Lords Sitting of 11 March 1856

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Religious Worship Penalties Repeal; Observance of Holydays Repeal; Popish Guardians Restriction Repeal; County Courts Acts Amendment.
2a Agricultural Statistics; Mutiny; Marine Mutiny; Consolidated Fund (£26,000,000); Drainage Advances Acts Amendment; Delamere Forest.
3a Leases and Sales of Settled Estates.

ORDNANCE—DEFECTIVE MORTARS.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, seeing my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the War Department in his place, I will put the question to him of which I have given notice, hoping that it may be for the convenience of the public service that I should have an answer. And I hope I may be forgiven if, in putting the question, I should be guilty of a slight irregularity in referring to what is reported to have taken place "in another place" upon the subject to which I wish to direct attention. My Lords, it is said, that on Friday last the Clerk of the Ordnance, in his place in Parliament, when assigning reasons why the Government had taken upon itself the manufacture of arms, stated, amongst other things, with regard to the supply of ordnance and artillery, that the Government had great reason to complain of some of the contractors to whom they had been compelled to resort for the supply of artillery; and that more especially there was one firm—whose name the right hon. Gentleman did not disclose—which had supplied for Her Majesty's service no less than five mortars, in which there had been inserted pieces of iron for the purpose of concealing flaws that had occurred in the casting of them. Now, I am quite sure your Lordships will be of opinion that charges of this kind should not be made unless they are capable of being fully and entirely substantiated; especially when they have a double importance from being made in Parliament by an officer of the Government in charge of the department having the supervision of the articles referred to. On the other hand, I am sure you will equally agree that if such charges can be substantiated, there is no punishment too great for those who have trifled in such a manner with most sacred duties, by exposing the lives of

2203
Her Majesty's troops to the most serious consequences. Your Lordships will, no doubt, recollect the excitement caused some few years ago by the charges brought in this House by the noble Duke then Secretary of State (the Duke of Newcastle), in connection with certain contracts for hay intended for the troops on foreign service. It appeared, indeed, afterwards, that the acts referred to had been somewhat exaggerated. Serious, however, as such frauds were, they are comparatively innocuous when put in comparison with frauds practised in reference to the heavy artillery and mortars, upon which the whole operations of war might be dependent for success. If the frauds which have been described have been actually perpetrated, not only do they render the particular implements of war entirely unfit for the public requirements, but they actually render their service a task of imminent danger to Her Majesty's troops. My Lords, all I can say is this, that the parties guilty of such frauds are guilty of a crime little short, if at all short, of high treason. I think, this accusation having been publicly made, I am justified in asking my noble Friend the Secretary for the War Department—first, whether he is prepared in his place in Parliament to reaffirm and substantiate the charge; and, secondly, whether, if the charge can be substantiated, he has any objection to mention the name of the firm guilty of so gross a violation of duty? I say that is due in justice not only in respect to the firm that is inculpated, but in respect to all other firms who may otherwise be exposed to suspicion. I will ask, then, is it true that mortars have been supplied to Her Majesty's Government by a contractor, in which pieces of iron have been let in for the purpose of concealing flaws in the casting of them, which flaws must, of course, have been known to the parties? And, next, what is the name of the firm guilty of so criminal a dereliction of duty? But, my Lords, I must go a little further—I must say that whatever may be the countervailing advantages of the contract system, it is clearly more open than any other to fraud and abuse. You may very often find that, while you think you are applying to the cheapest market, you are in reality buying in the dearest market, on account of the inferiority of the article that is supplied. Take care, then, to remember that there is no system which requires so much careful and accurate su-
2204
pervision as the system of Government contracts. For my own part, I think that frauds of such a character as this could not for a moment escape detection. The whole thing appears to be so bungling an operation, that it is beyond possibility to expect it would pass without detection. But, if any fraud of the sort has been perpetrated, I wish to know, in the next place, when the discovery of the fraud was made, and by whom it was made? Whether it was before any of such mortars were sent out for the use of the troops in the field? And, lastly, I will ask what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to bring the guilty parties to condign punishment?
LORD PANMURE: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble Friend that a fraud of this description is one which cannot be passed over without, in the first place, the strictest investigation; and without, in the next place, if brought home to the guilty parties, having the names of those guilty parties published to the world. I am sorry to say there is too good ground for the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Clerk of the Ordnance on Friday night. That statement was to the effect that some mortars which had been ordered under contract from a certain firm had been delivered in an imperfect state, and were found to have been tampered with in order that they might pass the supervision of the authorities of the department. My Lords, the history of the case is as follows. But first I would mention that happily no injury has accrued to any of Her Majesty's troops in consequence of the fraud which has been practised. So far as can be I found, no single mortar that has been approved of on, examination by the authorities has afterwards been discovered to be in any way incomplete. Now, with respect to the five mortars to which my right hon. Friend alluded on Friday night, I may state that on Thursday last experiments with regard to them took place; and it was the result of those experiments that induced my right hon. Friend to make public mention of the matter. These five mortars formed part of a contract entered into by Her Majesty's Government with the house of Messrs. Grissell, of the Regent's Canal Ironworks. One of them went so far as to be able to stand the proof to which it was subjected at the Woolwich Arsenal. And after undergoing that trial, it and another were sent down

