HL Deb 27 June 1873 vol 216 cc1478-85
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK

asked Her Majesty's Government, Whether in compiling the Agricultural Returns for Scotland in future years they will be enabled to introduce the following returns:—

  1. "1. A return of the number of acres of land now under cultivation which would be susceptible of remunerative improvement by underground. drainage:
  2. "2. A return of the number of acres of land now classed as heath or mountain land susceptible of profitable reclamation and improvement in connection with underground drainage:
  3. "3. A return of the number of acres of land now classed as heath or mountain land appropriated exclusively to the support of deer:
  4. "4. A return of the number of acres of land now classed as heath or mountain land incapable of cultivation and unsuitable for the support of live stock of any description other than deer:"
And, whether Her Majesty's Government will direct the Agricultural Returns for Scotland to be compiled in Scotland, and to be published in a separate volume with a distinct report? The noble Lord said, he trusted he might claim their Lordships' indulgence, while he explained the reasons which had influenced him in putting these Questions. The increase which had taken place in the price of provisions, and the great extent to which we had become dependent upon foreign countries for our supply of food, made it extremely important to ascertain, if possible, in what degree the productive powers of our own kingdom could be developed. Great difference of opinion existed upon this subject among even the most competent judges, and it was very desirable that there should be established, if the information could be arrived at, a more certain basis upon which opinion could be founded on this important subject. It was with a view of eliciting as much information as he could on the subject, that he had put these questions upon the Paper. He had limited his inquiries to Scotland, inasmuch as that portion of the kingdom appeared to be peculiarly open to the sort of improvement they suggested, and should the information be furnished, and the results found to be of a character that would demand further inquiries as to other portions of Great Britain, similar Returns might be obtained from the rest of the kingdom. If their Lordships would refer to the Agricultural Returns which were already in their possession, as coming from Scotland, they would find that the acreage of that country was set down as 19,639,000 acres. Under the head of arable and improved pasture land, there were stated to be 4,538,000 acres; and upwards of 15,000,000 acres were put down as heath and mountain land. In endeavouring to ascertain what was the margin of increase that could be obtained in the productive power of the country, attention should be first turned to the character of the arable and pasture land capable of improvement by drainage and in other ways; and it seemed to be the opinion of those who were best acquainted with the subject, that great results might be obtained from the improvement of this description of land already more or less under cultivation. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would give a promise that in future the number of acres of land which would come within the particular category of land capable of further improvement would be given. He had no doubt that that part of the information required could be obtained with tolerable correctness. It was within his own knowledge, that in the part of the country in which he lived, every farmer, land agent, and proprietor was well acquainted with the quantity of arable land to which the system of tile drainage could be profitably applied. It was also important in making these Returns that they should have as accurate figures as could be obtained as to the quantity of land that came within the category of non-pasturage or waste. It was found in the Returns that had been published, that by far the greater portion of the country was returned as heath and mountain land, and that Return had led in various parts of the country to a good deal of misapprehension as to the real character of the soil. Among the agricultural classes there was the strongest apprehension that a very large portion of the soil was purposely retained in an unproductive state, simply for the sport and entertainment of the upper classes; and he thought it important that some notice should be taken of the Return; that it should be analyzed and distinctly characterized, so that in some degree the different uses to which that large area of land was devoted might be known. The Returns he asked for also included the number of acres that were capable of being reclaimed and rendered productive to the extent of paying 5 per cent on the outlay which such reclamation would involve. There was no doubt that such a Return would hardly be a very accurate one in the first instance, but every year would help to make it more reliable and authentic. Then, again, he asked for Returns as to the quantity of land that was exclusively appropriated to the support of deer. Such a Return would be a very valuable one in the agricultural statistics of Scotland under any circumstances; but it appeared to him that the information was more than ever desirable at the present time with reference to a controversy which had lately risen on this subject—a controversy that had been pursued with considerable heat on both sides—on the part of those who were the votaries of sport and the owners of deer forests, and also on the side of those who thought that those deer forests involved an unjustifiable use of property. It was stated on the one hand, that the maintenance of these deer forests involved a depopulation of the country to a certain extent, and