Clarke L story of the board of agriculture, 1793-1822 THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES 'A 'N HISTORY OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE 1793-1822. TF/TJ7 PORTRAITS AND OTHER ILLUSTRATIONS. BY SIR ERNEST CLAEKE, SECRETARY OF THE ROYAL AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY OF EXGl.AXD. LONDON : 13 HANOVER SQUARE. 1898. Price One Shilling. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES of the following prominent Agricul- turists connected with the Board of Agriculture have ap- peared in the pages of the Journal of the Royal Agricultural Societ : M SlR J OIIN SINCLAIR, BART, M.P., First President. (1096) r pp. l to 21 j By the Ven. Archdeacon Sinclair, D.D. J,"M LORD SOMERVILLE, Second President. (1097) X pp. l to 20 J By Sir Ernest Clarke. ^^T') ARTHUR Youxc., Secretary. pp. l to } By Mr. Albert Pell. J MR. T. W. COKE, M.P., OF HOLKHAM. pp. l to M I By Mr. Walter Rye. -"- {FRANCIS, DUKE OF BEDFORD. {inJlf > pp. \n to 134 ) By Sir Ernest Clarke. HISTOEY OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE 1793-1822. WITH PORTRAITS AND OTHER ILLUSTRATIONS BY Sill ERNEST CLARKE, SECRETARY OF THE ROYAL AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY OF ENGLAND. LONDON : 13 HANOVER SQUARE. 1898. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. VIGNETTE PORTBAITS OF THE PRESIDENTS AND SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE Frontispiece 1793-8 I THE BIGHT HON. SIR JOHN SINCLAIR, BART. (b. 1754, d. 1885). 1806-18 * (Portrait from an Oil Painting by Sir H. Raeburn, R.A.) I7o_ /JOHN SOUTHEY SOMERVILLE, 15TH LORD SOMERVILLE 1800 I ( b - 1765 d - 1819 )- ( (1'ortraii from an Oil Painting by Samuel Woodforde, R.A.) _ I KOBEKT SMITH, IST LORD CARHINGTON (b. 1752, d. 1838). I (Portrait from a Lithograph from life by If. Oauei.) (JOHN BAKER HOLROYD, IST EARL OF SHEFFIELD (6. 1785, d. 1821) * (Portrait from an Oil Painting by Sir Joshua Reynold!, P.R.A.) 1813-6 ( PHILIP YORKE, SRD EARL OF HARDWICKE, K.G. (b. 1757, d. 1884). 1819-21 * (Portrait from an Oil Painting by Sir T. Lawrence, P.R.A.) 1816-9 I GEORGE PARKER, 4TH EARL OF MACCLESFIELD (b. 1755, d. 1842). 1821-2 1 (Portrait from a Crayon Drawing at Shirburn Cattle.) 1793- ( ARTHUR YOUNG (Secretary of the Board), (b. 1741, d. 1820). 1820 I (Portrait from a Miniature by W. Jogger, 1811.) PORTRAIT OF SIR JOHN SINCLAIR to face p. 8 as Colonel of the Caithness Fencibles (From the Painting by Sir Henry Raeburn, R^A.) ARTHUR YOUNG'S DIPLOMA as Secretary of the Board ... ,,11 (From the original in the pottestion of Sir Ernett Clarke) PORTRAIT OF COKE OF HOLKHAM, afterwards 1st Earl of Leicester 20 (From the Painting by Thomat Gaimborough, R.A., at Holkham) BOARD ROOM AT 82 SACKVILLE STREET 28 (From the Coloured Engraving by Rotflandton in Actermann'i " Microcosm of London" 1809) PORTRAIT OF LORD SOMERVILLE ....... ,,24 as Colonel of the "West Somerset Yeomanry (From the Painting by Samuel Woodfordt, R.A.) MEDAL OF THE BOARD (obverse and reverse) ..... .26 (From an original Medal belonging to the Royal Agricultural Society) PORTRAIT OF ARTHUR YOUNG . ,,84 at the period of the establishment f the Board (From a Painting by Kiting) s 2/17 HISTOKY OF THE BOAED OF AGRICULTURE, 1793 1822. STUDENTS of agricultural history will doubtless be to some extent familiar with the work of the Board or Society of Agri- culture, which flourished during the latter half of the reign of King George III. ; but, up to the present, no connected his- tory of its origin and progress has appeared. In the following pages an attempt has been made to chronicle the efforts of the Board towards its chartered object of " the encourage- ment of Agriculture and internal improvement " efforts which from various causes never achieved their full development. The narrative, as it proceeds, will show that most of the departments of our great national Agricultural Society, to-day so usefully active, were essayed in more or less rudimentary forms by the Board of Agriculture. It will prove that the founders of the Eoyal Agricultural Society of England were enabled by experience gained from the Board's ultimate failure to avoid those elements of weakness that had led to it, and to organise an agricultural institution free, national, non-political, and independent whose long-successful career is the best proof of the wisdom and stability of its original principles. Various agricultural writers have at different times put forth suggestions -for the foundation of a national agricultural insti- tution. Some have even traced the idea to the days of the Commonwealth, when in 1651 Samuel Hartlib propounded a scheme in a pamphlet with the ponderous title, " An Essay for Advancement of Husbandry-Learning : or, Propositions for the Erecting a Colledge of Husbandry : and In order thereunto, for the taking in of Pupills or Apprentices, And also Friends or Fellowes of the same Colledge or Society." These "Propositions" were not Hartlib's own, as indeed few of A 2 866921 4 History of the Board of Agriculture, 1793-1822. the agricultural writings customarily ascribed to him were. He speaks in his preface of " these Hints to the Publique " as having " a long time lain by me," and there are reasons, too long to detail here, for believing the " Propositions " to have been from the pen of Cressy Dymock, 1 one of the numerous impecunious writers who were Hartlib's satellites. The writer bases his arguments on the fact that " there hath been earnestly desired the erection of a private Colledge or Society of good husbandry, wherein some may teach, some learne, and all practise the whole and every part of this so honourable an art, so deep a mystery, and that not onely in the more customary and common way : but according to the most excellent rules that ingenuity and experi- ence gained by rational trials and real experiments have or can attaine to." There were to be contributors of different sorts to this College, as well as " freemen or friends and Members of the Society." As to the latter, " he must pay down at his entrance fifty pound, as given to the Society for the encouragement of Ingenuity in the practise of Experiments, for the obtaining of yet more and more perfection in this (almost) infinite Science." But residence at the College appears to have been incumbent on the members : so that Hartlib's (or Dymock's) scheme bears no relation at all to what was understood in the last century as a Board of Agriculture, and by ourselves as an Agricultural Society. Lord Somerville was therefore wrong when in his " System followed by the Board of Agriculture " (1800) he said that the idea of such a Board " was suggested by an old writer, Samuel Hartlib; " and he was still more wrong when he said, " It was so much approved of as to obtain for the author a pension, not inconsiderable in those days, of 100J. per annum from Oliver Cromwell." Hartlib's " pension " was, as a matter of fact, given to him in 1646, four years before he appeared in the guise of editor of any agricultural publication, and it was be- stowed upon him for " his very good service to the Parliament," a which doubtless included the evidence he gave against Laud at the trial for high treason that resulted in the Archbishop's beheadal. SUGGESTIONS FOR A BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. The successful efforts of Sir John Sinclair in 1793 to persuade Pitt to allow a Board of Agriculture to be established appear to have been followed by attempts to rob him of some of Sec, e.g., Boyle's Letteri, vol. v., 1745, p. 259. 1 Journal of Houae of Commons for June 25, 1646. History of the Board of Agriculture, 1793-1822. 5 the credit of suggesting it. Sir John himself writes that he " knew nothing of such a measure having been recommended by any other individual " To trace the steps whence useful establishments originated is at all times desirahle and useful, but it is perhaps necessary on the present occasion, as some have supposed that the idea of such a Board was borrowed from this or that author, who incidentally might have previously suggested plans of a similar kind. Had it been so, 1 should have readily acknowledged it ; for the difficulty attending such an attempt is, not to propose a plan, but to carry it into execution. It may be sufficient, however, to declare that I knew nothing of such a measure having been recommended by any other individual previously to its having been proposed by myself. (Communica- tions to the Board of Agriculture, vol. i., 1797, p. iii.) Yet that some such organisation had been previously mooted can hardly have escaped Sir John's vigilant eye. Arthur Young mentions the three words " Board of Agri- culture " in an argument as to the advantages of reclaiming waste lands which appeared in Vol. iv. of his Northern Tour, published in 1769. (Letter XL. p. 398.) His ideas on the subject appear at that time to have been extremely nebulous ; but by prefixing (in Vol. xxi. of his Annals, 1793) to his report of Sir John Sinclair's speech in Parliament urging the establishment of the Board, an invitation to the reader to turn to Vol. iv. of his Northern Tour, Young appears to be desirous of claiming some of the credit. A less amenable claimant was William Marshall, who de- voted an unnecessary proportion of his admitted talents to flagellating the Board of Agriculture and all its works in his Review and Abstract of the County Reports. Marshall says on pages xix to xxiii of his Introduction that in February 1790 he submitted to the Society of Arts a "Plan for Promoting Agriculture," in which the following paragraph appeared : I think it right to intimate the probable advantages which might arise from a Board of Agriculture, or, more generally, of Rural Affairs, to take cognisance, not of the state and promotion of Agriculture merely, but also of the cultivation of wastes and the propagation of timber bases on which not commerce only, but the political existence of the nation is founded. Marshall states that in December 1790 Sir John Sinclair sought his acquaintance, but that it was not until the spring of 1793 that Sir John apprised him of his intention to bring the proposed Board before Parliament. He showed me his plan, and during my short stay in London repeatedly consulted me on the subject. At the time of my leaving town there did not appear to be the smallest probability of the measure being adopted : even its promoter assured me that he had no hope of its being then carried into effect. 