire amount of his crop under

453
one heading, or whether he divided the information by giving the quantity of each kind of grain and green crop, the labour and difficulty to him would be the same. So also with cattle; it was perfectly immaterial, so far as the party making the returns was concerned, whether he stated in gross the number of beasts upon the farm, or whether he divided the information, and gave the number in each particular class. There were many advantages derivable from the separate entries of the schedule, and if he were correct in saying that the additional information would not impose additional trouble upon the farmer, it would be desirable to obtain it. With regard to the expenses incurred, the Board of Trade would specify the sums, and the payments that would be allowed would be settled beforehand. Ho thought that he had now adverted at least to the principal matters noticed in objection to this measure: those points which he had passed by would, perhaps, be better dealt with when the House came to consider the Bill in Committee.
LORD BERNERSsaid, that this was a question of great importance, for it was impossible to over-estimate the utility of a good system of agricultural statistics. But in order to make the measure of national importance they ought to render it as little objectionable to individuals as possible. They must conciliate the farmers, and make the schedules as simple as possible. If the farmers were impressed with any fears or prejudices upon the subject it was the duty of Parliament to allay them. The farmers did not object to make those returns, but they feared that when made they might get into improper hands and be used against them. Now, by a little timely precaution it would be easy to prevent the possibility of the returns being so used. They should show the farmers that it was for their own good that those returns should be made as accurately as possible; but, then, in order to disabuse the farmers of their prejudices the names of the individuals making those returns should not be published or made known out of their own respective parishes. He (Lord Berners) did not think it was necessary that the Poor Law Board should be made use of at all to procure this information. Under proper arrangements he did not think there would be any difficulty in obtaining this information. Another point to be borne in mind was this—that the returns should be published in time to be
454
useful, not to the speculator for whose benefit they were not intended, but to the agriculturist, whose advantage was the legitimate object of this legislation. For this purpose in the second clause he would propose an amendment, providing that at the earliest possible period information, should be given by the corn inspectors. He would also propose an amendment in the seventh clause. There ought to be a great difference made between the sins of omission and of commission, so that the man who was proved to have wilfully refused to furnish the information referred to should alone be subjected to a penalty. He could not resume his seat without expressing his satisfaction at the great improvement—both in education and in general tone of thought and feeling—which had taken place in the farmers of Great Britain within the past few years; an improvement which was one of the most gratifying features of the present age.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEagreed in thinking that agricultural statistics were most valuable; but he feared that when the Bill came to be put into operation great difficulties would arise. No doubt it would be very useful to the country to get a good series of agricultural statistics, but he doubted if the manner in which the statistics would be got at through the present Bill would add much to the knowledge which we already possessed upon the subject. Certainly nothing could be of more use than accurate statistics; at the same time nothing could be of less use than inaccurate ones. We might obtain information as to the average sown, and as to the quantity of corn produced, but the most important part of the subject was the yield of corn; but on that we had no means proposed of obtaining any information. Beyond doubt, the Bill was unpopular with the farmers, and therefore, they would do nothing to aid the Government, and if they were disposed to elude giving the information required by the Bill, they could easily do it; they could refuse to thrash out the wheat until the period for making the returns had passed, and only thrash out their barley. Even if we were successful in obtaining the information, all depended on the period at which it was obtained—it would be obtained at a time which would be of no service to the small farmers—the little men who cannot reserve their stock; while those who would profit would be great men who could reserve it. The farmers would ask why they were subjected to the visits

455
of inspectors, who came to take account of their stock.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: There is no such power given by the Bill.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: Then the Bill would be useless; and he would put it to the House whether it was worth while to excite the public mind for a useless object? There really appeared so much difficulty in obtaining the results required, and so much irritation would be produced by it, that it might be doubted if it was worth while to open the question, and harass the feelings of the farmers for so uncertain a benefit. He did not understand what his noble Friend meant when he praised the arrangement of the Bill in entrusting the duties to the clerk of the Poor Law Board. He (the Earl of Hardwicke) could understand how the members of the board of guardians—many of whom were farmers and practical men, could manage the business of the Bill—but if the duty was to be entrusted to the clerk of the union, he thought it might be given to much more competent persons. He would approve of a Bill which should facilitate the obtaining correct statistics of the area laid down to wheat and barley; but the present measure would fail in providing such statistics as would be useful to the country.