the substitution of an inferior and unprofitable class of the community for a more industrious and intelligent class; that it also involved to some extent a limitation of area of agricultural produce, and a consequent limitation of the profitable employment of capital; that it was in some degree an unjustifiable abuse of the rights of property, tending to produce dissent and dissatisfaction between the various classes of the community; and that the abuse was so great that it ought to be restrained. Their Lordships were aware that these arguments had been vigorously met by arguments on the other side. Those who were in favour of the appropriation of land in the way under discussion, denied that it produced any diminution of population whatever, and affirmed that the order of people, gamekeepers and others, whom it substituted for the previous inhabitants, were as respectable in their social position as the shepherd was in his. They also said, that although there might be a diminution of the meat supply in one form, there was a substitution of another description of animal food; and that, even if there were some loss at home under that head, the production of meat coming within the class referred to was stimulated elsewhere, for they asserted that the farmers and shepherds who left the Highlands of Scotland carried their capital and their industry to Canada and Australia, where the identical commodities which they formerly produced in their own country were produced by them and sent to our markets in increased quantities, and to some extent of better quality, so that in reality there was no limitation of this sort of produce. Moreover, they affirmed that while the introduction of deer did no substantial harm, it led to a great deal of money being spent in the country that would not otherwise have circulated there, on the part of those who hired the deer forests, and that it led to society being sustained in remote parts of the Highlands which would otherwise remain unvisited and desolate. What was remarkable in the controversy was, that it proceeded from a very slight knowledge of the fact. It was not his purpose to express any opinion on the subject one way or the other. He was asking for information, and it would be inconsistent and illogical for him to offer an opinion; but he might be permitted to say that, in his humble judgment, that part of the question which had reference to the extent of the deer forests was a very important one, and that without a knowledge of the area of the land so occupied, it would be impossible to arrive at any very sound conclusion on the subject. It might be doubted whether it would be easy to make such a Return in the case of land occupied as deer forests as could be made as to the arable and pasture land; but he thought that the Return might be easily obtained on application to the proprietors and agents of the land. If the area were ascertained, there would be no difficulty in also getting at its productive powers, and the difference that would be made by the substitution of one class of produce for another. He also desired Returns of the amount of land absolutely unavailable for any productive purpose, and that Return was absolutely necessary in order to get at the future productive capacity of the whole country. It would probably be found that a very considerable area of the Highlands of Scotland came under that category. In the existing Returns upwards of 4,000,000 acres were set down as altogether unused for any agricultural purpose. He hoped that the Government, if these Returns were granted, would order that they should be printed in a separate and distinct form. It was undesirable that the Agricultural Returns for Scotland should be mixed up with those of England. The land in Scotland was held in a different manner from that of England—it was transferred in a different way; the inhabitants' customs of tenancies were all different from those of England. He also thought that the Returns should be accompanied by a Preface or Report, composed by some distinguished and intelligent Scottish agricultural authority, a task which might with great propriety be entrusted to the Secretary of the Highland Society, who would be enabled to frame such a Report as might be thought highly interesting, popular, and instructive.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL,

in reply, said, he hoped his noble Friend (Lord Napier) would not think him an enemy to the progress of knowledge, and that he would excuse him, if he ventured to suggest that there were very serious difficulties involved in getting the Returns, so that they might be inserted in the manner wished by his noble Friend. He entirely agreed in the desirability of enlightening the public mind on the facts in respect to the tenure of land and the occupation and improvement of the soil, and also believed that many of the arguments used on both sides of those vexed questions implied the most entire ignorance of the whole state of those facts as regarded Scotland. He was anxious to supply such further information and knowledge as would be useful on that subject; but he would point out to his noble Friend that it must be knowledge of facts, and not knowledge of opinion. The noble Lord asked that in compiling the Agricultural Statistics of Scotland, they would introduce certain Returns, which he specified, but a Return in the Parliamentary sense of the term meant a Return of clear definite facts, easily ascertainable, and not of matters of opinion. Now, of the four heads included in his noble Friend's Question, only one referred strictly to a matter of fact, and he did not think the answer to it would be of much use to him. His noble Friend wanted— A return of the number of acres of land now under cultivation, which would be