"I was favoured with your letter and enclosure of the 8th inst.

I have gone carefully over the statements of the working of a

farm, and the quantity and value, at present prices, of the

produce--all of which appear to me to be fairly stated. I have

drawn up a statement of the returns of produce of a 400 acre

farm in Mid-Lothian, which, if it meets your approval, you are

at liberty to publish along with the others. The prices of the

grain which I have assumed are in some instances higher than

those of Messrs Dudgeon and Watson; but I think this can be

explained, by the farm being situated in the neighbourhood of

the best market."--(THOMAS SADLER, Norton Mains, Ratho.)

"I am in receipt of your letter of the 8th current, inclosing

statements by various eminent agriculturists, showing the

difference between times past and to come for farmers. I

perfectly coincide with these gentlemen; and consider their

valuation of produce and price to be average and just: although

we are not at present realising the prices quoted, yet it is

fair that an allowance should be made this year for the full

crop wheat."--(ANDREW HOWDEN, Lawhead, Prestonkirk.)

"On looking over the statements you handed me of the comparative

value of farm produce, under protection and free-trade prices,

as drawn up by Messrs Watson and Dudgeon, my first impression

was, that they had fixed the protection price of grain too

high; but on taking the average prices of my own sales of the

different kinds of grain, as entered in my corn-book, from crop

1827 to that of 1845, I find they are not beyond what I have

actually received during that period. The only points in which I

differ from these gentlemen's statements are in the rents fixed

by them for land yielding the crops they mention, which in my

opinion should not be less than 35s. per acre, and £1000 might

be taken from the sum put down as necessary for floating capital

by Mr Watson; and I think, upon an average of years, that £50

should cover the loss of live stock. These alterations I have

suggested would make no material change in the calculations,

which, in the main particulars, I hold to be perfectly

correct."--(ROBERT NISBET, Lambden, Greenlaw.)

"I have to acknowledge the receipt of your agricultural

statements, and have carefully examined them, especially Mr

Dudgeon's, as being the one with which I am best acquainted. I

have tested its various items, and have found them generally

correct, and in agreement with my own practical experience.

There is one, however, which I consider too low--viz., the

allowance of barley for seed and servants. Mr Dudgeon, I

believe, uses a drill-sowing machine, and, by that means, will

save about one bushel of seed per acre; but as this mode of

sowing has not come into general use, the following is what is

commonly found necessary--

Bushels.

40 acres, at 3 bushels, 120

7 servants, at 18 bushels, 126

----246

From the general accuracy of the statement, I have no hesitation

in consenting to the use of my name in connexion with

it."--(WILLIAM BROAD, Clifton Hill, Kelso.)

"Having for several years farmed land in the vicinity of Kelso,

and of a description somewhat similar to that described by Mr

Dudgeon, Spylaw, I beg to say that I agree essentially with the

statement subscribed by him. It exhibits, in my opinion, a fair

estimate of the returns of such a farm when in good condition,

and of the necessary expenses attending the working and keeping

it in good order. In many cases, a much larger sum has been

expended in improvements, but that would probably make no great

difference in the result; for while the occupier would have a

larger sunk capital to draw out of the land, he would probably

have a smaller rent to pay. I may remark, that even where land

has been thoroughly drained, or does not require it, there is

usually a large sum sunk at the commencement of a lease in

liming, for I consider that almost all land in this district

would require to be limed during the currency of a lease, in

order to yield full crops."--(FRED. L. ROY, Nenthorn, Kelso.)

"I think Mr Dudgeon makes too little allowance for stock and

insurance, (£50.) Mr Watson's allows double, (£100,) which is

low enough. Some of my neighbours here have lost from £200 to

£300 by pleuro-pneumonia upon cattle alone, independent of other

stock. I also think they are both wrong in the average quantity

of grain grown. It may be done upon a farm of good land, in

high condition, but--I mean taking a whole county--it is, I

think, above the mark. For example, 1836, 1837, 1838, 1839,

1840, 1841, being six years running, with as fine appearance of

wheat as I ever grew, I did not average twenty-six bushels per

acre, weighing 64 lb. to 65 lb. per imperial bushel, in these

six years. I considered my loss equal to 2000 bolls wheat below

a fair crop, all in consequence of the fly."--(JOHN THOMPSON,

Craigie, Leuchars.)

"I have carefully looked over Mr Watson's statement, and I think

that his calculations are very correct, and agree entirely with

my experience, except in regard to the profits upon stock,

which I think he has rather overrated, as the price of stock is

falling every week. I do not think it necessary, however, to

make out a separate statement."--(DAVID HOOD, Hatton, Glammis.)

"In reply to yours of the 8th instant, requesting my opinion as

to the accuracy of the statements in your enclosed proof-sheet,

I have to state that, after mature consideration, I generally

concur with the statement drawn by Mr Watson as to the results;

though, I think, that as a deduction of £20 per cent on the

profits of livestock has been made in the free-trade account, a

like percentage should be deducted from the amount stated for

casualties in the charge, thus making the loss under free trade

£20 less. It also appears to me, that both the capital invested,

and the amount received for crop and stock, are considerably

beyond the average of farming capital and proceeds in Strathmore

and the eastern district of Forfarshire; but as the statement is

headed as "under the improved system of agriculture," of course

the amounts must be different, and therefore are acceded to.

"It may be remarked, that the depreciation of £20 per cent on

the value of livestock, which has taken place this year, ought

only to be deducted from the average of the last ten or twelve

years, as the present prices might be considered equal to what

we had been receiving previously to the opening up the southern

markets.

"In my own case, the rent is considerably lower than that

assumed, as I occupy a large proportion of unequal, inferior

soil, which I have drained at my own expense; and, in order

to raise the same quantity of grain per acre as mentioned in

the statement, I have hitherto had to pay at least £100 more

for manure than what seems to be allowed for under the title

'expenses of management.'"--(WILLIAM RUXTON, Farnell, Brechin.)

"I received yours of the 8th, with the enclosed statements

regarding the prospects of agriculture, and as this was a

ploughing-match day, (the Buchan district,) I deferred writing

you until I should also show it to several experienced farmers

for their opinions, and we all consider the statements as near

as may be correct."--(JOHN HUTCHISON, Monyruy, Peterhead.)

"I have examined minutely the statements drawn up by Messrs

Watson and Dudgeon, and have compared them with some

calculations that I had previously made myself, and have

no hesitation in allowing my name to be affixed to them as

attesting their accuracy, in so far as my knowledge of the

localities in which they are drawn up leads me to be a judge.