6 History of the Board of Agricu'lure, 1 793-1 822. Hardly, however, had Marshall reached the Highlands before the public prints announced the appointment of the Board, with the names of the President and Secretary. His reflection is: "Thus fled my hope of credit (which I really expected) and all chance of profit (which I had not desired) from my proposed Board of Agriculture." And, with the vehemence of language that was his leading characteristic, 1 he calls the transaction " a job : and the only doubt that remained [in the minds of those whom he consulted] appeared to be,whether the measure (weighty as it might be) was adopted to avoid the importunities and quiet the still more ambitious cravings of the President, or to embrace a fair opportunity of rewarding a recent change of political sentiments in the Secretary." This was hardly just, but there was a certain element of truth in it ; for it is undeniable that the establishment of the Board was at length assented to by Pitt, after he had pre- viously refused it, a in return for services in connection with an issue of Exchequer Bills, rendered to the Government by Sir John Sinclair. " The value of my father's services in restoring commercial confidence in a great national emergency was," says his son and biographer, 3 " fully appreciated by Mr. Pitt. He sent for the Baronet to Downing Street, and expressed in emphatic terms his sense of obligation. ' There is no man,' said he, ' to whom Government is more indebted for support and for useful information on various occasions than to your- self, and if you have any object in view, I shall attend to it with pleasure.' " Sinclair thereupon requested support to his proposal for the establishment of a Board of Agriculture, which Pitt consented to give, conditionally upon the sense of the House of Commons being generally favourable to the idea. But a more concrete proposal than either Young's or Marshall's deserves to be noted. In 1776, the famous Scotch lawyer, philosopher, and critic, Henry Home, better known as Lord Kames, published in his eightieth year a book entitled The Gentleman Farmer. A whole chapter of this work is devoted to a scheme for " A Board for Improving Agriculture," the objects and functions of which were almost 1 Arthur Young says in hi* Diary that on February 22, 1806, he took a walk to Kensington Gardens Gate, in the course of which he saw Marshall. He adds : " I never see and converse with him bu; I think I see the haughty, proud, ill-tempered, snarling disgusted character which he manifested in his connection with Sir John Sinclair. A thousand pities that so extremely able a man for of his talents there can be no question should not have more amenity and mildness." Autobiography (published in January 189H), p. 427. * bee Memoirt of Sir John Sinclair, 1837, vol. ii., p. 48. Ibid., vol. i., p. 252. History of the Board of Agriculture, 1793-1822. 7 exactly those subsequently propounded by Sir John Sinclair. There was to be " a Board of nine members, the most noted for skill in husbandry and for patriotism." They were to have " an able secretary," whose duties are defined in detail. " As punctual attendance is necessary, the good behaviour of such an officer may well entitle him to a salary of 100L yearly. . . . A larger salary would be an object of interest, and soon degenerate into a sinecure." There were to be regular meetings of the Board once a month. Its first duty was " to make out a state of the husbandry practised in the different counties." It was to issue " a paper of instructions for improving husbandry, suited to the soil and situation of every district." An inspector of the Board was to report on progrefes, and advise farmers when necessary. Silver medals were to be bestowed on the most deserving, to " rouse emulation in all and promote industry." The Board was to " consider it as a capital branch of business to answer queries and to solicit a correspondence with men of skill." They were to keep themselves acquainted with every invention that tended to improve the art, and publish what they thought useful. Premiums were to be given to those who profited most by the instructions of the Board. They were to conduct experiments and to publish their transactions annually. All this bears, as will be seen, a striking resemblance to the operations of the Board of Agriculture when established, and to those of agricultural societies of modern times. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BOARD, From whomsoever, if from anybody, Sinclair got ideas about the constitution or functions of the Board, he deserves all credit for having brought the scheme to a practical and successful issue. Having previously obtained Pitt's assent to his motion, though he says ' Pitt and Lord Melville were the only members of the Cabinet who supported the establishment of the Board, he proceeded on May 15, 1793, to move in a very thin House the following Address to the Crown : That an humble Address be presented to Tlis Majesty, entreating that His Majesty would be graciously pleased to take into his Royal consideration the advantages which might be derived by the public from the establishment of a Board of Agriculture and Internal Improvement: Humbly representing to His Majesty that, though in some particular districts, improved methods of cultivating the soil are practised, yet that, in the greatest part of there kingdoms, the principles of Agriculture are not yet sufficiently unden-tood, 1 Correspondence of Sir John Sinclair, 1831, vol. i., p. 88. 8 Ilittvry of Hie Board of Agriculture, 1 793-1 822. nor are the implements of husbandry, or the stock of the farmer, brought to that perfection of which they are capable : That his faithful Commons are persuaded, if such an institution were to take place, that such inquiries might be made into the internal state of the country, and a spirit of improvement so effectually encouraged, as must naturally tend to produce many important national benefits, the attainment of which His Majesty has ever shown a most gracious disposition to promote ; and, in particular, that such a measure might be the means of uniting a judicious system of husbandry to the advantages of domestic manufacturing industry, and the bene6ts of foreign commerce, and consequently of establishing on the surest and best foundations the prosperity of his kingdoms : And if His Majesty shall be graciously pleased to direct the institution of such a Board for a limited time, to assure His Majesty that his faithful Oommons will cheer- fully defray any expense attending the same to the amount of a sum not exceeding 3,000/. The motion was seconded by Lord Sheffield, and after various Members of the Government and others had spoken in favour of it, the debate was adjourned until May 17, 1793. On this occasion considerable opposition was manifested to the proposal. Some thought the ground was already sufficiently covered by the Society of Arts, which had subsisted for forty years, was in receipt of voluntary contributions to the amount of 1,200Z. a year, and distributed 800. a year in premiums. Others, notably Fox, objected to the Board as likely to be converted into " an instrument of influence." Sheridan moved an amendment to substitute for the latter part of the Address the following words : " Provided the same shall not be attended with any expense to the public." This amendment was negatived, and Sinclair's original motion for an Address to the Crown then triumphantly passed the House of Commons by 101 votes to 26. The Royal Assent to the scheme being speedily signified, the law officers of the Crown proceeded to consider the means of giving effect to it. They appear to have been somewhat doubtful as to the exact form which the new body should take whether its powers should be derived from a Royal Commission as an exercise of the King's prerogative, or from a Royal Charter to a corporate body. The latter was adopted as the more constitutional procedure, as giving larger powers, and as following the precedents of the Royal and other learned Societies. Sinclair's characteristic enthusiasm is illustrated by an incident connected with the sealing of the Charter. Having got over his difficulties with Scott, the Attorney-General (after- wards Earl of Eldon), and Mitford, the Solicitor-General (after- wards Lord Redesdale), about the form of the Charter, he made haste to convene a meeting of the new Board for Thursday, August 22, and he sent the Charter for sealing to Lord ' tr Lv Horn /in c) rst chi is /Jarf. t v ft/it Kicarc pf _siqriru/turf . l T>ifd M.J5 . History of the Board of Agriculture, 1793-1822. 