2205
to Shoeburyness—there to be submitted to further proof before being put into store for the public use. After ten rounds had been fired one of them burst; it did not go to pieces, but it opened out, and that led to the detection of the insertion of a piece of iron behind the breach of the gun—a piece of metal introduced in the most skilful manner to cover a flaw. The noble Earl says that a fraud of this kind could scarcely be committed without risk of certain detection; but I can assure him that the piece was let in with so much skill that the most vigilant eye might well have failed to detect it. The result of this experiment led to the immediate examination of the other mortar, and there also it was found that a piece had been inserted very nearly at the same part. A third out of the five had been already rejected by the authorities at Woolwich Arsenal, whilst as regards the fourth frauds of the same nature were detected by the authorities. As to the fifth and last, it burst altogether in an experiment, not because of any flaw proved to have existed in it, but because it was made of metal unfit for its purpose. My Lords, such are the facts of the case, and the result is this: in the first place, as a matter of course, these mortars are rejected; and in the second place, as a matter of course, the firm inculpated has been erased from the list of contractors to whom future Government contracts may be open. But whether it will be in the power of the Government to proceed legally against the parties is a point which I have not as yet been able to ascertain. I may add, I believe my right hon. Friend mentioned this circumstance not as a reason why the Government should establish a foundry of its own, but rather in justification of their having taken that step. I think it is a plan which it would be well to adopt even if no frauds had been perpetrated. I am not prepared to go so far as to say that either in the manufacture of great guns or small arms the Government should entirely trust to its own efforts. To a certain extent certainly it should be independent of the trade, but to a certain extent also it should be in a condition to employ the trade, so as to keep pace with the trade, and become acquainted with all the improvements going on outside their factory, as well as to discover improvements within it. The intention of the Government is to establish at Woolwich a foundry in which they may cast their own mortars and
2206
their own heavy armaments, and to be able, from the mode in which those armaments are there tested, to feel assured the guns and mortars issued thence will be fit for the service marked out for them, without having to go through the very hard trial to which they are now submitted under the contract system. There is now no better method of testing mortars than that of firing them a great many times. We hope so to test the metal of which the mortars may be made—we hope so to secure the mode in which they are cast—that by taking one mortar in twenty and testing it until it bursts, we can rest assured as to the trustworthiness of the remaining nineteen. And it cannot be denied that this matter of testing is accompanied with great difficulty in the case of other articles besides artillery. My noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Hardwicke) knows very well that it may be the last feather that will break an anchor. An anchor may go to sea thoroughly tested, and after all prove so unreliable that it may snap on the first strain. I have, however, no hesitation in saying that, under the circumstances, I think my noble Friend is quite justified in demanding that the name of the contractors who have committed this fraud should be given up, and likewise in requiring an assurance that those contractors shall not be employed again. But I am not prepared to say, not being sufficiently informed, whether the violation of good faith which has been perpetrated amounts to infringement of the law. Having made this statement, I feel it my duty not to forbear from saying, that, with reference to two other firms with whom we have dealt largely, no ground of complaint can be alleged—I refer to Messrs. Hood, of Lowmoor Ironworks, and Messrs. Walker, of Gospel Oak Foundry. Both of these firms have executed contracts for heavy armaments with perfect success, and their guns and mortars have withstood the severest trials to which they have been submitted. I will only say in conclusion that I hope greater security than at present exists will before long be attained with regard to the material from which mortars are manufactured.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I regret, my Lords, to hear that the statement made by the Clerk of the Ordnance can be substantiated. The noble Lord's statement is satisfactory as far as it goes; but I confess it would have been more satisfactory to me if he had gone further, and told us what

2207
had been done with a view to proceeding against the contractor implicated; and that, if it should turn out, upon inquiry into the state of the law, that the law allowed of proceedings being instituted, we might rest assured that that step would be taken.
LORD PANMUREsaid, that the matter was still under inquiry.

AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in moving the second reading of the Agricultural Statistics Bill, said, he thought it was unnecessary to point out the importance of obtaining general statistics upon the subjects of agriculture, in order to arrive at a knowledge of the progress of the country; nor need he dwell upon the benefits derivable by the community at large from having it in their power to determine upon something like secure and certain grounds as to the results of each year's harvest. No class, however, in his belief would be so much benefited by the publication of agricultural statistics as the farmers themselves. If it was important to the dealers in cotton and wool, and other commodities, to be possessed of the knowledge of the quantities of such articles which already existed, or which were likely to be introduced into the market, and available for the consumption of the ensuing year, it must be equally so to the agriculturist, who, if he possessed such information, would know whether it was prudent to sell, or buy, in proportion as he was informed of the probable supply which would be forthcoming. The cotton manufacturer takes the greatest pains to procure accurate returns of the produce of the cotton crops in each year, and the information so obtained regulates his proceedings in his purchases and his sales. It must be obvious, indeed, that to every one who has to buy or sell, the information of the quantity and quality of the article in which he deals which is likely to come into the market in the ensuing year must be a matter of the greatest importance. To a certain extent this information is attempted to be obtained, though inaccurately, by the great corn dealers; and it is hoped, if these statistics are procured, this information will be obtained with accuracy, and published to the world, so as to put the farmer on an equality with the corn dealer, and not leave him the
2208
victim of his ignorance. He would read the observations of Mr. Hoskyns, a most intelligent gentleman, which appeared in the Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society. That gentleman, who thoroughly understood the question, wrote—
"It is not quite ten years ago since a circumstance occurred in the corn trade of this country calculated to awaken even the most unobservant to this question. No Mark Lane prophet had foretold it; nor can it be said that any of that more abundant mental element in all communities, the faculty of after-wisdom, essayed to turn it to much account. Yet if such an event had happened in the iron trade, or in the cotton market of Liverpool or Manchester, we will hazard the assertion that it would not have been suffered to pass by as a mere phenomenon of the year, without being improved to future use. It was this:—During the six weeks immediately following the harvest of the year 1846, from the middle of August to the end of September, the average price of wheat was 48 s. 2d., the lowest point touched being 45 s. 1d. After some improvement in the following month, it fell again by the end of November to 50 s.; by which time most of that large, but we hope not increasing class who thresh out this year's corn to pay last half-year's rent, that class whom the Mark Lane phraseology cruelly distinguished as 'needy sellers, the same class (for so unhappily it ever is) who 'cannot see what good agricultural statistics are to do,' had turned their little stock into cash and the cash over to their landlords. The year had no sooner died out than the symptoms of a scarcity began to manifest themselves, which in the course of six months brought the price of wheat, the produce of that same harvest (and in spite of an importation of upward of 4,500,000 quarters of wheat alone), to the extraordinary price of 102 s. 5d. per quarter. Here was a prominent and melancholy instance of that law so quaintly expressed in the adage that tells us 'the weakest go to the wall.' Taking the actual value of the whole wheat crop of that year as fairly, at any rate approximately, indicated in the sum of the weekly average of the Gazette from harvest to harvest, the small farmer who came early into market with his crop lost about 27 s. on every quarter of wheat sold—a sum which at the rate of four quarters to the acre, exceeded the whole cost of the fallow. Supposing his oddmark of wheat about twenty acres, his rent about £200 a year, he sacrificed the full amount of the half-year's rent he was selling to meet. This is paying at a deal-rate for the enjoyment of that kind of gambling which subsists solely upon ignorance, but which would, like a bet, lose even the element of fairness, would be not even justifiable, if certain existing facts were known which might be known, and which it is to be hoped soon will be known, equally to rich and poor, equally to the large and small farmer. It is to the latter—the man who cannot wait the turns of the market—that the statistical estimate of the coming prices of the year, based not upon guesswork, but upon the ascertained facts of the harvest, would be most pre-eminently serviceable. The loss even of a few shillings a quarter, when examined and duly multiplied, is a far more serious loss than meets the eve."

2209
These remarks were so just, so true, and go conclusive of the advantage and importance of this kind of information, that he hoped we should hear no more of the injury done to the farmer by the intervention of a Bill like the present. Now, if it be desirable to have this information, it is of course requisite that it should be accurate. Hitherto, the most trustworthy authority we have possessed on agricultural statistics, is M'Culloch's Commercial Dictionary, whose estimates, in the absence of all authentic information, must necessarily have been very imperfect. Of late years neither in Ireland nor in Scotland had they been left altogether to conjecture, and therefore they were in a position to submit Mr. M'Culloch's estimates to the test of experience. In Ireland, ever since the year 1847, they had been assisted by the statistics collected by the constabulary; while as regarded Scotland, the Highland Society had collected a great deal of valuable information. Well, comparing the researches of the Highland Society with Mr. M'Culloch's estimate for Scotland, both as regarded the crop and stock, the result told greatly against the reliableness of Mr. M'Culloch's conclusions. The following tabular statement would show how wide apart were the two calculations—

AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (SCOTLAKD).

CROP.

Ascertained Results from

Mr. M'Culloch's Estimate.

Reports of Scotch Returns.

1864.

1855.

Acres.

Acres.

Acres.

Wheat

350,000

168,216

191,305

Barley

450,000

207,507

186,082

Oats

1,200,000

922,994

933,662

STOCK.

Cattle

1,500,000

1,065,340

1,104,285

Sheep and Lambs

3,500,000

4,936,667

5,844,332

In Scotland attention was first directed to the subject in the year 1853, and an effort was made by the Highland Society, in communication with the Board of Trade, to collect the statistics of the counties of Haddington, Roxburgh, and Sutherland. That effort proved most successful, and in consequence the attention of the Board of Trade having been directed by the Society to the project, it was determined to extend the inquiry to the whole of Scotland, which had been attended with complete success. In Ireland the first attempt was made in the year 1847, when Lord Clarendon availed himself of the machinery of the comity constabulary to collect the information—the inquiry having been kept up each year
2210
up to the present. And a comparison of the returns thus obtained with respect to Ireland with the estimate of Mr. M'Culloch thus resulted:—

1847.

1847,

Mr. M'Culloch's Return.

From Returns of Constabulary.

Acres.

Acres.

Wheat

450,000

743,871

Barley

400,000

283,587

Oats

2,500,000

2,200,870

Potatoes

2,000,000

284,006

Now, important as these returns were as regarded Ireland and Scotland, how much more important would they appear as regarded England, when he stated that the wheat crops of the county of Norfolk exceeded the produce of the whole of Scotland, while that of the county of Suffolk only fell short of that of Scotland by the produce of 30,000 acres. The following tabular statement gave the exact result:—
Produce of wheat in Norfolk, according to Sir J. Walsham's estimate:—

Bushels.