Had I had time, I should have liked to have furnished you with

a similar comparative statement of the difference likely to

be made by free trade in our more northern climate, where we

cannot raise the same quality of grain, and where little or no

wheat is grown, _and I am much afraid it would not have been

so favourable to farmers_ as Messrs Watson and Dudgeon's are.

The average price of what has been sold of this year's crop,

in the counties of Aberdeen and Banff, is not more, I am sure,

than 1s. 8d. per bushel for oats, and 2s. 6d. for bear or

barley."--(ROBERT SIMPSON, Cobairdy, Huntly.)

"As to the statements of Messrs Watson and Dudgeon, the items

appear to me, on the whole, to be fairly put. My only difficulty

is in regard to the £3000 put down in Mr Watson's statement

as invested capital. I presume, however, he includes in this

draining and lime sunk, machinery, implements, horses, &c.;

and, considering the valuable breed of cattle and sheep on the

Keillor Farm, I would not regard £5000 as at all too large an

estimate for capital of both kinds. As to the considerable

difference in profits shown in Nos. I. and II., that might

be accounted for in many ways. In 500-acre farms, with equal

management and a like rent, greater differences will be induced

by variations in the soil and climate alone.

"On the presumption above stated, as to what Mr Watson means

by invested capital, I have no difficulty in allowing you to

affix my name, as attesting, to the best of my knowledge, the

substantial accuracy of statements Nos. I. and II."--(WILLIAM

M'COMBIE, Tillyfour, Aberdeen.)

"I have gone over the respective statements with much care

and anxiety, and have compared the different items entered to

the debit and credit of the farm by both gentlemen with my

own experience in such matters, and, on the whole, I have no

hesitation in pronouncing them as nearly correct as, under

the circumstances, they could be framed. Were I to draw up a

statement of a farm of the like extent in this county, I believe

the result would be still _less favourable_ for the farmer,

because if we have such returns as are stated by Messrs Watson

and Dudgeon, we obtain them by the application to our land of a

larger quantity of foreign manure than those gentlemen seem to

use."--(PETER BROWN, Linkwood, Elgin.)

Some of the gentlemen to whom we wrote, whilst entirely concurring

in the estimates of Messrs Watson and Dudgeon, have not authorised

us to affix their names. Only three gentlemen, out of nearly fifty,

have refused their assent on the ground of difference of opinion.

The most important objection specified by any of them was, that the

prices of grain assumed in No. II., as having been received before

protection was withdrawn, were _higher_ than those warranted by

the fiars' prices of the county. Such were, however, the actual

prices received in those years by Mr Dudgeon; and the reader is

requested to refer to the extract from Mr Nisbet of Lambden's letter

for a corroboration as to that point. That there should be some

difference of opinion is only natural, when the variations of soil,

climate, and locality are considered; but we think it will generally

be admitted, that the ordeal to which these estimates have been

exposed, without exciting more challenge than we have just noticed,

is a tolerably convincing proof of their general accuracy.

The receipt of these statements has induced several gentlemen, in

different parts of the country, to draw up further estimates of the

working of farms in their own districts, and these documents we now

proceed to lay before our readers--

No. III.

STATEMENT of INCOME and EXPENDITURE on an Aberdeenshire farm of the

ordinary description, taking the value of produce at an average of

a series of years--say 19--previously to the late alteration of the

law in relation to the importation of corn and cattle.--Extent,

250 acres.

ANNUAL EXPENDITURE.

Rent of a farm of 250 acres imperial, at £1, 1s. per acre, £262 10 0

Invested capital, £1000--interest at 10 per cent, 100 0 0

Floating capital, in stock, &c., £1800--interest at 5 per cent, 90 0 0

Servants' wages, per annum, 129 0 0

Day-labourers' wages, &c., 15 0 0

Rye-grass and clover seeds, 20 0 0

Tradesmen's accounts, 50 0 0

Public burdens, 15 0 0

Casual losses of stock, and partial insurance, 40 0 0

Expenses in driving grain and extraneous manures, in the shape of

tolls, &c., with necessary expenses at markets, 20 0 0

_________

Total expenditure, £741 10 0

ANNUAL INCOME.

250 acres, on the five-course rotation:--

In oats--80 acres, at 6 qrs. per acre, 480 qrs.

Deduct for seed, 60 qrs.

Do. for horses, meal, &c., 120 "

_______ 180 "

Oats to be disposed of, 300 qrs. at 21s. = £315 0 0

In barley--20 acres, at 5-1/2 qrs. per acre, 110 qrs.

Deduct for seed, malt, &c., 15 "

Barley to be disposed of, 95 qrs. at 29s. = 137 15 0

Realised from cattle fed on 100 acres of grass and

50 acres of turnips, 400 0 0

Total income, ______ 852 15 0

_________

Profit--or return for labour, skill, and risk of capital, £111 5 0

=========

INCOME UNDER FREE-TRADE PRICES.

Oats, 300 quarters, at 14s. per quarter, £210 0 0

Barley, 95 quarters, at 20s. per quarter, 95 0 0

And--on the supposition that no reduction of the price of fat cattle

is to take place on account of the free importation of foreign

animals--let us take the receipts from cattle fed on the grass and

turnips as above, viz., 400 0 0

________

Total income under free-trade prices of grain, £705 0 0

Brought forward, £705 0 0

Expenditure as above, viz., 741 10 0

Loss per annum, £36 10 0

Or, adding former profit, viz. as above, 111 5 0

Total loss, on _grain alone_, by free trade, £147 15 0

=========

I consider the above a fair statement of the expenditure and income

on a farm in the lower district of Aberdeenshire, under former and

under present circumstances. It will be observed that no wheat is

grown; but the soil is well adapted for the rearing and feeding

of cattle, and from this source the Aberdeenshire farmer expects

to derive a large proportion of his returns. In the comparison,

reference is had solely to the fall in the price of the kinds of

grain cultivated. Whatever decline in the price of fat cattle may

arise from free trade, will fall heavily on the farmers of this

district; and the reduction of income thus occasioned will, of

course, add to the amount of loss shown above.

JAMES HAY,

LITTLE YTHSIE, _13th December 1849._

Having lately had an opportunity of examining a number of _actual_

accounts of income and expenditure on various farms, I can confirm

the substantial accuracy and fairness of the above statements, Nos.

I. and II. Mr Hay's statement above, referring to the system of

agriculture with which, in this part of the country, we are most

conversant, may, in my humble opinion, be regarded as fair and just,

and as near the average that a comparison of a number of individual

cases would indicate, as it can be made.