9 Chancellor Loughborough the day before, with a note that he trusted the forms of affixing the Great Seal would be gone through quickly, " as several gentlemen had come to town to attend the meeting to-morrow." Lord Loughborough waited till the evening of the 23rd, and then wrote a note in which he spoke of its being " a very sacred duty to attend with the most exact care to every instrument of an unusual nature," and added, " It must indeed be supposed that to affix the Great Seal is a mere form, if it is to be gone through so quickly." ' The first meeting of the Board had therefore of necessity to be postponed. Whatever the date of actual sealing, the Charter (which is now in possession of the Royal Agricultural Society) bears the date, August 23, 1793 (when the Chancellor wrote his angry letter), and is to the effect that " George the Third by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, and so forth, had ordained, given, and granted that there should be for ever hereafter a Board or Society which should be called by the name of the Board or Society for the Encouragement of Agriculture and Internal Improve- ment," of which Board or Society His Majesty declared himself to be the " Founder and Patron." By the Charter the Board was constituted of a President, sixteen ex-offirio and thirty Ordinary Members. They were empowered to appoint as many Honorary Members " as to them shall seem meet," and also Corresponding Members, " natives or foreigners." The former were entitled to be present at all meetings of the Board, but were not to vote on " any question to be agitated thereat." The latter had no right of attendance or vote. An annual meeting of the Board for the election of its President and other officers was fixed to take place on or about the 25th March. At this meeting five of the Ordinary Members were to retire in favour of five Honorary Members selected by the Board. Casual vacancies during the year were to be filled up by the remaining members. The President was empowered to nominate four deputies from amongst the Ordinary Members, one of whom, the senior in nomination present, should take his place when absent. The officers of the Board, in addition to the President, were to be one Treasurer, one Secre- tary, two or more Surveyors for examining into the state of the husbandry of the kingdom, one Under-Secretary, and one or more clerk or clerks, together with such agents and other officers as might be found useful. By a decision of the Board of 1 Memoirs of Sir John Sinclair, 1837, vol. ii., p. 56. 10 History of the Bjard of Agriculture, 1793-1822. March 18, 1800, Honorary Members were allowed to take part in debates, except such as related to the internal business and constitution of the Board. Their privileges, therefore, in this respect were analogous to those now enjoyed by Governors of the Royal Agricultural Society. From what has been stated, it will be seen and it is important to bear this in mind that the Board was not a Government Department according to our modrrn acceptation of the term, but was essentially a Society for the encourage- ment of agriculture, as the Royal Society of London is for the encouragement of general science. Like that society, the Board was supported by Parliamentary funds ; but the Government of the day had only a limited control over its affairs, through the ex-offido Members, and a transference of political power from one party to another did not necessarily affect its policy or administration. The Board exercised none of the executive functions of Government. The following is the complete list of the Board, as originally constituted by the Charter : E.c-officio Members (10). The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Council, the Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal, the First Commissioner of the Treasury, the b'irst Lora of the Admiralty, the Bishops of London and Durham, the two Principal Secretaries of State, the Master- General of the Ordnance, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the President of the Royal Society, the Surveyor-General of Woods and Forests, and the Surveyor of Crown Lands. Ordinary Members (30). The Dukes of Grafton, Bedford, Buccleugh ; the Marquis of Bath ; the Earls of Winchilsea, Hopetoun, Egreinont, Lonsdale, Moira. Carysfort; Earl Fitzwilliam ; the Bishop of Llandaff [Watson] ; Lords Hawke. Clive, and Sheffield; Sir Charles Morgan, Baronet; William Wyndham, Charles Marsham, William Pulteney, T. W. Coke, Thomas Powys, Ilenry Duncombe, Edward Loveden Loveden, John Southey Somerville, Robert Barclay, Robert Smith, Geonre Sumner, John Conyers, Christopher Willoughhy, and Willinm Geary, Enquires. The mode of election adopted by the Board was that of the ballot, an^ no resolution affecting the election of officers or the award of medals and premiums was arrived at in any other way. Thus, when on May 10, 1808, the Board had determined to present the gold medal to its Secretary, Arthur Young, for his lectures on tillage and the proper construction of farmyards, and for his long and faithful services to the cause of agriculture, each member present wrote Young's name on a slip of paper and deposited it in the ballot-box, before the unanimous award of the medal could be deslared. History of tfte Board of Agriculture, 1 793-1822. 1 1 The Charter gave power for the election of an unlimited number of Honorary Members, from whom it was contem- plated that the Ordinary (i.e. the Executive) Members of the Board would be recruited from time to time. There are no statistics available as to the extent to which advantage was taken of this power ; but in a list of the Members at the British Museum, dated 1796, the Honorary Members "elected by ballot" number 295, and in a later list of 1803 they number 443. In 1809, according to Ackermann's Microcosm of London, there were 500 Honorary Members. Each of the members had a diploma, signed and sealed by the Board ; and in order that there might be no doubt as to the significance of each part of the design, the following description of it was pasted at the back of the diploma : EXPLANATION OF THE DIPLOMA Presented to its Members by the Board of Agriculture. The landscape is intended to represent the view of a country, the greater part of which is already recovered from an unprofitable state into various and beneficial cultivation ; the grounds immediately on the banks of the river are supposed to be rich meadows, rendered fertile by the judicious application of the water which passes through them; the fore- ground scene, extending to the hills, is principally occupied with the various branches of tillage : on one side of the river, cultivation is brought to per- fection, and plantations, scattered everywhere, enrich the scene ; on the other, the summit of the hill is uncultivated, but appropriated to pasture, and covered with sheep. The whole is designed to comprehend the leading objects of improved husbandry ; the picture is supported by a male and female figure, representing the distinct characters of rural labours, with their respective attributes. At the top there is a medallion of His Majesty, the Patron of the Institu- tion. The sbeepare marked on the one side with G. It., the royal mark ; on the other, with the three feathers, denoting the particular attention paid by His Majesty, and by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, to that im- portant branch of rural economv, the improvement of wool. The seal of the Hoard (a patent calendar one) is appended, and, being made on a construction peculiarly ingenious, will specify the exact date when the diplomas are respectively signed, denoting that regularity and exactness so essentially necessary in all rural occupations. The original seal referred to in the last paragraph a hand- some affair of gilt and ivory, and interesting as an early specimen of a moveable date-stamp is now in the possession of the Royal Agricultural Society ; and I have recently been fortunate enough to acquire the diploma of Arthur Young himself, a reproduction of which is given on the plate opposite this page. OFFICERS OF THE BOARD. The original officers of the Board as appointed by the Charter were Sir John Sinclair, Bart., President ; Sir John Call, Bart., 12 History of the Board of Agriculture, 1793-1822. Treasurer ; and Arthur Young, Secretary. Sir John Call resigned the office of Treasurer in 1797. The succeeding Treasurers were John Grant (1797-1804) and George Smith (1804- 1822), both Honorary Members of the Board. Of the first Under-Secretary we glean scarcely anything from the records, except that on one occasion he was thanked for an Address to the Board in six languages. He was, however, the celebrated traveller, critic and historical writer, John Talbot Dillon, who had sat in the Irish Parliament from 1776 to 1783. In 1782 he was created a Baron of the Holy Roman Empire, and received the Royal authority to bear the title in this country. In 1801, whilst still Under-Secretary of the Board, he was created a Baronet of the United Kingdom. He died in 1 805, and the Board voted an amount equal to six months' salary to his widow, whom he left in embarrassed circumstances. Sir John Dillon was succeeded as Under-Secretary by William Cragg, who had been chief clerk to the Board since its establish- ment, and who died in 182 1. One or two other clerks completed the Board's official establishment. The offices of the President and Treasurer were honorary ; the salary of the Secretary was fixed by Pitt, to whom Young applied for the appointment on May 20, 1793, at 400Z. per annum. Young evidently was not quite satisfied with this, for, in his reply to Pitt accepting the post, he confesses it is less than he imagined would be assigned to the office ; and in his Autobiography, given to the world for the first time in January of this year, he says : " When I found a very strict attendance attached to it, with no house to assemble in except Sir John Sinclair's, and in a room common to the clerks and all comers, I was much disposed to throw it up and go buck in disgust to my farm ; but the advice of others, and the apprehension of family reproaches, kept me to the annoyance of a situation not ameliorated till Sir John was turned out of the Presidentship by Mr. Pitt, and the Board procured a house for itself " (p. 219). This is rather anticipating matters, but the quotation appears necessary to dispel the common notion that Sir John Sinclair and Arthur Young worked hand and glove in the organisation of the Board of Agriculture, and that both are equally responsible for its successes and its failures. SIR JCHN SINCLAIR'S FIRST PRESIDENCY, 1793-8. It has already been mentioned that the first meeting of the Board, which Sir John Sinclair was anxious to convene as soon 4is possible after the Address to the King had l>een voted in the History of the Board of Af/riculture, 1793-1822. 