Norfolk

6,139,872

Ditto in Scotland

4,848,499

Excess of Norfolk over all Scotland

1,291,373

Acreage of wheats: Norfolk, 202,971; Scotland,168,216; Suffolk, 138,277.
Therefore, the information, so far as Ireland and Scotland were concerned, was so far satisfactory. Was it, then, to be said that England should alone remain without an effort to obtain knowledge which had been so readily obtained in other countries? Was the English farmer so far behind the farmer of Scotland or Ireland that he could not be persuaded to seek the advantages to be derived from these valuable statistics? Was this country to be almost the only place in the civilised world in which such information could not be obtained? In France, in Belgium, in Holland,—nay, even in Russia itself, there were established systems by which agricultural statistics were annually obtained. The Highland Society some years ago had made great efforts to procure such information in Scotland. In England, in 1852, similar efforts were made in some of the agricultural counties to procure this information. The machinery then put in motion for the purpose was the Poor Law Board. That Board seemed admirably well calculated to effect this object, by reason of its central establishment, presided over by a gentleman who was a responsible Minister in the other House of Parliament, efficient and intelligent inspectors all over the country, active clerks

2211
in each union, and guardians who were themselves farmers, and who could therefore check the returns by their own personal knowledge, and who could assist the Government very materially in their efforts to obtain this information. Well, that machinery was in the first instance put in operation in two agricultural counties—namely, Norfolk and Hampshire. As far as regarded the county of Norfolk the result was most satisfactory; but as regarded Hampshire, he admitted that it was not quite so satisfactory, in consequence of an indisposition on the part of the farmers to give the required information. It seemed that an impression prevailed amongst the people there that it was an inquisitorial attempt of the Government to obtain such information, for the purpose of using it as an instrument for additional taxation, or for the purpose of enabling the landlords to obtain a knowledge of the private affairs of their tenantry, in order to afford them a pretext for increasing their rent. Now, no person of sound sense could for a moment think that any information obtained by the Government by such means would be likely to lead to any such result; and as to the landlord raising his rents, the landlord who did not now possess a correct knowledge of the state of cultivation and amount of stock upon his farms must either be very ignorant himself or very ill served by his steward. In the following year, 1853, an attempt upon a larger scale was made by the Government to obtain this information, and returns were obtained from eleven counties. Although it was partially successful, it was certainly not as satisfactory in its results as it had previously been in Scoland and Ireland. In the gross amount the failures were about 7 per cent. The whole amount of the failures, however, in Norfolk, under the plan of Sir John Walsham was only 2¾ per cent, and in that valuation were included three unions in which there were refusals to give any information whatever. The reports of the Poor Law Inspectors deserved their Lordships' attention. Every inspector, with scarcely an exception, expressed an opinion in favour of the adequacy of the Poor Law machinery for the obtaining of this information; but they all concurred in saying that it would be utterly useless to attempt to obtain agricultural statistics without subjecting parties to penalties who refused to fill up the schedules left with them. Evidence to the same effect was given before the Select Committee of their
2212
Lordships to whom the matter was referred in 1855, and that evidence induced the Committee to recommend that compulsory powers should be obtained. The principle upon which compulsory power would be employed was the same as that which was employed in the Census Act, and which proved completely successful in procuring the information that was sought for under that enactment. It was believed that the existence of those powers would be quite sufficient to prevent the necessity of putting them in force. No one would refuse to do that which he was required to do by law. Indeed, many of those who now refused to give returns did so because their neighbours refused, and not because they themselves had any objection, and urged upon the Committee the advantage that would be derived from compulsory powers. If a law were passed making it compulsory, he felt the strongest expectation the information would be obtained without difficulty, without grumbling, and without enforcing any penalty. The Committee to which he had referred, which, he might observe, was composed of almost all the most eminent friends of agriculture, without distinction of politics, unanimously concurred in recommending that the Board of Trade should be entrusted with the general superintendence of the collection of these statistics through the medium of the Poor Law machinery; that compulsory powers should be given; that two classes of returns should be annually obtained, the first containing facts, and the second estimates; and that the facts should consist of returns of live stock and of the acreage under each description of crop, while the estimates should consist of estimates of the produce of the harvest. They also recommended that the inquiries should not extend below holdings of two acres, and that it was desirable the Government should introduce a Bill as early as possible to carry their recommendations into effect. These being the grounds upon which he asked their Lordships to give a second reading to this Bill, he would shortly state its provisions. The provisions were:—In the month of February in each year the overseer of the poor was to send in to the Poor Law Board a return of every occupier of land in the particular parish or district, with the nature of the occupation, &c. In May the schedules should be issued to such owners and occupiers, who should fill them up and return them on the 1st of June, with