I am sensible that, in many cases of calculations--more especially

in those in which certain assumptions have to be made--it is quite

possible, even with a show of fairness, to bring out by means of

figures almost any result that may be desired; but it is to be

observed that, in the above statements, the _same_ assumptions

(if they can be regarded as such) are made on both sides of the

comparison, with the exception of the prices at which agricultural

produce is taken; and it is submitted with confidence that these are

neither made higher in the one case, nor lower in the other, than

experience warrants.

W. HAY,

TILLYDESK, _14th December 1849_.

No. IV.

ESTIMATED VALUE, of the produce upon a farm in Roxburghshire of 500 acres,

managed according to the five-shift rotation, thus:--

200 acres of corn crop.

200 " of grass.

100 " of turnips.

____

500

It is here assumed that there are no local advantages, the whole

green crops being consumed upon the farm by sheep and cattle.

I. PRODUCE OF CORN CROPS.

Bush. Bush. Bush.

Oats, 100 acres, at 48, = 4800, off 2400, leaves for sale, 2400

Wheat, 60 " at 38, = 1980, off 180, " 1800

Barley, 40 " at 42, = 1680, off 340, " 1340

_Average Value during the ten years preceding Crop 1848._

2400 bushels of oats, at 3s., £360

1800 " of wheat, at 7s., 630

1340 " of barley, at 4s., 268

________ 1258 0 0

Value of grass and turnips, 800 0 0

________

Total amount of produce sold, £2058 0 0

Brought forward, 2058 0 0

_Expenses and Rent--_

Annual charges for wages and tradesmen's bills, &c., £400 0 0

Public and parish burdens, 45 0 0

Annual outlay for extra manures, 150 0 0

£595 0 0

Capital sunk upon improvements, £2500, at 10 per cent, 250 0 0

Value of stock and crop, forming a floating capital of £2000,

at 5 per cent per annum, 100 0 0

Insurance of stock against deaths and other casualties, 50 0 0

________ 995 0 0

£1063 0 0

Rent, 800 0 0

________

Tenant's profit, £263 0 0

========

ESTIMATED VALUE of the same amount of produce at the present rate of

prices:--

2400 bushels of oats, at 2s., £240 0 0

1800 " of wheat, at 5s., 450 0 0

1340 " of barley, at 2s. 9d., 214 5 0

________ £904 5 0

Value of grass and turnips, 700 0 0

________

Total amount of produce, £1604 5 0

Amount of expenses, as above, 995 0 0

________

£609 5 0

Rent, 300 0 0

________

Tenant's loss £191 15 0

========

Value of produce by 1st estimate, £2118 0 0

Do. by 2d do, 1615 10 0

________

Difference, £502 10 0

========

The total amount of capital invested is £4500, of which £2500 is

sunk upon improvements. According to the first estimate, the annual

return, exclusive of 5 per cent per annum for repayment of the

sum sunk, would be £548, or at the rate of about 12-1/5 per cent.

According to the second estimate, the annual return would be £45,

10s., or at the rate of about 1 per cent per annum upon the same sum.

I shall be glad to allow my name to be affixed to Mr Dudgeon's

statement, as attesting, in so far as my experience goes, the

accuracy of it.

My estimates and his very nearly correspond; but as every one has

his own method of making up such statements, I take the liberty of

handing along with it this detail of my own.

In all, excepting in regard to the value of live stock, or produce

of grass and turnips, we nearly agree; and this difference may be

accounted for, because no part of farm produce varies so much in its

return as that of the live stock. Upon such a farm as that which is

taken as an example, sheep and cattle are not wholly reared upon the

farm, but part are bought in to fatten; hence the returns depend

upon three circumstances,--1st, upon the crops of turnips and grass

being less or more abundant; 2d, upon the price of lean stock; and,

3d, upon the price of fat. While, therefore, the butcher market may

be very high, the feeder may not necessarily be well paid,--and

hence, in making up returns under this head, a correct average is

not easily ascertained; and as there must always be a difference of

opinion among practical men upon this part of the subject, I think,

for publication, Mr Dudgeon's method of stating the returns _in one

sum_ is preferable to giving them in detail.

JAS. ROBERTON,

LADYRIG, _13th Dec. 1849_.

No. V.

STATEMENT of the ANNUAL CHARGE against, and RETURNS from, a 400 imperial

acre Farm in Mid-Lothian--on an average of ten years previous to free

trade in corn and cattle;--with a comparative statement of the Returns

of Produce from the same farm under the present free-trade measures

affecting agriculture. The farm alluded to is managed on the four-course

shift--the whole straw, turnips, and clover being consumed on it, and an

average number of stock fattened.

Rent of farm, 400 acres at 45s. per acre, £900 0 0

Interest on sunk and floating capital, 240 0 0

Expenses of management, wages, tradesmen's accounts, extra

manures, grass and clover seeds, and miscellaneous expenses, 817 0 0

Casualties in stock, and fire insurance, 40 0 0

Public and parish burdens, 40 0 0

__________

Total yearly charge, £2037 0 0

To meet this sum there is the produce of 230 acres corn crop,

10 acres potatoes, and the profits from live stock as follows:--

100 acres oats, at 48 bushels per imperial acre, 4800

Less for seed, servants' meal, and horses, 2004

____

Leaving for sale, 2796 at 3s. 3d., £454 7 0

____

70 acres wheat, at 32 bushels per acre, 2240

Less for seed, 220

____

Leaving for sale, 2020 at 7s., 707 0 0

30 acres barley, at 48 bushels per acre, 1440

____

Less for seed, 100

Leaving for sale, 1340 at 4s., 268 0 0

____

30 acres beans, at 40 bushels per acre, 1200

Less for seed, 110

____

Leaving for sale, 1090 at 4s. 6d., 245 5 0

____

Produce of 10 acres potatoes, after deducting seed, 100 0 0

Profits from live stock fed upon 60 acres turnips and

100 acres grass, 550 0 0

__________

Total return, £2324 12 0

_________ 2324 12 0

Profit, £287 12 0

The like quantities of disposable grain, taken at the present prices,

fetch as follows:--

2796 bushels oats, @ 2s. 4d., £326 4 0

2020 " wheat, @ 4s. 9d., 479 15 0

1340 " barley, @ 3s. 0d., 201 0 0

1090 " beans, @ 3s. 3d, 177 12 6

10 acres potatoes, 100 0 0

Add profits from live stock, 550 0 0

__________

Total returns £1834 11 6

Sum chargeable as above against the farm, £2037 0 0

__________

202 8 6

Leaving the farmer short, for rent, capital, and expenses

of management,

202 8 6

_________

Total loss annually incurred, £490 0 6

==========

THOs. SADLER,

NOTRON MAINS, _14th December 1849._

No. VI.