EARL GREYbelieved that all were agreed upon the great importance of obtaining, if possible, accurate agricultural statistics. That being so, he thought the wisest course for the House to pursue would be to accept the present Bill; for he felt confident the Government would exercise the powers it would confer upon them in a manner most likely to lead to the result which all desired, and it would be for the House, after that had been done, to judge whether the objects which they had in view had been attained. No doubt it was difficult to foresee exactly how the proposed plan would really work; but such an uncertainty was the necessary accompaniment of legislation in any new direction. It was only just to say that it appeared to him that the plan proposed by the Government was, upon the whole, the best that could be devised. The plan of endeavouring to obtain agricultural statistics through the agency of the Poor Law Board had been already tried, and in two counties with considerable success. It had no doubt failed in other places, not, however, from any defect in the Board as a portion of the Machinery for collecting the returns, but
456
on account of there being no compulsory power in the Government enabling them peremptorily to require that returns should be made by unwilling persons. Such was the state of things which had been found to exist by the Committee of that House who had inquired into this matter, and that body thereupon came to the conclusion that with the grant of compulsory powers in the Executive all difficulty would end. That he believed to be the proper course to pursue, and would be acting upon the principle already applied, adopting the same machinery which had been successfully employed, but supplying the want of power which had induced a failure of success in some counties. The Government had, moreover, not only the theoretical opinion of a Committee of that House, but they had also the benefit of practical experience in Scotland, where satisfactory returns had been obtained. The President of the Board of Trade had truly said that the Poor Law Board, being already in official communication with every union in the country, enjoyed facilities for transacting this business which no other department would possess, and therefore it was advisable, in the first instance at least, to employ that agency. He might, perhaps, have felt inclined to suggest some other machinery, but their Lordships must bear in mind that the Government were making use of an existing system which had been found generally successful, and had failed in individual instances, from a specific cause which the present Bill was adapted to remedy; and, therefore, he thought it most prudent, at present, to persevere in that course. There could be no doubt that as the Government intended to obtain from Parliament the means of paying for collecting the information which it desired, there would be no difficulty in procuring it. The noble Earl (the Earl of Hardwicke) seemed to think that it would be impossible to obtain any return as to the yield of grain. He (Earl Grey) thought that the noble Earl took an exaggerated view of the difficulties attending that portion of the subject; but, even granting his objection to the fullest extent, by admitting that no return at all of the yield would be furnished, a return of acreage alone would be well worth the passing of this Bill. The Bill contained no power to compel farmers to thrash out their corn, but it had been found in Scotland that through voluntary agency a very fair estimate of the average produce in each county could be obtained. It was true that such

457
estimates could be framed now, and were actually obtained by speculators for their own guidance and benefit; but speculators kept that information to themselves, while the Government would publish it to the whole world, for the advantage of the farmers as well as of others. The noble Earl wanted to know whether the Government intended to enter a farmer's land and thrash his corn, if he declined doing it himself. If the noble Earl had looked through the Bill he would have seen that no power for such a purpose was contained in it. But then it had been said such information would come too late, that farmers sold generally at an early period, and that statistics published in the middle of November would be of no benefit to them. In reply to that observation, he would say, in the first place, that, however desirable an earlier publication of returns might be, it was simply impossible. He would also state his opinion that it was unadvisable for farmers to combine the two separate trades of corn-dealers and producers. He knew himself of two agriculturists in Northumberland who had realised large fortunes, and who had always acted upon the rule of selling their produce directly it was ready at the market price of the day, and that plan they had found more profitable in the end than any attempt at combining the pursuits of producers and dealers would have been. But did it follow that accurate statistics published so late would be of no value to the farmer? If there were not such statistics the large speculators were able to create false impressions as to the prospects of the country, and to knock down the markets at the time when the farmer would be obliged to sell, and thus operate to the disadvantage alike of the farmer and the consumer. It was for the interest both of the fanner and of the consumer that the real state of the country should be known, which would place all dealers upon the same footing, and, in the long run, tend to equalise prices as far as they could be equalised. For those reasons he thought the House would act injudiciously if it attempted to make any serious alterations in the Bill now before it. The Bill certainly did give a large discretionary power to the Government, but he believed that it could have no interest adverse to the agriculturists, and he was of opinion it would be best to leave to the Government the responsibility of exercising those powers in the mode they thought to be most conducive to success.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYentirely concurred with the noble Earl in the importance of procuring correct statistics in respect to agricultural produce, and he thought that large powers should be given to the Government in order to enable them to obtain that information. But it was not the Government to whom those powers were given by the present Bill—it was to the Poor Law Board. And when they were told that the Government should have complete power from the beginning to the end, in carrying out the object of this Bill, his noble Friend opposite said that such power should be given to the Poor Law Board, which was sitting in London, and was presided over by a most able and intelligent man.