2213
all the information required. The schedule would contain various columns, headed "Extent of acreage," and the names of the various descriptions of crop, as well as those of live stock. Those schedules, being so issued, should be returned to the Poor Law Board, and from thence to the Board of Trade, in order to their being arranged according to the respective counties. For the purpose of securing those returns, it was further proposed to confer a compulsory power upon the parties engaged in this operation, by which any person declining to fill up the schedule might be summoned before a justice of the peace; and the magistrate, on being satisfied that there was a refusal to give this information, would have power to inflict a penalty upon the accused party, and to appoint a person to enter upon the premises of the recusant and make a valuation of the stock and produce of the farm. There were two classes of penalties proposed. The one was not to exceed £5, and the other not to exceed 40 s. The larger penalty would be applicable to overseers or other public officers who neglected to perform the duties required of them under this Bill, and the smaller one to such parties as had refused to fill up the schedules. Those penalties would be levied by the magistrates, and would be paid on account of the poor rate to the benefit of the particular parish in which the offence was committed. With regard to an estimate, it had not been deemed advisable to make that compulsory, but it would be left to the officers of the Poor Law Board to frame an estimate of the amount of the produce of each farm in such a way as they might deem most expedient. The Government by this Bill did not propose that every farmer should send a return of the produce of his land in June; but only a return of the acreage and of the various descriptions of crop with which it was sown. With regard to the estimate which would he framed after the harvest, that would be obtained by carefully testing the quality of the crops in each district, and then striking an average, which would be a fair criterion of the produce of the whole country, which, however, could not be expected before the month of November. These, however, were matters for subsequent arrangement, and considerable latitude had purposely been left in this Bill in order that any alterations might be adopted which experience might recommend. In
2214
employing the machinery of the Poor Law Board it was not intended that the Board in London should call upon its various agents in the country to perform those new duties if it should be objected to by them. The Board might employ the clerks of the unions, the overseers, relieving officers, and guardians of the poor, if it thought fit, but if there should be any reluctance on the part of those local functionaries to undertake the duties, the Board would have power to employ any persons whom it might consider qualified for the task.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: Will those persons be paid?
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: They will be paid by the Poor Law Board.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: From what fund?
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: By a vote of Parliament. In the 12th clause of the Bill there was a provision for the allowance of expenses, and any expenditure which might occur would be defrayed from a sum to be voted by Parliament. Having stated the chief provisions of the Bill and the reasons for its introduction, he now asked their Lordships to assent to the second reading, believing, as he did, that the object sought to be attained was of great importance to the country at large, and that it would confer great benefits upon all classes of the community—especially upon the farmers and agriculturists of Great Britain.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, he trusted that some means for procuring the information upon a subject of such great importance could be devised other than those contained in the provisions of this Bill; for he could not but regard the compulsory power given by the measure as it stood as other than arbitrary and inquisitorial. In his opinion the Bill would go far to annihilate that independence of character and position which every one wished to see Englishmen enjoy. As a landlord wishing well to his tenants, he should regret were such a measure to become the law of the land. He did not think that the adoption of compulsory means to obtain information was always the best. In the present case it would be extremely objectionable, inasmuch as it would be an inquiry into every man's private affairs and interests. He believed that such power would be viewed with the greates

2215
jealousy throughout the country. In one year the crops might be very large, and represent a very considerable capital; and in another year the very reverse might be the case. Now, the Bill was neither more nor less than a measure calling upon each farmer to make a full disclosure of his private affairs. If a general return were moved for of the quantity of corn produced and of cattle bred in a particular year, he thought that they might arrive at the information they desired. They would, in such a case, be enabled to calculate pretty accurately the average produce of the year and the amount of cattle in the country. He hoped, if the Bill be read a second time, that some period would be given after the Easter recess before they proceeded to another stage of the measure, in order that the agricultural interest might have a full opportunity of considering its bearings. As yet no such opportunity had been given them, for the Bill was only placed in their hands on Saturday morning, and they were now called upon to assent to its second reading. He could not help thinking that it was too important a measure to press forward with such haste. He confessed he had great doubts of its answering the sanguine expectations entertained by the noble Lord. He could not but think that the Bill, if carried, would tend to lower the position which the English farmer had hitherto occupied. If an ordinary return were moved for, he did not believe that any farmer would hesitate to supply the information asked for. He objected wholly to the compulsory part of the proceedings under the Bill.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, if I shared, in any degree, the apprehensions of the noble Viscount who has just addressed you, I should feel it my duty, not only to offer my objections to the Bill, but to resist the second reading of it; inasmuch as it appears to me that the objections he has urged went to the whole principle of the measure, and not merely to its machinery. I fear that the observations made I by my noble Friend will rather tend to increase that feeling of jealousy with which he expects the powers of this Bill will be viewed by some classes, and which it ought to be our object as much as possible to allay. I have been for a long time satisfied of the great importance—and to the farmers more especially—of obtaining as far as possible accurate statistical information as to our agricultural produce; and I may mention this fact in corroboration
2216
of that statement, that in a few days after I had the honour of taking office in 1852 I wrote a letter to my noble Friend the Duke of Richmond, urging upon him, at considerable length, the importance of obtaining accurate agricultural statistics in the counties with which he was connected, and pressing upon him to use all the great influence which he deservedly possesses with the various agricultural societies throughout the kingdom, in order to obtain their concurrence in this proceeding, so that by their intervention they might induce the farmers to supply that information voluntarily; and I promised the noble Duke that the assistance of Government in effecting this object would be given in every way possible. It is not, therefore, now for the first time that I have expressed this opinion; nor solely from having read the Report of the Committee of last year upon this subject, and of that of the Committee of 1854, that I have come to the conclusion that to obtain accurate agricultural statistics is a matter of extreme importance to the country generally, and to no class of greater importance than to the practical agriculturists themselves. I must confess, however, that I have come to the conclusion, from reading the evidence before last year's Committee, that if you are to obtain this information in England you must obtain it by means of a compulsory measure. I further and entirely concur in the opinion expressed by the witnesses examined before each Committee, that if you desire to obtain full and accurate information the farmers themselves would rather give it in obedience to a law which all persons will be equally bound to obey, than give it under circumstances which made it optional for each individual to supply such information, and which left the farmers uncertain as to whether the same information would be also given by others of their class. It is manifest that if the information be not given generally the result will be fallacious. I am convinced, then, that it is in the first instance of great importance to obtain accurate agricultural statistics, and in the next that to obtain such information with the least amount of dissatisfaction from the farmers, some compulsory power must be resorted to. My noble Friend behind me has spoken of the degradation which would be inflicted upon the farmers by sending parties into their houses requiring them to make returns of their live stock and produce. Now, I confess, my Lords, I see no degradation what-