VALUATION of PRODUCE, and EXPENSE of MANAGEMENT of a Farm of

320 Scots acres, situated within five miles of Edinburgh, on an

average of seven years previous to potato failure in 1846, and

farmed according to the four-shift rotation, the straw being sold

in Edinburgh, and dung bought. The produce is a fair average of

the best-managed farms within five miles of Edinburgh, during the

period from which the average is taken. The prices noted are what

were realised, being about 3s. 6d. per qr. above the average prices

of the county, and the expense of management charged is what was

actually paid.

Acres. £ _s._ _d._

50 Potatoes, at £17 per acre, 850 0 0

30 Turnip, at £16 per do., 480 0 0

50 Wheat, 5 qrs. per acre, at 58s.

per qr., 725 0 0

30 Barley, 7 do. do., at 34s. do., 357 0 0

50 Pasture, let at £4 per Scots

acre, 200 0 0

30 Hay, at £7 per do., 210 0 0

80 Oats, 7-1/2 qrs. per acre,

at 26s. per qr., 780 0 0

___

320

Produce of straw sold, 450 0 0

Manure made on the farm from

horses, &c., 80 0 0

_________

Value of produce, 4132 0 0

Expense of management, 4025 17 6

__________

Profit, £106 2 6

_________

[We ought, perhaps, to explain that this case is peculiar. It is

that of a first-class farm in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh,

attested by men of the same standing as its tenant, and similarly

situated; the average of the produce is very high, and the rent

corresponding. Mr Gibson, the tenant farmer, has taken the details

of the following statement from his books; so that it becomes of

much value, as showing the statistics of farming in the immediate

vicinity of the metropolis of Scotland. In estimating the

productiveness of this farm by the extent of the yield, our English

readers must bear in mind, that it is divided by the Scots and

not the imperial acre as in the other estimates, the former being

one-fifth larger. It will be allowed, on all hands, that the yield

of this farm is extraordinary.]

Acres. £ _s._ _d._

S

e {50 Potatoes, at £2 per Scots acre, 100 0 0

e {30 Turnip, at 4s. per do, 6 0 0

d {50 Wheat, 23 qrs. at 60s., 69 0 0

{30 Barley, 14 qrs. at 35s., 24 10 0

f {50 Pasture, at 17s. per acre, 42 10 0

o {30 Hay, at 15s. per do., 22 10 0

r {80 Oats, at 40 qrs. at 28s., 56 0 0

____

320

50 acres potatoes, 34 tons per

acre, horse and cow manure

driven from Edinburgh, at

6s. per ton, 510 0 0

30 acres turnip, 30 tons do., at

4s. per ton, 180 0 0

Keep of 15 horses, at £28 per

annum, 420 0 0

Do. of 1 riding horse, do., 28 0 0

Wages of farm overseer, per

annum, 32 0 0

Do. 8 ploughmen, at £27

per do., 216 0 0

Do. 2 labourers at 10s.,

and 1 boy at 5s. per week, 65 0 0

Outdoor women-workers per

annum, 165 0 0

Reaping 160 acres corn crop,

at 12s. per acre, 96 0 0

Wages of extra men securing

crop, 13 0 0

Cutting 30 acres hay, at 3s. 9d., 5 12 6

Cutting hedges, and keeping

fences, gates, and houses in

repair, 10 0 0

Smith work, per annum, 35 0 0

Carpenter work, do., 22 0 0

Veterinary surgeon, do., 7 0 0

Saddler work, do., 17 0 0

Millwright, engineer, mason,

and slater's accounts, 10 0 0

Coals for steam-engine, and

steaming and bruising horse

food, 12 0 0

Annual loss on live and dead

stock, from death and tear

and wear, 90 0 0

Tolls, custom, and marketing

expenses, 25 0 0

Insurance, 6 0 0

Poor-rates and statute-labour,

previous to passing of New

Poor Law, 30 17 0

Assessed taxes and income tax, 19 18 0

Interest on £1500 capital, sunk

in permanent improvements,

at 10 per cent, 150 0 0

Interest on floating capital of

£2000, at 5 per cent, 100 0 0

Rent of 320 Scots acres, at

£4 10s. per acre, 1440 0 0

____ _____

Expense of management, £4025 17 6

VALUATION of PRODUCE and EXPENSES of MANAGEMENT of the same Farm,

for Crop 1849: as the Wheat crop is considered to be the best we

have had in the district since 1835, every allowance is made for

this in estimating the produce. The Oat, Barley, and Bean crops are

under an average, but are charged at average quantities; the prices

noted are what are being realised. In the expense of management full

allowance is made in every item affected by present prices, except

the seed, which is charged as paid for at seed time: had it been

charged at present prices, there would fall to be deducted from

expense of management a sum of £28.

Acres.

25 Potatoes, supposing them to

be sound, at £20, 500 0 0

35 Turnips, at £14, 490 0 0

20 Beans, 5 qrs. per acre, at 26s.

per qr., 130 0 0

45 Wheat, 6 qrs. per acre, at 38s.

per qr. 513 0 0

35 Barley, 7 qrs. per acre, at 23s.

per qr., 281 15 0

50 Pasture, let at £4 per acre, 200 0 0

30 Hay, at £5, 10s. per acre, 165 0 0

80 Oats, 7-1/2 qrs. per acre, at 18s.

___ per qr., 540 0 0

320

Produce of straw, sold, at present

prices, 400 0 0

Manure made on the Farm, 70 0 0

_________

Value of Produce, £3,289 15 0

Expense of Management, 3,786 14 0

_________

Loss, £496 19 0

Annual Profit previous

to 1846, £106 2 6

_________

Loss incurred by difference

of price under free-trade, £603 1 6

_________

Acres.[**The prices were not in image so taken from Google books version]

Seed for

25 | Potatoes, at £4 per Scots acre, 100 0 0

35 | Turnips, at 5s. per acre, 8 15 0

20 | Beans, 12-1/2 qrs., at 34s., per qr., price,

| at seed time, 21 5 0

45 | Wheat, 20 qrs., at 62s., do., 62 0 0

35 | Barley, 17-1/2 qrs., at 33s., do., 28 17 6

50 | Pasture, at 14s. per acre, do., 35 0 0

30 | Hay, at 12s. do., do., 18 0 0

80 | Oats, 40 qrs., at 22s. per qr., do., 44 0 0

___

320

25 acres potatoes, 30 tons per acre,

horse and cow manure, driven from

Edinburgh, at 5s. per ton, 187 10 0

20 acres beans, 20 tons manure per

acre, at 5s. per ton, 100 0 0

35 acres turnips, 25 tons do., at 3s. 6d.