susceptible of remunerative improvement by underground drainage. That involved all sorts of speculative opinions. Why, there was hardly a field belonging to any of their Lordships which would not be the better for being re-drained. Some drains got choked up, and some spots got damp, and there were a variety of circumstances to be considered. But his noble Friend not only said "susceptible of improvement," but susceptible of remunerative improvement." That was another thing, and involved another whole set of hypotheses. The question of remuneration or non-remuneration of agricultural lands was entirely a matter of local circumstances and demands, and depended upon the question of locality and markets. His noble Friend might as well ask for a Return of the number of acres of land in England capable of being turned into market gardens. Almost every acre would be capable of being so converted. Market gardens gave the maximum rate of rent—from £20 to £30 per acre—and its produce might amount to £40 or£50 or even £60. No, doubt, a large portion would be capable of being converted into a market garden; and perhaps at some future time, it would all be turned into market gardens; but it would be an absurd question to put, as to how much was capable of being turned into market gardens. That entirely depended upon the circumstances under which the land was let; and equally so, with the question of land being capable of remunerative drainage, that was entirely a question of opinion depending upon the local circumstances and local requirements. That was a Return that the Government were not prepared to make, and which no Government ought to be required to give, being one which to a great degree must be based upon speculative opinion. The next Return desired by his noble Friend was— A. return of the number of acres of land now classed as heath or mountain land susceptible of profitable reclamation and improvement in connection with underground drainage. He (the Duke of Argyll) had not the slightest doubt, that at some future period a very large part of the heath and mountain lands of Scotland which were not now occupied, would be reclaimed, but that would depend upon the progress of society. But it was a speculative question how, when, and where the land could be remunerative. He could not see how such Returns could be given. The agricultural people of Scotland were intelligent persons, and very much alive to their own interests, and they were the best judges of when and where these lands were to be converted into arable lands. The process of reclamation was going on rapidly in the Highlands of Scotland, and wherever those interested locally were convinced that it would be profitable to so convert the land, it was done. He never went to the Highlands without seeing that such was the ease; but he doubted whether information received from a Government officer on the subject would be a safe guide for public opinion in reference to it. Moreover, it would be absolutely impossible for any Government to say when a slope of mountain was to be reclaimed, and how it was to be done. As to the third question, namely— A return of the number of acres of land now classed as heath or mountain land appropriated exclusively to the support of deer, that was the only question of a matter of fact, and even that could not be given without some expression of opinion. No doubt when the surveys for Scotland were complete, they would get with more accuracy the acreage of the deer forests of Scotland; but what information would the public get from that? The land differed vastly in quality, and the number of acres would be wholly illusory as to the profitable occupation of the soil. There were thousands of square acres that would not support a sheep; therefore the Returns would be a fallacious indication of the real value of the land. If a Return were made of the number of acres of all the pleasure grounds and flower gardens in England, Scotland, and Ireland, in the vicinity of large towns, he believed its value would exceed that of the whole deer forests of Scotland. He then came to Question No. 4— A return of the number of acres of land now classed as heath or mountain land, incapable of cultivation and unsuitable for the support of live stock of any description other than deer. That Return, too, would necessarily be based upon speculative opinion. There were few spots, with the exception of stony ridges and peaks, on which an animal of some description—a goat, for instance—could not find something to live upon. Under all those circumstances, it was impossible to grant the Returns asked for, the duty of the Government being to furnish facts and not opinions. If they placed the obtaining of the Returns in the hands of one person, as suggested, it might prove to be a formidable engine for the dissemination of particular opinions. Their Lordships, doubtless, remembered that in one of his public speeches last winter, his noble Friend Lord Derby made a statement as to the occupation and cultivation of land in which there was, no doubt, a great deal of truth; but that statement had been seized upon by all sorts of persons, and twisted in the effort to make it support views wholly different from those which it was meant to illustrate. Under those circumstances, he thought it would be imposing upon them a task which they ought not to be called upon to perform, for if the Government were to place a duty in the hands of an officer, involving questions as to how land should be used here and there all over the country, it would be illusory in its nature and would inevitably lead to interminable controversies and misleading data. Under those circumstances, he could not hold out any hope of the Returns being furnished in the manner suggested in the Question of his noble Friend.