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: Yes, that distinguished functionary would be responsible.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: No doubt; but he confessed he could not see how the Poor Law Board was in any way superior to the Board of Trade in this respect. Although the matter would be ultimately referred to the Board of Trade it was proposed that the Poor Law Board should take the initiative under this Bill. When the noble Earl who spoke last referred to the case of Scotland as an argument in favour of passing this Bill unaltered, he should recollect that the machinery adopted in Scotland was totally different from that proposed by this measure. The machinery in Scotland was of a voluntary character. There was no Poor Law Board in that country. The inquiry in Scotland had hitherto been conducted by a Gentleman at the head of the Agricultural Society there, and the inquiry would not have succeeded there but that the gentleman alluded to was characterised by a most conciliatory demeanour, and was generally popular. He hoped the noble Lord would give them some more distinct information as to the publication of the returns, which should not be made dependent upon their presentation to Parliament, as Parliament might not be sitting at the period of their completion. But what he wished most emphatically to point out was, that in his opinion the Bill would work much more satisfactorily if the inquiries under it were confined to the first investigation—namely, the breadth of land sown, with each particular crop. Upon that point exact information could be obtained; but he defied any one to arrive at accurate results with reference to the

459
yield of each crop, while the very attempt to do so was likely to excite the jealous susceptibility of the farmers, besides adding very much to the expense of the investigation. Indeed, he thought the expenses under the Bill would be considerably more than what their Lordships were inclined to suppose; certainly they would be more than doubled if an effort were made to ascertain anything beyond the acreage sown.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he appreciated more highly the common sense of the farmers than to suppose that they would withhold information which, if rightly understood, must be for their own advantage. He agreed with the noble Earl that the only point on which perfect accuracy was attainable was the acreage; but that would give no idea of the produce of that acreage, which was the only point on which information would be of any advantage. A good deal had been said about the irritation which the farmers would feel at this interference with their affairs. He regarded such a notion as quite groundless. The manner in which it was proposed to work the Bill could offend no one. He depended on the common sense of the formers, and could not think them so absurd as to refuse to thrash their wheat merely for the purpose of withholding information from the country; nor that, for mere purposes of spite, they would adopt a course which would take money out of their pockets. All that was required and all that the Bill proposed to do was to ascertain the average produce of the whole district; no statement would be made to the public of the produce of any particular farm. The course which it was proposed to pursue had been marked out by a Committee of that House, upon whose recommendation the Bill was founded, with the sole difference that the Committee recommended that the management should be entrusted to the Poor Law Board, in conjunction with the Board of Trade, while the Bill gave the management to the Poor Law Board itself. He did not think it advisable to transfer the machinery of working the proceedings from those accustomed to it to others. There were matters of detail which might require to be amended, and when that was done he hoped the Bill would prove of essential service to the interests of the country.
LORD OVERSTONEsaid, he could not allow the opportunity to pass without informing
460
their Lordships that Mr. M'Culloch complained very much of the manner in which his agricultural returns had been referred to by the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade, when introducing this measure to their Lordships. He felt that he had been a great deal misrepresented; and he (Lord Overstone) thought that it was important to the character of the works of that able political economist that the misstatements of the noble Lord should not pass unchallenged. He believed the noble Lord had received a communication from Mr. M'Culloch on the subject, which, of course, he would he willing to lay before their Lordships.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, it was quite true that he had received a letter from Mr. M'Culloch, complaining of what he termed certain inaccuracies, relative to his work on statistics, in the speech made by him when introducing the present measure. Now, he denied that there were any inaccuracies in the statement made by him relative to Mr. M'Culloch's work. What he had done was simply to read to their Lordships certain agricultural statistics as to Scotland and Ireland, given by Mr. M'Culloch, and to compare them with the results obtained by the Highland Society in Scotland and the police investigation in Ireland, with a view of showing how great was the discrepancy between the two, and thus point out the necessity existing for obtaining reliable information. As to the effect which his statement might have upon the general authority of Mr. M'Culloch's works, he certainly differed from the noble Lord. The point complained of by Mr. M'Culloch was, that when speaking of the extent of ground under potatoes in Ireland, he (Lord Stanley of Alderley) had, quoting Mr. M'Culloch's estimate as 2,000,000 acres and return of the police as under 300,000 acres, omitted to state that the former calculation was made in the years previous to the famine, while that of the police was during its operation and in the years subsequent. Now, he was perfectly ready to admit that that was a consideration which ought to be kept in mind in looking into the question, and in omitting to do so he might have been induced to draw a wrong inference, but he could not allow that he had inaccurately quoted Mr. M'Culloch. In fact, even when quoting the passage he stated that it was an inaccuracy for which Mr. M'Culloch could not be held responsible, owing to the absence

461
of all authentic information on the subject. His only object in alluding to the these returns was, to show that if inaccuracies of such an extent existed in a work of such great authority as Mr. M'Culloch's, it was all the more necessary that some reliable means should be resorted to to obtain real statistics of our agricultural produce.