13 House of Commons, had perforce to be delayed until September 4, 1793, 1 when Sir John delivered an address to the assembled members on the work before the Board. After this there was an adjournment until January 23, 1794, when the Board for the first time got to business. And this is how Arthur Young says they set about it : The Board of Agriculture, meeting in February [1794], arranged the President's plan for the attendance of their officers. By these laws all the officers of the Board were bound to attend, with no other exception than the months of August, September and October, with one month at Christ- mas and three weeks at Easter. These laws, ready cut and dried when the Board met, were adopted with no other alterations than such as the President himself had made in them previously to their being presented at the meeting. Lord Hawke had examined the rules and orders of many societies, and found that in all letters communications were addressed to the secretaries, and answers given by them. Sir John Sinclair struck this out, and directed all such communications to be to the President (himself), and for him also to sign all letters. This at once converted the Secretary into nothing more than a first clerk. I saw not at first the tendency of the alterations ; but I soon felt their effect. All letters were dictated by the Secretary and written in a book ; this book was altered and corrected at the will of the President, and such alterations made as in respect of agriculture were absurd enough ; the whole done in such a manner as not to be very pleasing. (Autobiography, pp. 241-2.) The original letter-books thus referred to by Young came in some not clearly ascertained way (though probably with the Board's Library bought in 1844 from Mr. G. Webb Hall 2 ) into the possession of the Royal Agricultural Society, and it is interest- ing to note the characteristic presidential touches given to the draft letters, though they usually consist of trivial alterations and of a little added pomposity to the phraseology. In his inaugural Address to the Board, Sir John Sinclair laid chief stress upon the importance of at once instituting an agri- cultural survey of each county in the kingdom. There was not, indeed, much else than this in the Address, except that " the Board was already looked up to, even by foreign nations, as likely to become the general magazine of knowledge on agricultural subjects." Doubtless having in his mind the admitted success of his Statistical Account of Scotland, Sir John said : 1 " I had occasion to make an excursion to Scotland after the motion was carried [May 15, 1793], but returned in June, full of expectation that in the space of a few days the Board might be assembled. Yet, though every possible exertion was made, the Charter was not drawn up, and ultimately sanctioned by the authority of the Great Seal, till the 23rd of August ; and it was on the 4th of September following before the Board could be assembled. In the course of that tiresome interval I was often on the brink of giving up the attempt ; and nothing but a spirit of perseverance, which could not easily be damped, prevented me from relinquishing it." (Communications to the Hoard of Agriculture, vol. i., 1797, p. x.) a See Journal R. A. S. E., vol. v., 1844, appx. p. xvii. 14 History of the Board of Agriculture, 1793-1822. It would be necessary to examine into the agricultural state of all the different counties in the Kingdom, and to inquire into the means, which, in the opinion of intelligent men, were the most likely to promote either a general system of improvement or the advantage of particular districts. By employing a number of able men for that purpose, and circulating their reports previous to their being published, requesting the additional remarks and observations of those to whom such communications were sent, it was probable that no important fact, or even useful idea, would escape notice. The immense mass of information thus accumulated would answer two purposes : first, it would point out the measures which the Legislature might take for promoting agricultural improvements; secondly, individuals would thus be instructed by the practice and experience of others the landlord in the proper mode of managing his property, and the farmer in the best plan of cultivating hia fields. (Communications, vol. i., 1797, p. xxxii.) During the recess, and without waiting for the formal approval of his colleagues, Sir John started the surveyors of some of the counties on their work, and the class of men he selected is best told in the words of Young : I was infinitely disgusted with the inconsiderate manner in which Sir John Sinclair appointed the persons who drew up the original reports, men being employed who scarcely knew the right end of a plough ; and the President one day desired I would accompany him with one of these men, a half-pay officer out of employment, to call on Lord Moira to request hia assistance in the Leicestershire Report, when this person told his Lordship that be was out of employment and should like a summer's excursion. To do him justice, he did not know anything of the matter. Still, however, he was appointed, and amused himself with his excursion to Leicester. But the most curious circumstance of effrontery was, that the greater number of the reporters were appointed, and actually travelled upon the business before the first meeting of the Board took place, under the most preposterous of all ideas that of surveying the whole kingdom and printing the Reports in a single year by which manoeuvre Sir John thought he should establish a great reputation for himself. Consequently by his sole authority, who could not possibly know whether the Members of the Board would approve or not such a plan (sic). I was a capital idiot not to absent myself sufficiently to bring the matter to a question, and leave them to turn me out if they pleased. Mr. Pitt would probably have interfered and effected the object I wanted, and, if not, would have provided for me in a better way. (Autobiography, pp. 242-3.) FINANCIAL EMBARRASSMENTS OF THE BOARD. It is pretty obvious from this frank statement that Sir John Sinclair had taken affairs a little too much into his own hands. As a matter of fact, he appears to have appointed most of the original surveyors himself, and without any clear under- standing as to terms. When their bills came in, and the printers began to ask for money, the Board took alarm at the extent of their commitments. Even so early as March 25, 1794, the Finance Committee of the Board suggested " the propriety of the Board not entering into further engagements or contracting any new expense, except as to what relates to the History of the Board of Agriculture, 1793-1822. 15 completion of the agricultural survey of the Kingdom and the printing of the reports, till the engagements already contracted shall have been discharged." A year after, on May 2, 1795, the Committee urged the Board "to pass an immediate resolution forbidding any expense whatever to be incurred, except for necessaries in the office, till the Board shall have received an exact account of their finances." On May 11, 1795, and June 1, 1795, the Committee pre- sented accounts showing 2,169/. due to printers, 498/. to engravers, and other liabilities which brought the total in- debtedness of the Board up to 5,863/., to meet which there was only 204Z. in the Treasurer's hands, and the annual grant of 3,OOOL to be received in the next September. The Com- mittee observed on this occasion : " There is money due to many Surveyors for the writing and collecting the agricultural reports, but your Committee are not enabled from any of the papers or minutes to find out the precise terms on which those reports were to be collected and written." The Committee pointed out that this deficit and the indispensable office expenses of the next two years would practically exhaust the grants for 1796 and 1797, and they urged that "such orders and regula- tions may immediately be made, as may in future prevent the expenditure of the Board from exceeding its income." The question of the financial position of the Board came again before the Committee on Expenditure on February 24, 1797, when it appeared that the Board had debts amounting to 3,531L and could only count upon the receipt of 2,504/., leaving a balance against the Board of 1,027Z. At their next meeting on March 3, 1797, the Committee requested the President to draw up an account of the sums due by the Board, which had been authorised by the Board or by the Committee, and also a statement of such as had not been so authorised. Sir John Sinclair handed in these statements on March 6, 1797, when it