2217
ever inflicted on any farmer or occupier of land in requiring him to make a return of that which it is obvious may be ascertained by any of his neighbours by the slightest inspection, or which the landlord has the opportunity of making either by himself or by his steward; or which may he obtained without the landlord seeing the land at all, by his simply knowing what rotation of crops had been prescribed by the lease for the land in question. And certainly, my Lords, my opinion is, that of the two modes of obtaining this information—namely, whether the statement is to be, made for the farmer or by him—that it must be the most satisfactory to him, if a statement is to be made at all, it should be made by himself. Then, my Lords, what force is there in the objection that the farmer will be required to make an exposure of his private affairs? What is it I that the farmer will be called upon to state? He will not be called upon, as my noble Friend has stated, to disclose any of his private affairs. He is only called upon to state that he holds a certain number of acres, and he is then to say how much of his land is laid down in wheat, how much in barley, how much in oats, and so on with other descriptions of produce. And while I am on this subject I wish to throw it out for consideration of the Government whether the columns of their proposed schedule are not unnecessarily increased, and whether it would not he advisable to reduce the numbers. I think for all practical purposes, for example, all grain crops might be included in one column; turnips, mangel-wurzel, and all similar roots might be included in another column for green crops; and vetches, clover, &c., might be classified under a third column. I am disposed to think that so many columns as the schedule now contains are useless for any practical purpose, and are calculated rather to confuse the farmer's mind, and to induce a disinclination to fill them up. My noble Friend seemed to think, when supposing a case, that in one year a farmer might have a very large amount of produce, while in the following year it might be very small; that under this Bill he would have to make a disclosure that would be injurious to his interests—especially in the matter of stock. But such an objection may be easily answered by reminding my noble Friend that there are very few farmers who, in a succession of years, have the same amount of stock. I as well as others of your Lordships, have very
2218
large parks, and we are in the habit of taking a quantity of what is called lay cattle to feed upon the pasture. Well, in making a return under this Bill, we shall return all those cattle found grazing in our parks in June; but that would not show that all such cattle are our own. There may be only five head of cattle my own, and yet I shall return fifty head, in case I shall find that number in my park at the time I am making my return; while, on the other hand, the farmer will make only a return of twenty or twenty-five head of cattle, when in point of fact he may have fifty or sixty head grazing on my pasture. With regard, then, to the return which the farmer will be called upon to make, I cannot conceive that it will in the slightest degree expose his private and domestic circumstances, or that it will occasion any ground for jealousy on his part. I do not doubt but that the measure, in the first instance, will be regarded with some suspicion; but it will be the duty and the object of us in our respective districts to endeavour to allay such a feeling by reason, rather than to excite it by the expression of fear. I think that the Government had better consider in what manner they shall best allay this feeling of jealousy on the part of the farmer. It is obvious that in order to do this the provisions of the measure must be carried out in a way the least unsatisfactory and displeasing to the farmer. Now, looking at the measure in this point of view, I cannot say I think that the machinery of the Poor Law Board is the most desirable. In the first place, you will be throwing upon that Board a business they are not all acquainted with, and one which does not properly belong to their functions. In the next place, I do not think that the machinery of the guardians under the Poor Law Board is the most popular or satisfactory process for collecting statistics of this nature. I should venture to suggest to the Government another mode of proceeding, which I think would prove much more satisfactory. I would ask your Lordships whether this information may not be much more advantageously and unobjectionably obtained through the medium of the petty sessions. If the returns are furnished from the Board of Trade to the quarter sessions, to be sent then to the magistrates in petty sessions, who in their several districts would possess much more complete control over the overseers, the information might be obtained from the farmers more easily and with less