LORD OVERSTONEsaid, that Mr. M'Culloch's works were of great authority and ought not lightly to be misrepresented.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I repeat I did not misrepresent Mr. M'Culloch. I simply quoted his facts and his figures, and quoted them accurately.
EARL GREYthought it was only fair to Mr. M'Culloch to state that his estimate had been put forward in the absence of all reliable information. The object of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley of Alderley) was to show the necessity of resorting to some means of obtaining authentic statistics. Mr. M'Culloch had done all that was in his power to make his book correct, but he could do no more.
THE EARL OF STRADBROKEsaid, he could not believe that the English farmers were less englightened than those of Scotland. In Scotland a similar measure had been most sucessful under the voluntary exertion of the farmers, and he felt that if a Bill of this sort should pass, the good feeling of the farmers of England would lead them to facilitate a return being made of the utmost value. He hoped the machinery of the Bill would be left in the hands of the Poor Law Board and Guardians.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that he did doubt the zeal and activity of the Poor Law Board, but it was unfortunately very unpopular—even with the Board of Guardians, which acted under it. On that account to commit any portion of the working of this measure to the Poor Law Board would make it unpopular and create resistance where otherwise none would be made. The Bill, after all, only gave voluntary action to the Board of Guardians; in fact it could not use compulsion towards the guardians, or oblige men elected for one purpose to act for another and a totally different one. Individual farmers could not be expected to go round—first, leaving papers at the doors of all their neighbours, and afterwards calling for them; still less could they be induced to act as spies upon their neighbours. After all, there was no necessity for using the Poor Law Board and Board
462
of Guardians; the Board of Trade would have equal facilities for procuring returns. All that need be done was to get the ratebooks and ascertain from them what farmers occupied land above two acres, and to send them the papers to be filled up. They did not want the guardians for this purpose. He objected to the difficulty of preserving the necessary secrecy if the papers passed through the hands of the guardians, and unfair uses might be made of information so obtained. He thought that the machinery of the Post Office might be employed to send back the papers after they had been filled up, and thus secrecy would be preserved. He was not one of those who were impressed with the opinion that any very great value could be attached to the information that would be obtained from this measure even if it were successful. The returns would be so deficient that it would not be safe to act upon them. If, however, Parliament determined upon obtaining a complete acreage account of the cultivation and of the produce of the country, it must be placed in hands that would have some chance of rendering it successful. If Government adhered to the provisions of the Bill, and introduced the Poor Law Board for the purpose of obtaining the information, they would do the best they could to defeat their own measure. There could be no object in employing both the Poor Law Board and the Board of Trade for the same purpose, and, as far as he was concerned, he decidedly preferred the Board of Trade.
Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly.
On Clause 1,
THE EARL OF DERBYconcurred in the objection to the existence of a divided authority in reference to the collection of the information, and thought the duties under the Bill had better be confined to the Board of Trade, excluding the Poor Law Board. He, therefore, proposed in the first clause to omit the words "Poor Law Board," and insert instead, "The Board of Trade."
LORD FEVERSHAMsaid, he highly approved of the Bill, and thought it would disarm opposition and secure the confidence of the country generally, if the alteration suggested were agreed to. There was a strong feeling throughout the country against entrusting the management of this business to the Poor Law Board.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid,

463
he must resist the Amendment. He wished to employ the Poor Law Board, because upon previous occasions it had been tried with great success. Besides, the whole matter had been maturely considered by a Committee of their Lordships' House, who had unanimously recommended the employment of that machinery. In the Pool Law Board they had an efficient staff without any considerable trouble or expense, and a prompt system of communication between one part of the country and another.