was resolved that "it is the opinion of this Committee that during the sittings of the Board no expenses whatever be incurred without the express authority of the Board, according to their former regulations determined on through this Committee, and that during the recess no greater latitude be given to the President than from 50/. to 100/., according to the duration of the recess." About this time, some of the Surveyors originally appointed by Sir John Sinclair without consulting his colleagues appear to have pressed their claims for remuneration ; and there was a case drawn up for submission to counsel as to a demand made by Mr. Stone for certain reports, which demand was eventually 16 History of the Board of Agriculture, 1793-1822. refused. On June 2, 1797, the Committee on Papers and Expenditure reported that " having taken into consideration the state of the funds of the Board and the unsatisfied demands due to a variety of persons, Resolved that from the present time until the meeting in November next there shall be no contract for printing any reports, memoirs, or other papers." These financial details of a hundred years ago would not be interesting enough to print, were it not that they serve to disprove the commonly received notion that Sinclair's deposition from the Presidency in 1 798 was a piece of political resentment by Pitt for Sinclair's opposition to him in the House of Commons, and was accomplished only by the complaisant votes of the ex-officw members. It will be seen from what has been stated above that the whole of the Board's finances had been seriously crippled, and had got into a hopeless tangle, through the inconsiderate haste and unbusinesslike way in which the agricultural surveys had been organised. As the repeated protests of the Committee on Papers and Expenditure had had no real effect, it was necessary to have recourse to the more drastic method of appointing a new President, by way of preliminary to indispensable reforms. When Lord Somerville assumed the command, the Finance Committee were engaged for some months in examining old claims, paying some, compromising others, and declining altogether to be responsible for the rest; and they passed resolutions stopping all printing (except the volume of " Com- munications ") and all surveying " till the Board should be out of debt." THE AGRICULTURAL SURVEYS OF COUNTIES. The fact is that Sinclair commenced on too ambitious a scale with the comparatively small funds at his disposal. Sir John's original estimate of the funds necessary for the Board's support had been 10,000 guineas per annum, which was reduced by degrees to 3,000/., the actual sum annually voted by Parliament. But to a man of Sinclair's temperament, it was impossible to " hasten slowly," and therefore the initial efforts of the Board were directed with an impetuosity for which an annual income of 10,500Z. would not have been excessive. By the middle of the ensuing year, 1794, the whole of the kingdom had been divided into districts and assigned to different " Surveyors," and by July 1795 nearly all their reports had been received. They were then issued as what Sinclair called " printed manuscripts," in quarto sixe, with large margins for the corrections and additions of practical agriculturists. The plan was not a bad one, but History of the Board of Agriculture, 1793-1822. 17 it did not answer the expectations formed of it. This is not surprising when we consider the undue haste and bad judgment displayed by the President in the choice of the men employed. The result was the production of a huge mass of ill-digested articles of the most varying degrees of merit, from valuable and exhaustive monographs in a few isolated instances to scrappy memoranda of but a few pages in others, according to the writers' ability and thoroughness, or lack of these qualities. Though ostensibly drawn up for private circulation, the reports were entered at Stationers' Hall, and may practically be re- garded as published documents. The issue of such unreliable literature brought the Board at once into bad repute, and this unpopularity was accentuated by a belief, groundless it is true, that the inquiries of the surveyors were intended to lead to in- creased taxation. Another circumstance which added to the Board's difficulties was the hostility of the Church, provoked by an attempt to obtain information on the subject of tithes. Sinclair had derived much help from the Scottish clergy in the preparation of his Statistical Account of Scotland, and he now hoped to similarly enlist the co-operation of the English clergy. But the mention of the vexed question of tithes excited their suspicion, and even led to an intimation by the Archbishop of Canterbury to Pitt, that any interference with this matter would alienate the support of the Church from the Government. In view of the fact that every now and then there appear in booksellers' catalogues what are described as " large paper " copies of the Reports to the Board of Agriculture on particular counties, it appears necessary to point out that these are the original imperfect drafts on quarto paper, circulated for correc- tion amongst agriculturists of the district in the manner above described, and that the final reports were all printed (in most cases years after the original drafts and by different authors) in octavo size. The table on p. 16 shows for each county in England and Wales the dates of publication and the authors of these two sets of reports, which must not be confounded with each other. I have had the reports on the Scotch counties tabulated in similar fashion, but it does not appear necessary to print the details in these pages, especially as the responsibility of the Board for some of the Scotch reports is not clear, and the early drafts and the final reports do not always relate to the same districts (e.g. there was a " draft " report by William Marshall on the Central Highlands, another by Sir John Sinclair on the Northern Counties, and a third by Thomas Johnston on Tweeddale, all printed in 1794-95, which never appeared in any 1 8 History of the Board of Agriculture, 1 793-1 822. TABLE, showing Authors and Dates of Publication of (A) the Draft (quarto) Reports, and (B) the Final (octavo) Reports, on the several Counties of England and Wales. (A) DRAFT (QUARTO) RKPOBT (B) FINAL (OCTAVO) REPORT OOUXTY Author Date II Author Date O dp a 8L Bedford Thomas Stone . 1794 70 Thos. Batchelor 1808 661 Berkshire . . . Wm. Pearce 1791 74 Wm. Mavor . . 1808 669 Buckingham . . < W m. James and I i Jacob Malcolm J 1794 63 Rev. St. J. Priest . 1810 430 Cambridge . Chas. Vancouver . 1794 319 Rev. W. Gooch 1813 813 Cheshire Thos. Wedge . . 1794 88 Henry Holland 1808 J87 Cornwall . Robt. Fraser . 1794 70 G. B. Worgan . 1811 308 Cumberland . . ( John Bailey and I ( George Culley J 1794 51 f John Bailey and t 1 George Culley J 1797 69 Derby .... Thos. Brown . 1794 72 John Fa ivy (3 vol.-. ) 1811-7 1901 1 vv.m .... Robt Fraeer . . 1794 75 Chas. Vancouver 1808 491 Dorset .... John Claridge . 1793 49 Wm. Stevenson 1-12 498 Durham Joseph Granger 1794 74 John Bailey 1810 436 Essex .... Messrs. Griggs . Chas. Vancouver . 1794 1795 26 213 | Arth. Young (2 vols.) 1807 -:;; Gloucester . George Turner 1794 57 Thos. Rudge . 1807 416 Hampshire . Abr.and Wm. Driver 1794 78 Chas. Vancouver . 1810 628 Hereford John Clark 1794 79 John Duncumb 1805 181 Hertford D. Walker 1795 86 Arthur Young 1804 266 Huntingdon Thos. Stone 1793 47 K. Parkinson . 1813 368 Kent .... John Boys . . 1794 107 John Boys 1796 223 1805 300 Lancashire . John Holt 1794 114 f John Holt t R. W. Dickson . 1795 1814 263 668 Leicester . . John Monk 1794 75 Wm. Pitt . 1809 430 Lincoln Thos. Stone 1794 108 Arthur Young 1799 462 Middlesex . Thos. Baird . 1793 31 J. Middleton . 17ii8 614 ... Peter Foot 1794 92 n . 1807 730 Monmouth . John Fox 1794 43 Chas. HassaH . Is 12 154 Norfolk Nathaniel Kent 1794 56 ' Nathaniel Kent ( Arthur Young 1796 1804 253 653 Northampton Jas. Donaldson 1794 87 W. Pitt . 1809 S33 Northumberland i John Bailey and 1 t George Culley J 1794 70 i John Bailey and ) t George Culley I 1797 168 w ,,(3rded.) 1806 313 Nottingham Robert Lowe . 1794 128 Robert Lowe . 1798 204 Oxford Richard Davis 1794 39 Arthur Young 1809 374 Rutland John Crutchley 1794 34 R. Parkinson . 1808 194 Shropshire . J. Bishton 1794 38 Joseph Plymley 1803 390 8 >merset J. Billingslev . 1794 192 J. Billiiigsley . 1797 336 Stafford W.Pitt . 1794 168 W.Pitt . 1796 364 . _ _ 1813 S47 Suffolk Arthur Young 1794 92 Arthur Young . 1797 329 n (3rd ed.) 1804 447 Surrey .... ( Wm. James and ) i Jacob Malcolm / 1794 95 Wm. Stevenson 1809 624 Sussex .... Rev. A. Young 1793 97 Rev. A. Young 1808 479 Warwick . John Wedge . 1794 60 Adam Murray . 1813 204 Westmorland Andrew Pringle . 1794 55 Andrew Pringle 1797 79 . . (Srded.) 1813 87 Wiltshire . Thos. Davw, Sen. . 1794 163 Thos. Davis, Jun. . 1811 287 Worcester . . W. T. Pomeroy 1794 94 W. Pitt . 1810 448 York*, N. Riding Mr. J. Tuke, Jun. . 1794 123 John Tuke 1800 370 n E. Isaac Leatham 1794 68 H. E. Strickland . 1812 - i * W. f Rennie. Brown, and ) Ifi i n 1794 140 Robert Brown . 1799 436 Shlrreff / North Wales Geo. Kay . 1794 119 Walter Da vies. 1813 696 Brecknock . . John Clark 1794 55 Cardigan T. Lloyd and Tumor 1794 37 Carmarthen . Glamorgan. Chaa.Hass*U John Fox 1794 1796 62 71 "South Wales" \ Walter Davies f 1814 1170 Pembroke Chas.Has**U 1794 63 Radnor John Chirk . 1704 41 t Isle of Han . Basil Quayle . irji 40 Thomas Qunyle 1813 308 Channel Islands . Thomas Quayle 1816 366 History of the Board of Agriculture, 1 793-1 822. 