2219
dissatisfaction than it could be obtained through the medium of the Poor Law Board; and I think, moreover, that by adopting this mode the magistrates themselves would be more likely to give their individual assistance in procuring the information, inasmuch as they would feel personally interested in collecting the returns. Referring, again, to the apprehension that these statistical returns may unnecessarily expose the private circumstances of individuals, I beg to point out why I think any such fear to be wholly unfounded. It is not at all necessary that the return of each individual should go beyond the petty sessions. The petty sessions having ascertained that all the returns have been sent in, it will be perfectly competent in the magistrates there to sum up, without the names of the parties, the totals of the several accounts, ascertaining the number of acres under cultivation, with the amount of the estimated produce. Then they can return the abstract so made up to the magistrates at quarter sessions or to the Board of Trade, who will in such case be, able to make up a summary of the information it was desirable to obtain. With regard to stock, it does not matter whether the number of sheep be greater in Scotland or Ireland than in England. The great I question to be ascertained is the amount of meat there is for the consumption of the country at large. So in regard to crops, we do not want to know how much of a particular crop is grown in Lancashire, in Norfolk, or in Hampshire, but what is the whole amount that is available for consumption. As the first step towards ascertaining this fact, we must, of course, know the exact breadth of land sown. I wish, therefore, to see such a measure framed as will obtain for us this information, and at the same time will remove every objection from the farmers in respect to it. To do this we must remove the prejudice that now prevails in the mind of the farmer, by convincing him that in seeking this information we are really desirous of promoting his own interest, and that it will be advantageous rather than injurious to him. So firmly am I persuaded that such will be the result of these statistical returns, that my best influence shall be exerted to do away with the feeling that at j present prevails among the farmers as to what is the intention of your Lordships in requiring this information. I am certain the farmers fancy that it is some project on the part of the Government with a view to
2220
increase taxation, or at least a scheme on the part of their landlords for the purpose of raising the amount of their rents. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance to dissipate these misapprehensions by calm reasoning and every means of persuasion, and therefore I am desirous that the measures of the Government should be so framed as to afford the least possible ground for men cherishing these unfounded apprehensions, and that those measures should be such as will in a few years dispel all those prejudices that now influence the mind of the farmer on this subject. I do not see any exact provision laid down with regard to the estimate to be made as to the probable value of the yield of the harvest. I think Her Majesty's Government will agree with me that the amount of the estimated value of the crops is hardly a matter for the consideration of the Poor Law Board. They are not the persons best qualified to obtain the information. I think it will be infinitely better to leave the matter to the magistrates at petty sessions to determine upon, who in obtaining this estimate from the farmers themselves will be better able to work out this fact than any officers under the Poor Law Board. My Lords, after what I have said, I shall of course offer no opposition to the second reading of this Bill; on the contrary, I think the object it has in view is one highly advantageous to the agricultural interest of this country. It is necessary that returns should be obtained uniformly, and, if uniformly, then it must be compulsory; and if I express some hesitation as to the machinery for carrying out the object of the Bill, I think that that is a matter that may be better considered at another time. I trust, however, that the Government will permit the agriculturists themselves to have a full opportunity of considering the Bill before they proceed to its final stage; for by doing so, they will not only be promoting agriculture themselves, but will be giving to the country gentlemen an opportunity of informing themselves on the subject, which, when once thoroughly understood by them, though now supposed to be an unpopular measure, will, I am convinced, receive their cordial support.
LORD WYNFORDwished to remind the noble Lord that these returns would press more hardly on some districts than on others, especially on those where the farmers were chiefly employed in breeding flocks and keeping dairy farms.
LORD COLCHESTERsaid, that, as a

2221
Member of the Select Committee which had sat to inquire into this subject—a Committee formed from among their Lordships in the most impartial manner—he felt himself bound to support the principle of this Bill. There was no difference of opinion in the Committee as to the importance of ascertaining the quantity of stock throughout the country, as well as an estimate of what the extent of land under cultivation would produce; and he did not see how the powers which were necessary to procure such information as this could be regarded as inquisitorial. He was therefore, quite prepared to support the principle of this Bill, the compulsory portion of which had reference only to returns I of the quantity of land under cultivation. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) thought it would be more desirable to procure the required information through the quarter and petty sessions than, as suggested in the Bill, by means of the Poor Law Commissioners and the boards of guardians. That point came under the consideration of the Committee, but they had arrived almost unanimously at the conclusion that the machinery of the Poor Law Commissioners would be more likely than any other to carry out this scheme effectively. When the noble Earl said that by intrusting the collection of these statistics to the petty sessions you would interest the country magistrates in the success of the measure, and have the advantage of their co-operation and influence, it must be remembered that—at least this was the case in the part of the country with which he was connected—the magistrates were very often members of the boards of guardians; so that this advantage would still be experienced under the present scheme. He would reserve his remarks upon the details I of the Bill until it came, to be considered in Committee, but he could not help now expressing his general approbation of the measure.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYexpressed the great satisfaction with which he had heard the general concurrence of their Lordships in the principle of this Bill. To enable it to be carried out successfully, it must receive the hearty support and co-operation of those on whom the farmers relied, and he was, therefore, glad to perceive in that House a general approval of the measure and desire that it should work well. There was only a division of opinion as to whether the Poor Law Commissioners or the magistrates in petty
2222
sessions formed the best medium for carrying out the measure;—he himself inclined to the former. In Scotland the Highland Society took this matter up, and by their co-operation valuable statistics were collected throughout the country, the farmers feeling that the information they afforded was given to a friendly body, and that no improper advantage would be taken of it. In England, however, the Government had found it impossible to avail themselves of a similar machinery, for, on communicating with the Royal Agricultural Association, it appeared there was a standing rule which forbade that Association to interfere in any way with politics, and the council considered this question to have a political bearing. With regard to whether the returns should be collected through the Poor Law Board or the petty sessions, he certainly thought it a, recommendation of the machinery now proposed that it had been already tried with partial success, and that it had been recommended by the Committee of their Lordships' House. It was only in cases where the boards of guardians and poor law officers were willing to give their assistance that their services were to be made use of; should they be indisposed to render assistance, other machinery was to be made available, and other persons were to be employed. These, however, were points for consideration in Committee. He did not wish to press the measure forward with any undue haste; their Lordships would have ample time to consider its details during the recess; but at the same time ho trusted they would agree with him in thinking it desirable that the Bill should pass into a law as soon as possible, so that information might be procured on this subject even in the present year.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: I am quite sure that this Bill will be unpopular to the last degree, and that its working will be altogether impeded by the resistance of those who will be required to sign the schedules unless they are absolutely certain that there will be complete secrecy as to the returns. It is absolutely necessary that these returns should not he seen by the board of guardians or by the petty sessions, and that they should be sent directly up to London. This is a Bill of the political economists. I do not say it is a bad Bill; on the contrary, the information which it seeks to obtain is of the greatest importance; but it will be considered by the farmers as a landlord's