LORD BERNERS,as a Member of the Committee, begged to say that it was one of the last days of the sitting when that portion of the clause was agreed upon. It was in evidence that the Poor Law officers would be the most objectionable persons that could be employed in the business, and that if relieving officers were employed in collecting the statistics, the greatest jealousy would be excited amongst the farmers.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHsupported the Amendment.
Their Lordships divided:—Content 18; Not Content 13: Majority 5.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 2, providing for the arrangement and publication of abstracts of the returns.
THE EARL OF DERBYcomplained that no mention was made of the time within which the abstracts were to be given to the public by the Board of Trade.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHthought the best plan would be to publish the returns from time to time as far as they went. If, however, the returns were confined to those provided for by the clause, they would not secure the object proposed. A large portion of the corn consumed in the three kingdoms was now imported from abroad, and unless means were taken to obtain returns of the supplies in foreign ports, these agricultural statistics would be of little use to the farmer.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, the farmers could always derive information as to the quantity of corn imported from the monthly returns of the Board of Trade. The returns under this Act would always be made public as soon as possible, and although it was not desirable to fix any particular day, he thought it would certainly be published within two months of the 1st of July.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsuggested a limit of two months.
THE EARL OF DERBYproposed to insert words to the effect that the returns should be made public on or before the 1st of September.
Upon the suggestion of the Marquess of SALISBURY, the words, "not later than the 1st of September" were inserted in the clause.
LORD BERNERSsuggested that the returns should be sent to the clerk of the market of every market town.
THE EARL OF DERBYhoped that some more effectual mode of publication than by advertisement in the London Gazette would be adopted. He also suggested the propriety of adding comparative returns of the previous, or of several previous years, which would really be of great value.
Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 3 to 6, agreed to.
Clause 7, which provides that any occupier neglecting to make a return, "by inserting truly the particulars of information therein specified and described," may be examined as to the particulars before a justice, or may be compelled to pay the expense of obtaining the information.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, the provisions of this clause were very important. He gathered from them that the person who collected these returns would have to read them—otherwise, of course, he could not act upon the clause. This would provoke an immense deal of jealousy on the part of the farmers. The relieving officer or the poor law guardian was to be the only person who could proceed before the magistrate against a defaulter. That could not work. Secrecy was essential to the success of this measure, and their Lordships were now legislating in favour of publicity. They might depend upon it that there would be a passive resistance to the system it was now proposed to introduce.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that of course the collector must ascertain whether the return was properly filled up. It might be improperly filled up, or sealed and not filled up at all. He could not think that there would be much difficulty in this case, or that a farmer would have any objection to a collector seeing the number of acres that he had under cultivation.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHcould not see why, when the proper paper had been delivered, they could not be sent up

465
to London direct, and the authorities here could take proceedings if the returns were incorrect.
THE EARL OF STRADBROKEdid not share in the apprehension of the noble Earl, as all farmers knew how their neighbours' land was cultivated.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHdrew attention to the fine of 20 s. imposed by this clause upon farmers not filling up the returns, which fine was to be paid to the collector for his trouble and expenses. In the 9th clause, the same description of offence was visited by a penalty not exceeding 40 s. Were those fines to be concurrent and cumulative at the option of the collector?
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHobserved, that under the 9th clause a penalty of 40 s. could be inflicted upon any farmer not filling up a return, and a similar penalty for not returning the paper so filled up, thus making, with the 20 s. to be paid to the collector, a total fine of £5, which, to small farmers, was a sum of great importance.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, it certainly was not intended the penalties should be cumulative; and as there was a doubt upon the clauses as they stood, he would consider the matter before bringing up the report, and, if necessary, propose some alterations in them.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 8, 9, 10, 11, agreed to, with verbal Amendments.
On Clause 12, relating to the allowances and expenses for making the returns and estimates required by the Act,
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, his impression was, that the expense attending the collection of the returns would be very great. The noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade had spoken of £20,000, but he apprehended that was a very rough estimate indeed. He remembered the expense attending what might be called the enumeration of the people, and he thought the expense attending the present Bill would not be much less than £100,000 a year.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYstated that, according to the estimate he had been able to make, the cost for preparing the documents required would not exceed £25,000 a year.
Clause agreed to; as were also the remaining clauses of the Bill.
Report to be received on Monday next.
House adjourned to Monday next.