19 other form). Speaking generally, nearly all the Scotch drafts appeared in 1793-94, but the complete reports with very few exceptions were not issued until the period of Sir John Sinclair's second presidency. THE BOARD'S "COMMUNICATIONS." Apparently in the hope of producing something more worthy of permanent preservation than what Lord Somerville subse- quently called " voluminous detached publications," the Board had decided in 1796 to issue an annual volume of "Commu- nications" after the pattern of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. The first we hear of these " Communica- tions " is in the minutes of the Committee on Expenditure, dated April 29, 1796, when the Committee took counsel with Mr. Nicol, their bookseller, as to the sales of the Board's publications, which were not going off with the rapidity desired. The Committee then expressed the opinion that the various important communications on different subjects which had been received by the Board, in particular, on farm buildings, cot- tages, and roads, and on foreign agriculture, might usefully be printed in a quarto volume. A Committee on Papers was appointed to go into this matter, and they drew up on May 24, 1796, a scheme of contents for the first volume. This was to be divided into four parts, Part I. of which (on Farm Buildings) Sir John Sinclair was to edit. The other three Parts of the book II. (Cottages), III. (Roads), and IV. (Foreign Agriculture) were to be under the control of other Members of the Board. The President was requested to " draw up preliminary observations, giving an account of the origin and progress of the Board of Agriculture," to be prefixed to this publication a request which Sir John interpreted generously, since to his preliminary observations he annexed fourteen appendices (mostly of his own writing) which took up eighty-two printed pages. When this volume originally published in 1797 was reprinted under another presidency in 1804, the preliminary matter was reduced to thirty-seven pages. It may be mentioned here (though out of strictly chronological order) that, in all, seven volumes of these " Communications " appeared in quarto size, each volume consisting of from about 500 to 550 pages. The " Communications " included in these volumes were both practical and varied in character, and some of them were exhaustive treatises of great value. As they serve to reflect the general scope of the Board's operations, a reference to some of the subjects dealt with may be of interest. In B 2 20 History of the Board of Agriculture, 1793-1822. Vol. II. (1800) the various methods of enclosing and cultivating waste lands were practically discussed, and were accompanied l>y thirteen elaborate plates, giving eighty-one figures of different descriptions of fences, including quickset hedges, wooden palings, stone walls, ditches, and wire. Other articles in this volume dealt with irrigation, the effect of carriage wheels upon the roads, the curl in potatoes and the smut of wheat, merino sheep, the improvement of British wool, &c. Vol. III. of the " Communica- tions " (1802) was devoted entirely to the memoirs on grass lands, to which I shall again refer. The first part of the fourth volume (1805) consisted also of extracts from prize essays which had been sent in dealing with the same subject. The authors took a very wide range, and the extracts were classified under a variety of headings, such as soils, draining, paring and burning, manuring, fallowing, plough- ing and rolling, courses of crops, oats, beans, turnips, cabbages, winter tares, potatoes, hemp, flax, woad, rape, grasses, and various other subjects. Then follow a collection of miscellaneous papers, prefaced by the speech made by Lord Carrington when quitting the chair on March 15, 1803, in which he gives an interesting account of the progress and "conduct" of the Board during the three years of his presidency. Other contri- butors to this volume were Sir John Sinclair, J. C. Curwen, and Sir Joseph Banks. The same three names also figure among the list of contributors to the first part of the fifth volume (1806) a collection of short miscellaneous articles. The second part consists entirely of a dissertation on the merino sheep. Vol. VI. (1808-10) contained some sixty-four articles on a great variety of subjects. Amongst the contributors were Watson, Bishop of Llandaff, on planting of waste lands ; Warren Hastings, on naked barley ; Coke of Holkham, on long dung ; Sir Joseph Banks, on seed grass and merino sheep ; and W. Amos, on agricultural machines, including the construction of a dynamo- meter. Vol. VII. (1811-13) was also miscellaneous in character, the most remarkable articles being a description of " Mr. Shep- herd's machine for weighing live cattle," an essay on gates by Robert Salmon of Woburn, 1 and a paper by Lord Sheffield on the trade in wool and woollens. This was the last of the quarto volumes. An attempt was made towards the end of the Board's career to start a new series of octavo size, the typography of which was modelled upon Sin- clair's" Code of Agriculture." In 1819 was issued the first and only part of Vol. I. of this series. It was prepared for the press by the Under-Secretary, but it contained Arthur Young's final ' See " Agriculture and the House of Russell," Jounml K.A.S.K., vol. ii., 1891, p. 132. after tht lh>HJMin fitlurr bv ()IA -/; <://.'// / y / / / //' A . S1W7nO6 (( ill Id/It ()0R{. ( V/A/ C/-J(lMsrf. -^>n7 . 12. History of the Board of Agriculture, 1793-1822. 85 LATER PRESIDENTS : LORD SHEFFIELD, SIR JOHN SINCLAIR, EARL OF HARDWICKE, EARL OF MACCLESFIELD. From 1803 to 1806 the presidency of the Board was held by Lord Sheffield, 1 also an original Ordinary Member. He is best known as the friend and executor of Gibbon, and as the com- piler of the great historian's Memoirs. He was an ardent agriculturist, and the author of several pamphlets on corn, wool, and American commerce. Lord Sheffield having determined to retire, Sir John Sinclair again came forward as a candidate for the presidency, much to the chagrin of Arthur Young, who makes the following entry in his Diary : " Nothing but bad news. Sir J. Banks writes me, that Sir J. Sinclair is to resume the chair of the Board under promises of good behaviour." 2 Sinclair was elected at the annual meeting of March 25, 1806, when, in the ballot- ing, 20 votes were given for him as against 10 for Lord Sheffield, the retiring President. On this occasion, as when Sinclair was ousted in 1798, there was a very full attendance of the Board, including nine of the Official Members. On April 22, 1806, Sinclair delivered a long and eloquent address to the Board, over which he says he had watched " with a species of paternal solicitude," setting forth what had been accomplished in the past, and what objects should engage the Board's future atten- tion. In this address, he referred to the unanimity which had characterised the proceedings of the Board, and added : " The same noble and generous line of conduct, I trust, will ever be pursued by those respectable characters to whom I have now the honour of addressing myself." At the same time he reassured his auditors as to financial matters in the following words : It is impossible to carry great measures with the present income of the Board. It was attempted at the commencement of this Institution ; but it obtained so much obloquy that it must never again be repeated, at least while I have any concern in the direction. I trust, however, that there is no occasion for any alarm on this head. With a balance to the credit of the Board's funds of only 31Z. 4s. 4d., and with no prospect of receiving the current year's grant of 3,OOOZ. until the following December, Sinclair proceeded to enumerate thirteen objects to which the Board's attention might be directed. I will briefly allude to those 1 For interesting details with regard to many of the personages mentioned in this article, see The Girlhood of Maria Josepha Holroyd, London, 1897. (Miss Holroyd was Lord Sheffield's daughter.) 2 Autobiography, p. 413. 36 History of the Board oj Agriculture, 1793-1822. which are likely to prove interesting to readers of the present article : at any rate they serve to show how prolific were the President's ideas. He suggested, for instance, as a subject for the Board's future consideration the holding near London of Agricultural Meetings on the lines which had been so success- fully adopted by the Duke of Bedford and Coke of Holkham. With regard to the improvement of live stock, he considered that " it was impossible to say to what degree of perfection this great branch of husbandry would soon be brought." He suggested that attention should be paid to the improvement of cereals and other produce by applying the principle of selection, as in the case of the breeding of live stock. He advocated the formation of a " Joint Stock Farming Society " with a capital of a million pounds, for the purpose of advancing money to enable landowners to promote agricultural improvements. Reference was also made to the value of the county reports in making available for the whole kingdom valuable points of farming practice peculiar to one district or even one farm. Thus, for instance, a practice was discovered in Suffolk of putting in spring corn and other crops without spring plough- ing, the land having been prepared in the previous autumn. This plan effected a saving equal to the rent of the land, while the crop was surer and the yield 30 per cent, more abundant. Another practical expedient, thus communicated, was the feeding of carrot-tops to dairy cows. The tops were cut twice, viz., in July and September, "with advantage rather than detriment to the root," and it was said that an acre of such cuttings would support a cow of moderate size for about four months, yielding milk of superior quality. Finally Sinclair called attention to "Agricultural Education and Experimental Farming," and to the establishment at some future period of " one or more experimental farms," and the institution at each of them of " a sort of academy or college where our youth might be instructed in the theory as well as trained to the practice of agriculture." Sinclair's second term of Presidency of the Board, which extended over seven years, was mainly devoted to the project of completing the agricultural surveys in their corrected form. Of these about twenty-five had been published, leaving upwards of fifty still to be executed at an estimated cost of 6,700/. Before his final retirement, in 1813, Sinclair had the satisfaction of publishing, with one or two exceptions, the whole of the remain- ing reports. Additional grants, amounting in all to 8,500., which, through the influence of his friend, the unfortunate Perceval, who became Prime Minister in 1809, he succeeded History oj the Board of Agriculture, 1793-1822. 