per ton, 153 2 6

Guano and other extra manures applied

to turnip, potato, and other crops, 125 0 0

Keep of 15 horses, at £22 per annum, 330 0 0

Keep of 1 riding horse, do., 22 0 0

Wages of farm overseer, per annum, 30 0 0

Do. 8 ploughmen, at £25 per do., 200 0 0

Do. 2 labourers, at 9s. each, and

1 boy 5s. per week, 59 16 0

Outdoor women workers, per annum, 165 0 0

Reaping 160 acres corn crop, at 10s. 6d.

per acre, 84 0 0

Wages of extra men securing crop, 12 0 0

Cutting 30 acres hay, at 3s. per acre, 4 10 0

Cutting hedges, and keeping fences,

gates, and houses in repair, 10 0 0

Smith work, per annum, 35 0 0

Carpenter's work, do., 22 0 0

Veterinary surgeon, do., 7 0 0

Saddler work, do., 17 0 0

Millwright, engineer, mason, and

slater's accounts, 10 0 0

Coals for steam engine, and steaming

and bruising horses' food, 10 0 0

Annual loss on live and dead stock,

from death and tear and wear, 90 0 0

Tolls, custom, and marketing expenses, 25 0 0

Insurance, 6 0 0

Poor rates and statute labour under

New Poor Law, 54 0 0

Assessed taxes and income tax, 19 18 0

Interest on £1500 capital, sunk in

permanent improvements, at 10 per

cent, 150 0 0

Interest on floating capital of £2000,

at 5 per cent, 100 0 0

Rent of 320 acres, at £4, 10s. per

acre, 1,440 0 0

_________

Expenses of Management, £3,786 14 0

_________

JOHN GIBSON,

WOOLMET, _18th December 1849._

{JOHN FINNIE, Swanston.

Attested by {GEORGE WATSON, Libberton Mains.

{ALEXANDER SCOTT, Craiglockhart.

Let those who believe that, by high farming, the soil can be

stimulated so as to produce enormously augmented crops, at a large

additional profit, consider the above statistics well. THEY ARE THE

STATISTICS OF THE VERY HIGHEST FARMING IN SCOTLAND. The English

agriculturist has been taunted for his backwardness in not adopting

the improvements of his northern neighbour, who, with a worse

climate, has made the most of the soil. Such has been the language

used by some of the advocates and apologists of free trade, who

are now urging the farmer to lay out more capital in draining and

manures--assuring him that, by doing so, the returns will far exceed

the interest of the outlay. With a fine disregard for the elements

of arithmetic, they insist that low prices can in no way interfere

with his success, and that only exertion and enterprise are wanting

to raise him above the reach of foreign competition. The above

tables exhibit the experiment, worked out to its highest point. In

these cases capital has been liberally expended, energy tasked to

the utmost, and every means, which science can devise or experience

suggest, called into active operation. The farmers of Mid-Lothian,

Berwickshire and Forfarshire may fairly challenge the world in point

of professional attainments. They have done all that man can do, and

here is the reward of their toil.

Supposing, then, that hereafter the permanent price of wheat

were to be 40s. a quarter; that other cereal produce remained

at corresponding rates; and that the value of live stock did

not diminish--points, upon all of which we are truly more than

sceptical--it will follow that high farming, such as is at present

practised in the best agricultural districts of Scotland, cannot

by possibility be carried on. No possible reduction of rent would

suffice to enable the farmer to continue his competition. Such a

fall must necessarily have the effect of annihilating one of the two

classes; for the landlord, burdened as he is, would cease to draw

the means of maintenance from his estate, and it is questionable

whether the residue would suffice to pay the interest of the

mortgages and preferable burdens. To the people of Scotland this is

the most vital question that has engaged their attention since the

Union. Our national prosperity does not depend upon manufactures

to the same degree as that of England. By far the greater portion

of our wealth arises directly from the soil: by far the larger

number of our population depend upon that for their subsistence.

Even if Manchester statistics were applicable to England, the case

is different here. If the prices of agricultural produce should

continue as low as at present--and we cannot see what chance exists

of their rising, in the face of such a tremendous import--the effect

upon this country must be disastrous. Such prices would reduce

Scotland, at one fell swoop, to the condition of Ireland: paralyse

the home market for manufactures; throw hundreds of thousands out of

employment; lower the revenue; augment the poor-rates; and utterly

disorganise society. And yet what help for it? The farmer cannot

be expected to pay for the privilege of losing several hundreds

per annum by cultivation. Let Mr Watson's statement be examined,

and it will appear that the enterprising and skilful tenant of a

farm of five hundred acres, in the best corn district of Forfar,

cannot clear his expenses unless the rent of the land is reduced

by one-half, and, even if that were done, he could only realise a

profit of sixpence per acre! Such a result, we fairly allow, would

appear, at first sight, to be incredible; yet there it is--vouched

for by men of name, character, and high reputation. This is the

extreme case; but, if we pass to Berwickshire, we shall find that a

reduction of half the rent would barely place the tenant in the same

position which he occupied previous to the withdrawal of protection.

Look at No. IV., and the result will appear worse. Even were one

half of the rent remitted, the profits of the tenants, at present

prices, would be less by £100 than they were at the former rates

of corn. Very nearly the same results will be brought out, if we

calculate the necessary reductions on the rents of the Mid-Lothian

farms. Lord Kinnaird may see in those tables the fate which is

in store for him; and he cannot hope to escape it long, even by

inserting, in his new leases, the most stringent stipulations as

to money payments which legal ingenuity can devise. It is just

possible that "men of business habits," retired shopkeepers, and

others of that class, may be coaxed and persuaded into trying

their hands at a trade of which they know literally nothing. They

may be incautious enough to put their names to covenants, not

conceived according to Mr Caird's liberal principle, and so pledge

their capital for the fulfilment of a bargain which common sense

declares, and experience proves, to be preposterous. The necessary

consequence will be, that the rent must be paid out of capital,

a process which cannot last long; and the unhappy speculator, as

he finds his earnings disappearing, will curse the hour when he

yielded to the delusion, that high farming must be profitable in

spite of the variations of price. The poor seamstress, who weekly

turns out of hand her augmented number of improved shirts--and who

lately, though on exceedingly erroneous principles, has found a

warm advocate in the kind-hearted Mr Sydney Herbert--has, in her

own way, tested the value of the experiment. There is more cotton

to be shaped, and more work to be done, but the prices continue to

fall. She makes two additional shirts, but she receives nothing for

the additional labour, because the remuneration for each is beaten

down. The free-trade tariffs are the cause of her distress, but the

unfortunate creature is not learned in statistics, and therefore

does not understand the source of her present misery. No more,

probably, do the female population of the Orkney islands, whom Sir

Robert Peel reduced to penury some years ago, by a single stroke of

his pen, through the article of straw-plait. From Lerwick to the

Scilly Isles, the poor industrious classes were made the earliest

victims. The tiller of the land is liable to the operation of the

same rules. By the outlay of capital, he forces an additional crop,

but, the value of produce having fallen, his returns, estimated in

money, are just the same as before. If the maintenance of rents

throughout the United Kingdom depends simply upon the supply of

dupes, we are afraid that the Whig landlords will speedily find

themselves in a sorry case.