2223
Bill—a measure to obtain for the landlord information which will enable him to see into the circumstances of each individual farmer, and to raise his rent, if necessary. That will be the character of the Bill, and you will only lead the farmers to think otherwise by providing absolutely for secrecy. I confess, too, from what little I know of the farmers as a body, I am afraid there will be another difficulty, and that they will fail altogether in making these returns. They will be so bothered by having every year to fill up these schedules under different heads that I feel confident they will fail to do so, and will be exposed to the penalties in that ease provided, not at all from a desire to resist, the law, but from sheer inability to comply with it. I should recommend, therefore, that there be two schedules—one relating to the cultivation of the arable land, and another to the stock. It must be recollected that, generally speaking, farmers write remarkably badly indeed. I question if the best farmer I ever knew could do much more than write his own name, and I believe that on that account much practical difficulty will be experienced. I believe that if you afford the farmers ample time for writing and for correction, and, at the same time insure them secrecy, these returns may be made in something like a satisfactory manner; but, if not, the unpopularity of the measure will entirely impede its satisfactory operation.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, that he also had no doubt that the Bill would be most unpopular with the farmers; but the information required was now more necessary than ever. Ever since the repeal of the Corn Laws he had invariably urged the necessity of agricultural statistics, as being of more importance now than before the withdrawal of protection. The farmers were of opinion that by means of returns large profits in corn would be at once published to the world; but the average was always as well known abroad as at home. This country was now the refuge for the destitute. Every other country had a Corn Law, and as England was without, it was certain that, whenever high prices were offered for grain, the country would be flooded by corn. The only protection for the farmer would be to have a distinct and accurate statement, so as to enable him to judge exactly of his own position. The only question was as to the best mode of proceeding. He agreed in the opinion
2224
that the least popular medium would be the boards of guardians, as farmers would be more jealous of letting their affairs being known to such bodies than to the Government of the country. The magistrates were the gentry of the country, and if on the receipt of the papers the compilation was made and sent to the Board of Trade, and the papers destroyed, he thought the machinery would work easily; but care should be taken to avoid giving the names of individuals. There was hardly a poor law inspector in the country who did not bear testimony to the unpopular character of boards of guardians for such purposes as were contemplated by this Bill. Without entering into the details of the measure, he would simply urge that the returns should be made through the medium of the magistrates of petty sessions, and not of boards of guardians. That course he believed would be both cheaper and better. He trusted that after the recess, and when the public had had an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the Bill, it might be so framed as to meet the wishes of the agricultural body.
On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday the 4th of April next.

MUTINY BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHwished to ask the Secretary of State for the War Department whether there was practically any reason why the Army Estimates should not show the actual effective strength of the army in the same way as was done in the navy? In the Navy Estimates the number voted and the number actually borne on the books was given for every month in the year, and the deficiency or excess for each month noted in the margin. On looking at the Army Estimates, it would be found impossible to arrive at any conclusion as to the number of effective men; the number voted was given, but there was a deduction of £50,000 on account of the number deficient; that sum would represent 2,700 men, but in another part of the Estimates he found it was proposed to raise 78,400 recruits this year, to fill up the vacancies. With regard to the militia, he found that the embodied regiments were set down at

2225
127,000 men, but £650,000 was deducted on account of the numbers deficient; and bounty was voted for 60,000 men which it was proposed to raise. It therefore appeared that 138,000 men were required to bring up the military force of the country to the number voted. He could see no reason why the real number should not be stated to the country. To tell this country that she had 400,000 men in arms was a deceit. Any person who looked at the return would see it was an utterly false statement. He could not think such a course consistent with the credit and advantage of the country. She was prepared to look at the truth, and would gladly carry the Government over their difficulty, if they only explained what the difficulty was.
LORD PANMUREsaid, it had never been the custom to state the exact number in the arm)'. It was found to be extremely difficult, even in time of peace, to ascertain the actual state of the army within 5,000 or 10,000 men, as the necessary return had to be collected from the most distant points, and were very long in coming. In time of peace, perhaps, there might not he so much difficulty in letting the public know from time to time what the state of the army was; but it would he impossible in time of war, with a large army in motion. It was very right to let the public and our enemy know the number of men we proposed to raise; but it might not be as wise to let him know the difficulty we experienced in doing so. In the Royal Artillery return there was a calculation always made of the number of non-effective men. He would
2226
consider whether the other returns could not be put in a better form, and if so he would have no objection to do so.
EARL GREYsaid, that in the last war, our great struggle with France, the Minister used from time to time to lay before Parliament the results of recruiting, and other valuable information which it was possible to produce. If he remembered rightly, almost every year during that war this important information was laid before Parliament. If that could be done during a struggle for life and death on the part of this country, it certainly could be clone at a time like the present.
THE EARL OF EGLINTONcalled the attention of the House to the Act as it affected the billeting of soldiers. Considerable dissatisfaction prevailed in Scotland, inasmuch as soldiers could be billeted on private houses, which was not the case in England. He did not wish to oppose the second reading of the Bill, but should be contented with having directed the attention of the Government to the subject.
On Question, Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a, on Thursday next.
House adjourned to Thursday next.