37 in obtaining from the Treasury during the years 1809 to 1812, materially contributed to this result. But the magnum opus with which Sinclair hoped to crown his labours in connection with the agricultural surveys was unfortunately never to be accomplished. His intention, often repeated, was to compile a general report for the whole kingdom based upon the informa- tion in the reports of the several counties, a work in which " every sentence should contain the essence of a paragraph, every paragraph of a section, every section of a chapter, and every chapter of a volume." * The county reports, in their final form, undeniably constitute a body of information of extraordinary historical value on the agricultural state of the districts to which they relate, and every credit must be given to Sir John Sinclair for the energy and perseverance with which he strove, in face of opposition within and without, to bring them to completion. Nor must it be forgotten that the surveys themselves, and the correspondence which the reports inspired, stirred up a spirit of agricultural inquiry throughout the kingdom that could not fail to have good results. As William Wilberforce, the philanthropist, himself once an Ordinary Member of the Board, said to his friend Robert Osborne, Recorder of Hull, in a letter dated Sandgate, September 14, 1813 : What was said of himself by Falstaff in respect of wit, may he said of Sir John Sinclair in respect of agriculture (and half of it may he said in respect of wit too ; I don't say which half), and a high praise it is, that he not only superabounds with it himself, but he has been the cause of it in other men ; for what other benefits may have resulted from the Board of Agri- culture (Sir John's cher enfant) I will not take it upon me to pronounce, but I have myself seen collected in that small room several of the noblemen and gentlemen of the greatest landed properties in England, or rather in the British Isles ; all of them catching and cultivating an agricultural spirit, and going forth to spend in the employment of labourers, and I hope in the improvement of land, immense sums which might otherwise have been lavished on hounds and horses, or still more frivolously squandered on theatricals. (Life of William Wilberforce, 1838, vol. iv. p. 142.) According to his son and biographer, it was for private financial reasons that Sinclair retired from the Presidency in 1813. But as an Ordinary Member he continued to attend the meetings until within a year of the Board's extinction, his last appearance, as recorded in the minute-book, being on June 26, 1821. He was succeeded by the third Earl of Hardwicke, K.G., who for the rest of the Board's existence held the Presidency alternately with the fourth Earl of Macclesfield, the former 1 Correspondence of Sir John Sinclair, Sart., vol. i. p. 264. 38 History of the Board of Agriculture, 1793-1822. being President in 1813-1816 and 1819-1821, and the latter in 1816-1819 and 1821-1822. Lord Hardwicke, one of the most distinguished as well as popular of the Board's Presidents, was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland from 1801 to 1806. His nephew, who succeeded him as fourth Earl, was President of the Royal Agricultural Society in 1843. Lord Macclesfield was Lord Lieutenant and Gustos Rotulorum of the County of Oxford. His nephew, the sixth Earl, was a member of the Council of the Royal Agricultural Society in 1860-61, and as an octogenarian Governor of the Society attended the Leicester Meeting in 1896 shortly before his death. An hereditary link between the old Board and the Society is still happily continued in the person of his son, the Hon. Cecil Parker, the Society's Honorary Director, and Chair- man of its Veterinary Committee. MISCELLANEOUS INQUIRIES OF THE BOARD. It would be impossible to enumerate in this article even a tithe of the miscellaneous subjects of agricultural interest which occupied the attention of the Board during the twenty-nine years of its existence. Some of them have been previously described. I propose, therefore, to refer briefly to such of the others as are likely to interest readers of the Journal. Early in 1801, a Captain Hoar waited upon the Board to demonstrate his skill with the Virgula divinatoria, or divining rod, and accompanied by several of the members he proceeded to Hyde Park. The position of the wooden water mains having first been ascertained from the keeper of the reservoir, Captain Hoar was led by the Secretary through the Park into Grosvenor Street, with the result that the position of the mains was in all cases correctly located by the agitation of the rod. In the same year the Board presented a parcel of Indian seeds to the King, who had recently prepared a spot at Kew for the natural- isation of foreign vegetables. In 1802, the General Committee reported in favour of obtaining annual returns throughout Great Britain of the quantity of land sown with turnips or other green crops, or left for clean summer fallow, and it was proposed that these returns should be collected by the assessors of King's taxes. (The present agricultural statistics are collected by officers of the Inland Revenue.) In 1805 Mr. Humphry Davy, the Board's chemist, reported upon a " substance in South America called guano [misspelled ( guana'] being the dung of birds," and he stated that having analysed this substance he found that " one-third of it consisted of ammoniacal salt, and History of the Board of Agriculture, 1 793-1822. 39 that it contained other salts as well as carbon." The importation of guano as a commercial product commenced about the year 1843. A proposal for lodging wheat in granaries, to be put under the King's lock whenever the ports were open for export- ation, was made about this time. In 1806 the Board's pre- miums included the offer of 100 guineas for the best machine for reaping corn. In 1808 Lady Penrhyn's agent attended to explain a furze-mill which she presented to the Board, with an account of her practice of feeding horses and cattle on furze. On one occasion, in connection with expedients for increasing the employment of the poor, specimens were submitted of candlewicks prepared from Juncus cjlomeraius, a species of rush growing on Wimbledon Common, and of the inner bark of trees to be used in the manufacture of ladies' hats and bonnets, in order to supersede the necessity of importation from Leghorn. In 1817 the Board paid 81. as the cost of a map and memoir of the soil and substrata of the kingdom which was submitted by the celebrated William Smith, the father of English geology, popularly known as " Strata Smith." The Board did much to encourage the use of improved agricultural implements, trials of which were occasionally held. DECADENCE OF THE BOARD. With Sinclair's retirement from the Presidency we enter upon the period of the Board's decadence and final dissolution. Arthur Young, whose eyesight began to fail in 1808, now became totally blind, and this, added to the infirmities of advanced age, rendered him incapable of his former active services as Secretary. His unrivalled agricultural knowledge and experi- ence were still available, but with the publication of the last of the agricultural surveys, little was done by the Board beyond the offer of annual premiums, and an attempt to revive the volume of Communications. The Board was now at a loss as to how to expend its Parlia- mentary grant of 3,OOOZ. a year. At the annual meeting of March 24, 1819, the Treasurer's accounts showed a credit balance of about 2,300Z., and it was therefore decided to apply for only 1,OOOZ. for the year 1819, instead of the customary grant of 3,OOOZ., the letter to the Treasury stating that the Board was " happy to seize the first opportunity that has pre- sented itself of replacing a part of the extra sums, which on former occasions the Board received from the liberality of Parliament." A step of greater inanity could hardly have been taken. The Treasury promptly seized the opportunity of 40 History of the Board of Agriculture, 1793-1822. saving the grant, and after the death of Arthur Young on April 20, 1820, a letter from the Treasury Office of October 24, 1820, intimated that " the Lords of His Majesty's Treasury did not feel themselves justified in recommending to Parliament to make any further grant for the service of the Board of Agricul- ture." Representations as to the " feeling which might be excited by the discontinuance of the Board's premiums and by the loss of such a centre of communication as the Board of Agriculture had proved to be to all the other Agricultural