Poultry on English Farms. 
y j 
profit of from one to two eggs per shilling. Farmers' wives or servants also attend market and 
sell direct there. Thus at Birmingham, Mr. J. B. Lythall reports sixty or seventy as so attending, 
with thiee to six dozen eggs each per week ; and 6 replies mention this as the principal means of 
disposal. A trade “ direct " with customers in towns is reported as sought by some of the farmers 
in only four replies, and by two individuals on their own account. No attempt at disposal of any 
kind is reported in 13 replies. A few replies cover several of these different means of disposal 
for. the same district, as might be expected. 
3, 4. About a dozen replies express the belief that foreign eggs are favoured by preferential 
rates ; but not one single fact or figure is given for such a belief, and a far greater number, including 
all who have obtained figuies, state that there is no such preference under similar conditions. As 
several point out, however, foreign eggs are usually sent per goods train at goods rates, whilst 
smaller parcels of fresh eggs must go at passenger rates. Some replies give rates, either for small 
parcels or for large, to London. For small parcels the rates quoted to London are, from Chippen- 
ham, ijd. pei lb.; Boston, is. 2d. per stone (about i|d. per dozen); Liphook (Hants), per lb., 6d.; 
14 lbs., 9d. ; Ivent, “ about 2d. per dozen ; ’ Warrington, id. per lb. For larger consignments, from 
Lincoln, 40s. per ton ; Leighton Buzzard, 26s. 8d. ; Richmond (Yorks), 55s. ; Dulverton (Devon), 
over 4 cwt.— 53s. per ton ; 28 lbs., is. 6d. ; 1 cwt., 3s. 4cl. ; Liskeard, 5s. per cwt. ; Whitby, 3s. 6d. per 
cwt. ; Chesterfield, “about 12s. per 1,000.” The majority of those who replied to this question 
were, however, agreed in opinion that the high charges for small parcels were seriously in the way 
of endeavours to cultivate a direct retail trade, though not preventing them. 
6. As was expected, answers to this question were much diversified. There were 23 
distinct affirmatives, and 31 negatives, with a few indefinite replies. A few replied that eggs 
could hardly be collected at a profit; one or two, including one from Cornwall, that the produce 
was fairly collected already. On the other hand, several replied that if there were a systematic col- 
lection farmers would “pay more attention” to poultry, and one reply from near Tunbridge Wells 
was to the effect that many could keep more poultry, but that “ at present prices ” it could not be 
made to pay, 
7. Answers to this were also very various, but with a considerable preponderance in the 
affirmative. There were 37 replies in this sense, whilst the negative answers were 15. This 
shows on the whole a very large mass of opinion, gathered on the spot, and outweighing the 
other more than two to one, that there are numbers of small holdeis who might laise poultiy 
products, and do not, largely from want of mechanism to collect or market it. On the other hand, 
there are several remarks to the effect that the farmers “ discourage cottagers and others from 
keeping fowls, from a fear of their straying or the owners stealing coin ; and two replies go so fai 
as to state that fowls are forbidden to cottagers on that account. 
8. On the question whether small holdings were or weie not extending, leplies weic fai 
more unanimous, the negatives amounting to 4 2 > while only 12 replied in the affiimative. This 
proportion is about what might have been expected by such as have looked into that special 
question independently of its present connection. As it is interesting to trace these matters, it may 
be well to state that the affirmatives came from Llanrwst (the other four replies from Wales being 
in the opposite sense), Bath, Jersey, Bidborough (Kent), Tunbridge Wells, Newton Abbott, Beverley, 
Newcastle, Preston, Bakewell, Birmingham, and Hatfield. There was, however, a remarkable con 
tradiction of testimony on this point in one or 
two cases. Thus, two replies in opposite senses were 
received from Birmingham, and these from such thoroughly qualified sources as Mr. J B. Lythall 
(negative) and Mr. Joseph Birckley, Superintendent of Markets, St. Martins Lane, whose replies 
otherwise showed remarkable agreement. In such a case we must probably attubute the diffeience 