We by no means wish to treat this question as if Scotland alone were

concerned. The English agriculturist, who knows that strict economy

is the rule in northern farming, will readily acknowledge that our

observations have even greater force when applied to his own case.

It would have been presumption in us, had we passed beyond the

limits of our own field of illustration, which, however, will bear

comparison with any other. On the whole, we think it will hardly be

questioned, that, if high farming in the Lothians or on the Border

is a losing trade, it cannot be made profitable elsewhere within the

boundaries of Britain.

We are told that this is a landlord's question; and we find Messrs

Bright and Cobden, with more than their usual malignity, chuckling

over the prospects of the downfall of a class which they honour

with their rancorous hatred. They do not affect to disguise the

pleasure which they derive from knowing that, at this moment,

the rents are being paid from the farmer's capital; and, so far,

they bear important testimony to the truth of the calculations we

have submitted. It is not our business at present to diverge into

ethics, else we might be tempted to hazard a few observations on

the brutal and un-British spirit which pervades the whole of their

late harangues. All that we shall do now is to remark that they are

trying, by every means in their power, to persuade the tenantry of

Britain that this is a mere landlords' question; and we are bound

to confess, that such writers as Lord Kinnaird have materially

contributed towards fostering this delusion. A very little

consideration, however, will show the utter fallacy of such an

opinion; and we feel convinced that the good sense of the tenantry

of Scotland will interfere to prevent them from being led astray by

the devices of their inveterate enemies.

So far as we can gather from the opinions enunciated by the leaders

of the Manchester school, at their late gatherings, their view

resolves itself into this. Abolish the rents, and agriculture will

go on as before. Little argument is necessary to show, that the

proposition, even were it admitted, is by no means in favour of the

farmer.

Our excellent contemporary, _The Standard_, has already disposed of

it in a single sentence:--_Wipe off the rents, and you wipe away the

class which heretofore has paid the rents._ Mr Bright would fain

attempt to persuade the farmers that they are altogether independent

of the landlords, and that no suffering can reach them. Have then

the landlords, in most instances, expended nothing on the soil?

Their outlay does not appear in balance sheets, however large may be

its amount; but, were that outlay added to the farmer's expenditure

of capital, there can be no doubt that, even without rent, at

present prices, farming would be otherwise than profitable. But did

it never strike Mr Bright that, failing rents, the landlords must

necessarily take their farms into their own hands, as indeed has

occurred already in several districts of the country? We presume he

does not contemplate a quiet confiscation of estates--if he does,

confiscation will not stop there. We suppose the owner must still

have the option of keeping his property; and if so, as he will

derive no profit from it in the shape of rent, he must either farm

it himself, or act as labourer on wages under a farmer. We apprehend

there can be little doubt as to the course he will take, when

driven to such an extremity. As a body, tenant-farmers will cease

to exist. They may go to Poland if they please, and employ their

practical skill, and such remnant of capital as they can save from

the wreck of their fortunes, in the patriotic task of growing wheat

cheaper than before, for the British manufacturing market; but in

this country there will be no longer any room for them. We shall be

thankful to know if any course more feasible can be suggested; but

indeed ingenuity seems to be at fault, and the Free-traders hardly

affect to conceal their conviction that such must be the result.

The following extract from a leading article in the _Times_ of 6th

December, will show the views entertained by that very influential

journal.

"If any landowners or tenants are thoroughly persuaded that,

under the operation of free trade, land will yield no rent to

the owner, or no profit to the farmer, let them dispose of their

land or their farms. The whole world lies before them. The

funds, the share-market, trades and manufactures innumerable

and new ones every day, the colonies, the United States, the

Antipodes, Europe, and literally the whole surface of the globe,

is open to the enterprise of wealthy or ingenious men. Those

who regard an English landlord or yeoman as an animal to be

kept in a hothouse will think this very cruel advice, but it is

advice which nine-tenths of our fellow-subjects have to follow,

at least once in their lives. The law of change is impressed on

the whole face of society. Man improves by being transplanted

to new soils, and grafted on new stocks. Why should not the

heroic qualities of our gentry be employed in the improvement

of the world, and in the spread of civilisation, religion, and

manners? Why should not the skill of our farmers be turned to

account in making the whole earth bring forth its full produce?

As it happens, there are no classes actually concerned in the

material and operations of industry who can change their place

with so little difficulty or cost as the owners and cultivators

of the soil. The landowner can sell his estate, and buy another,

or invest the money in the funds, any day he pleases. The tenant

can dispose of his lease and his stock without much sacrifice.

Can an attorney, a physician or surgeon, a beneficed clergyman,

a merchant, a retail shopkeeper, or, indeed, any commercial

or professional person, change his locality ten miles without

sacrificing at least 30 or 50 per cent of his present income?

Yet many such are obliged to migrate, and resign present

income, besides all the other losses involved in a move, in the

mere hope of ultimately improving their condition. As for our

agricultural labourers, who, we are often told, are the staple

of our population, for many years the whole force and pressure

of our social institutions has been applied to compel their

migration. Landlord, tenant, parson, overseer, and even a man's

own fellow-labourers, are all in a conspiracy to elbow him out

of the crowd, and the sooner he yields to that pressure the

better. Why, then, should it be thought a hard thing to give the

same advice to the landowner and the farmer?"

So write the Free-traders, and we wish them joy of their argument.

Henceforth, then, we ought to abandon all foolish scruples connected

with home, and kindred, and country--all national considerations,

all the ties and common feelings that hitherto have held Englishmen

together! Truly, the cause which requires such advocacy as this must

be in a desperate condition. Such language however, extravagant and

puerile as it is, has some extrinsic value; for it shows us the

utter selfishness and entire disregard of the Free-traders for every

other interest in Britain except their own.