Societies of the Kingdom " were made to the Prime Minister. But as Lord Liverpool had never been a friend of the institution, they were without effect ; and the Board was thus thrown en- tirely upon its own resources. Not anticipating this decision of the Government, the Board had on May 2, 1820, elected as Young's successor in the Secre- taryship, Mr. George Webb Hall, of Sneed Park, Gloucester- shire, who had been an Honorary Member since May 7, 1805. Mr. Hall enjoyed considerable reputation as an agriculturist, and was highly popular with the farming community. He was an authority on sheep and wool, and had taken a leading share in the agitation for the imposition of Protective duties on foreign corn. His tenure of the Secretaryship was marked by several noteworthy developments, which it was reserved for the Royal Agricultural Society at a later period successfully to continue. On March 13, 1818, the Board decided to offer its gold medal for adjudication by provincial Agricultural Societies to the occupier of the best cultivated farm of not less than 100 acres, in their respective districts, the farms to be visited by inspectors appointed by the provincial societies. In 1819 seven, and in 1820 eleven, gold medals were thus given to Agricultural Societies for distribution to the successful com- petitors. Premiums to a considerable amount were also offered for essays on the agriculture of foreign countries. A premium of ten guineas was offered to large district societies that held annual shows of cattle for the best bull exhibited, on condition that during the ensuing twelve months he served thirty cows gratis. EXHIBITION OF LIVE STOCK. Soon after the appointment of the new Secretary the Board itself decided to institute an annual exhibition of live stock, and an agreement was made with Mr. Joseph Aid ridge for the holding of the show at Aldridge's Repository, Upper St. Martin's Lane, for a sum of 100/., to include the necessary History of the Board of Agriculture, 1793-1822. 41 accommodation and food for the animals. The exhibition was fixed for Monday and Tuesday, April 9 and 10, 1821, and as this was the first Agricultural Show held in Great Britain under the auspices of a National Agricultural Society, it is fitting that some record of the prizes and proceedings should here be given. The following is therefore a summary of the prizes offered, which amounted to 685Z. : To the several breeders of the best Six Bulls, 301. each. Six Cows or Heifers, in calf, or with calves by their sides, 201. each. Six Rams, 151. each. Six Pens of Three Breeding Ewes, with or without lambs, 101. each. Six Boars, 101. each. Six Breeding Sows, 101. each. Draught Stallion, '301. Draught Mare, 20/. Steer of any breed, 1st, 301. ; 2nd, 20/. ; 3rd, 15/. The merits of the animals were to be judged by comparison with similar descriptions of the same breed. In the bulls the judges were instructed to seek for symmetry, strength of con- stitution, aptitude to fatten, quality of flesh, and general docility of temper. In the cows and heifers particular attention was to be paid to the quantity and quality of milk, and where meat and milk could not be united in the same animal they were to select the three best cows for milk and the three best for meat. Similar points to those enumerated in the case of bulls were mentioned as guiding the judges in their awards to the other descriptions of stock. The prizes for sheep were to be divided equally between the long-woolled and short- woolled breeds. The entries numbered ten bulls, nine cows and heifers, several fat steers and cows, seven pens of Leicester and Cotswold rams and ewes, twelve pens of Down and nine or ten pens of Merino rams and ewes. A curious exhibit was that of a ram imported from Southern Italy, which was described as having " monstrous long horns, with a narrow back, flat shaggy sides, and wool somewhat resembling the coat of a Polar bear." It appears to have been regarded as an object-lesson, showing how not to breed sheep. Most of the cattle exhibited were of the Short- horn, or as they were then called the Durham breed ; but there were also specimens of Herefords, Devons, Longhorns and Alderneys. Implements were admitted for exhibition on pay- ment of II. Is. for one exhibit and of 21. 2s. for two or more exhibits. In this department, Mr. Gibbs, who had been seeds- man to the Board since May 7, 1799, and who was subsequently seedsman to the Royal Agricultural Society, exhibited varieties 42 History of the Board of Agriculture, 1 793-1 822. of grass and turnip seed with specimens of roots. Ploughs, scarifiers, drills, and turnip and chaff cutters were also shown, there being about six implement exhibitors in all. At five o'clock on the following day, a company of fifty sat down to dinner at the Freemasons' Tavern under the chairman- ship of Lord Macclesfield, the President of the Board, who afterwards presented the pieces of plate to the successful competitors. During the proceedings a protest was made against the award of prizes to the fat steers, it having been the general expectation that the Show was exclusively for the encouragement of breeding stock. In a defence of the j udges, Mr. John Christian Curwen 1 admitted that he considered the judges had been in error in awarding the premium to a bull " which was certainly too fat to serve," that their attention had been " drawn away to fat, and that they had not paid due regard to symmetry, which was the merit to be appreciated in breeding animals." Lord Althorp, afterwards the third Earl Spencer, the founder and first President of the Royal Agricultural Society, was elected an Ordinary Member of the Board in connection with this Show. He was invited to act as one of the three judges, but declined to do so. A second Agricultural Show, essentially similar to the one described, was held on April 22 and 23, 1822. 2 DISSOLUTION OF THE BOARD. Upon the stoppage of the Government grant, an earnest effort was made to maintain the Board under its existing charter by the donations and subscriptions of its Ordinary and Honorary Members. It was decided to admit the public as Honorary Members, on the certificate of two existing members that the candidate was u a fit and proper person to be elected " ; and the annual subscription of both the Ordinary and Honorary Members was fixed at 21. 2., or a life composition of twenty guineas. At first the scheme promised well, and the General Committee reported on May 25, 1821, that "so many donations and subscriptions had been received as to place the continued existence of the Board upon a reduced establishment beyond all hazard." They also considered that with the support which might be obtained from annual subscriptions, the Board " might be able to enlarge its sphere and extend its influence to every corner of the United Kingdom." 1 One of the later Ordinary Members of the Board, a Member of Parlia- ment, and the President of the Workington Agricultural Society, to which Society he made some very interesting annual reports. For Reports of these Shows, see Erant and IdiJFy't Farmers' Journal and Agricultural Adrertiter, April J6, J821 (p. 123), and April 21>, 1822 (p. 131). History of the Board of Agriculture, 1793-1822. 43 Meanwhile the hope of a renewal of the Government grant was not abandoned, and petitions on several occasions were presented to the Treasury with the object of obtaining, if not the same amount of money as before, at least a sum sufficient, with the donations and subscriptions received, to save the Board from extinction. The Board's efforts in this direction, however, proved ineffectual, and when upon a review of the financial position on May 24, 1822, it was found that the subscriptions received were inadequate, it was decided to return them, and to dissolve. Legal difficulties arose in the way of any formal surrender of the Charter, and it was therefore resolved to simply send the records, papers, and other documents to the Record Office in the Tower, and to transmit the balance of the funds of the Board to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A sum of money was placed in the hands of the Secretary for the editing and revision of any articles in the possession of the Board which he might consider worthy of publication ; a further sum was reserved for " outstanding contingencies " ; and the actual balance transmitted to the Government amounted to 519Z. 14s. 2d. The final meeting of the Board was held on June 25, 1822, when Lord Macclesfield presided and signed the minutes for the last time ; but a financial statement, showing the Board's final payments and the balance transmitted to the Government, appears in the minute-book with the signature of Lord Maccles- field, under date July 10, 1822. Thus ended an institution which, whatever its mistakes and failures, did splendid work on behalf of agriculture. It was the embodiment of a passion for agricultural improvement which dominated all classes, and which was equally creditable to the King, the aristocracy, and the humblest yeomen. Above all, it was the pioneer of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, whose great object, " the general advancement of English Agriculture," though sought by different means and under more satisfactory conditions, is identical with that of its predecessor of a hundred years ago. ERNEST CLARKE. 13 Hanover Square, London, W. PRINTED BY srornswooDK ASD co., NEW-STREET SQUARE LONDON UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY Los Angeles This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. Form L9-50m-7,'54 (5990)444 Clarke - 217 History of the board of agri- culture, 1793- 1822 BINUflTf s 217 cS5h