We shall probably be told that we are alarmists. It is no new charge

against us. The same thing was said when we denounced the policy

of government towards the West Indian interest, and also when we

foreshadowed the commercial crisis which overtook us in 1847. One

exception may be taken to our agricultural views, on the ground

that farms have been let in Scotland without any diminution of

rent. We allow that such is the case. We admit that, even during

the bygone year, there has been considerable competition for farms;

and we know very well that this circumstance has tended to allay

the fears of many. But, after all, what does it prove? Nothing

more, we apprehend, than that the farmer is most reluctant to

abandon the profession to which he has been bred, and in which his

capital is invested; and that, in times of notoriously unsettled

and vacillating legislation, he may be, perhaps, too sanguine as

to the possibility of another change. The fact that some farms,

in various parts of the country, have, of late, brought full and

even higher rents, is not enough to warrant the idea that present

engagements can be met. It does not follow that these will continue

to be paid; nor do the parties themselves, we presume, expect to be

able to fulfil their engagements, if future prices are such as we

have felt constrained to reckon them. We have seen of late, in other

matters, how easily people are deceived by sanguine anticipations;

and it has recently been lamentably proved, that it is often long

before disastrous events produce their due effect in indicating true

value. If, in the less intricate matter of railway speculations,

we have seen men who boasted of their superior information,

involving themselves in the downward course of these unfortunate

concerns, under the idea that the turning-point of depression had

been attained, and that golden profits might be realised, is it

marvellous if the farmer should be deceived in a matter which has

been so much mystified, and which his predilections and peculiar

position, in most instances, will not admit of his viewing calmly

and dispassionately, even if he possessed the means of correct

information? His education and habits compel him to endeavour to

continue his occupation at all hazards. If once he abandon his

calling, he is out of a situation as well as a home. It often

happens, besides, and now it is peculiarly the case, that, to

dispose of his stocking--a necessity incumbent upon the loss of his

farm--is to make a sacrifice of his property. At present, live stock

is from 15 to 20 per cent under what he has been in the habit of

receiving for the last few years. Hence, upon such a vexed question

as the effects of the corn laws, modified and free, have become, it

is only natural that, in his doubt, and darkness, and perplexity,

he should stretch a point to keep possession of his occupation;

trusting that, if matters continue to be adverse, his landlord will

have the like commiseration for him which it is his duty to testify

for his neighbour, who, under other circumstances, is also writhing

beneath the pressure. In such a case, rent becomes altogether a

question of chance, left to be modified and controlled by after

circumstances.

In this view it is not difficult to understand why farms falling

out of lease have been taken at rates absurdly disproportioned to

the present prices of agricultural produce. Ask any intelligent

farmer, who has placed himself in this position, and he will

frankly confess that he does not expect to be able to pay his rent,

unless some very material change in the value of produce shall take

place. How should he think otherwise? In the better districts of

Scotland, farming has been carried so high that there is hardly any

margin left for improvement. Up to a certain point, the soil may be

artificially stimulated; but, that point once reached, any further

appliances become positively hurtful, and defeat the intentions of

the grower. The flower of our tenantry--the men whose exertions

have made the land what it is--can go but a little way further.

Nor can the severest moralist tax them with a breach of probity

if they should enter into bargains which, under the operation of

the present laws, they cannot possibly fulfil. The legislature

took no account of them when it abolished protection. Parliament

dealt with them more tyrannically than any irresponsible monarch

would have dared to deal with a people far less intelligent and far

less cognisant of their rights. The laws have ceased to be, in the

estimation of the multitude, final. We now consider them, and most

justly, as mere make-shifts which cannot stand against the pressure

of a well-organised agitation; and men speculate on the probability

of their changes, just as gamblers make adventures on the probable

fluctuations of the funds. No man can deny that such is the case.

Free trade is in the ascendant to-day: to-morrow, protection may be

uppermost. A sad state of things truly; but such as must necessarily

occur, when statesmen, whose heads have grown hoary in office,

desert principle to adopt expediency, and repudiate the professions

of a whole lifetime, for the sake of outwitting their political

opponents. Our steadfast conviction is, that unsettled legislation

has tended more than anything else to prevent an immediate

depreciation in the rents. Foster gambling, and you create gamblers.

Farms are now taken on speculation, with the view, not to increased

production of the land, but to further changes in the experimental

policy of the nation.

But in reality we apprehend that such cases are the exception,

and not the rule. We have heard it trumpeted abroad that certain

farms in East Lothian were let during the course of last year at

an advance. We have taken pains to investigate this matter; and we

find on inquiry that, in some cases, such farms have been taken

by new men of little agricultural experience. Lord Kinnaird may

be glad to hear this, but we cannot view it in the light of an

encouraging symptom. Others, no doubt, have been retaken, probably

under the influence of such considerations as we have just stated.

Again, we find that some farms in the south of Scotland are very

differently situated now, than they were before. The extension of

the railway system has given to such of them as are near stations,

advantages which were enjoyed heretofore by such farms only as were

in the immediate vicinity of large towns; and in this way their

value has been increased. But it is quite evident, that, unless

some extraordinary fallacy lurks in the tables which we have given

above--unless the leading practical agriculturists of Scotland

are either possessed by some monstrous arithmetical delusion, or

banded in some organised conspiracy to mislead the public mind--no

exceptional case can be admitted as of any weight whatever in

determining the general question. On the part of ourselves, and of

our correspondents, we not only invite, but we broadly challenge

investigation. We desire that the truth may be made known, because

any delusion on either side must tend to the public detriment.

If our statistics should be admitted as correct, we think it must

be clear to demonstration that British agriculture cannot maintain

itself longer against the competition of the foreign grower. We

believe it impossible for any man who has attended to the minute

statements given above, to arrive at an opposite conclusion. No

appliances, no energy, no high farming, can avail in this ruinous

struggle. To expect that more capital will be embarked in so losing

a trade, is perfectly idle. Even if tenants had the wish to do so,

they would fail for the want of means. It will be seen from the

preceding tables what amount of capital is usually perilled on

Scottish farms, and what amount of loss, at present prices, the

farmer must necessarily sustain. Even in better times, few men could

afford to do as much as has already been done by the agriculturists

of the Lothians and Berwickshire; and, under existing circumstances,

the great body of the tenantry cannot find the means to continue

their ordinary operations. With capital exhausted and credit denied

to him, what is the farmer to do? The question is one which we

would fain see answered, and that immediately, by those who have

brought us to the present pass. It cannot remain long unanswered,

without such an augmentation of distress as must render all remedy

ineffectual.

So far we have spoken for the tenant, who, as an old contracting

party, has been utterly sacrificed by free-trade legislation. As a

new contractor, we have shown that he is placed under circumstances

of peculiar disadvantage, arising from ignorance as to his real

position, his past exertions, and his future prospects. Had we

spoken rashly on this matter, we should have been liable to the

utmost blame; but we have not put forward any one position which

is not based upon facts, laboriously ascertained, and closely

scrutinised; and all these are open to challenge, if any assailant

has the mind, or the power, to refute us. We state nothing which is

not founded on evidence of the clearest kind, and we shall be glad

if our statements can be met in a precisely similar manner.

We observe that Mr William Ewart Gladstone, in an address delivered

at the late meeting of the Fettercairn Farmers' Club, has taken a

different line of argument; and if his views should prove to be

correct, we must necessarily admit that the British agriculturist

has no ground for complaint at all. We are, it seems, making a vast

deal of noise without anything to justify it. We are clamouring

about an imaginary evil, when we ought to be deeply grateful for

natural benefits vouchsafed to us. So thinks Mr Gladstone, or at

least so he speaks; and as his undeniable talents, and the high

official position which he formerly occupied, entitle him to an

attentive hearing, we shall briefly recapitulate his views. These

are not new, for, if we recollect right, they were enunciated

so early as last spring by the Hon. Sydney Herbert, a gentleman

belonging to the same political section as Mr Gladstone, and they

were then triumphantly refuted by Mr John Ellman, in his letter

addressed to the Duke of Bedford. Since that time, however, another

harvest has intervened, and Mr Gladstone now takes up the argument

of his friend under better auspices, and with a greater show of

plausibility.

Foreign competition, according to Mr Gladstone, is not the cause

of low prices. "This is not," says he, "the first time that we

have had difficulties. We have had many periods when low prices

prevailed. Certainly, at present, prices are extremely low; but, in

many parts of the country, there is a sort of compensation for these

low prices arising from great abundance--the result of improved

processes of growing the crop, and, of consequence, an improved

yield. With regard to the cause of declining prices, I cannot adopt

the line of argument of those who look only to importations as the

chief cause. I do not pretend to speak so accurately of Scotland,

but, as to England, _the wheat crop this year was the largest ever

known_. Upon one single acre of land, of average quality, no less

than sixty-eight bushels of wheat have been taken from the crop of

this year. I must also point out the fact to you, that, although the

crop is the largest, the prices are by no means the lowest we have

seen--for instance, in the year 1835, when the sliding-scale was in

full operation, we had wheat at 35s. per quarter, _and this not only

for a short time, but for the whole year_. If it be true, therefore,

that, at the present time, we have prices 5s. per quarter higher

than they were in 1835, with a corn-law prohibitory till wheat rose

to 70s. per quarter, then I cannot see that we have any such great

cause for alarm as many imagine."

The first remark that we shall make with reference to this

statement, is, that it is _utterly incorrect_. We do not know from

what source Mr Gladstone ordinarily draws his figures, but if any

one will consult the official tables of returns for the year 1835,

he will find that the average of wheat was 39s. 4d., and not 35s.,

as Mr Gladstone has unwarrantably asserted. We have gone over the

weekly averages for the whole of that year, and we find that wheat

was _never once quoted_ so low as 35s. In a matter of this kind,

accuracy is a cardinal virtue, and we cannot allow such a statement

as this to pass unnoticed. The following are _the lowest_ weekly

and aggregate averages for the whole year, taken from the official

tables, and we have purposely selected these in order that Mr

Gladstone may have the full benefit of the nearest approximation to

his figures.

LOWEST WEEKLY AND AGGREGATE AVERAGES

THROUGHOUT THE YEAR 1835.

1835. Weekly Aggregate

average. average.

_s._ _d._ _s._ _d._

January, 40 1 40 7

February, 40 4 40 10

March, 39 8 40 0

April, 39 3 39 1

May, 38 6 38 11

June, 39 8 39 5

July, 40 5 40 1

August, 40 4 42 5

September, 37 7 39 2

October, 36 11 37 3

November, 36 7 36 9

December, 36 0 36 8

What, then, are we to think of Mr Gladstone's averment, that, in

1835, we had wheat at 35s., "and this not only for a short time,

but for the whole year?" Not even for the week have we a vestige of

any such quotation! This is blunder the first, and it is so serious

a one, that, on his own showing, it is enough to invalidate the

whole of his argument. IT IS NOT A FACT "that, at the present time,

we have prices 5s. per quarter higher than they were in 1835." The

difference is a fractional part of a shilling; and if Mr. Gladstone

wishes to find a time when the prices were five shillings lower than

at present, he must go back to the year 1779; and, in travelling

towards that period, he will meet with some startling facts in

the financial history of the country, which are well worthy of

observation. In 1779, he will find wheat at 33s. 8d., the produce

of such a harvest that the export of grain exceeded the import by

217,222 quarters. But he will also find that the national debt, at

that period, was just one-fourth of what it now is; and that the

poor-rates of England, instead of touching eight millions, were

considerably short of two.

Secondly, it is not true that the last wheat crop was the largest

ever known in England. This is a wild and utterly extravagant

assertion. The bygone crop was a good one, less on account of

quality than of gift; but every agriculturist knows that, within

the experience of the present generation, we have had far finer

crops. That of 1815 was enormous in its yield--so great that we

did not import a single quarter of grain, and the average price of

wheat for that year was 63s. 8d. The crop of 1822 was not very much

inferior. These are notorious instances; but in order to ascertain,

with as much precision as possible, the relative quality of the

bygone crop, we submitted the statement of Mr. Gladstone to one of

the most extensive corn-dealers in Leith, and the following is his

reply. "Mr. Gladstone's statement is certainly very unlike that of a

person of his high authority; though I conceive it as calculated to

do much mischief in the present depressed state of the corn-trade,

as many people will judge of it from Mr. Gladstone's high standing.

In my opinion, however, nothing can be more absurd than estimating

a crop by a _yard_ in any field, or by a single acre. We hear now

a great deal of the land being more productive, by draining and

other improvements; and it was to be expected that, when a good

wheat season occurred, we should have more wheat than in previous

years; but, from all the confirmation we have yet obtained, I am by

no means disposed to believe that the last crop is a great one, far

less that it is greater than ever known. The present generation, I

have no doubt, have seen larger crops of wheat than our forefathers;

but I think 1814, 1815, 1822, 1825, 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834, 1835,

1841, and 1842, were better seasons than the last. Essex, and

several other English counties which had bad crops in 1848, have

much greater crops in 1849; but Lincolnshire, and several other very

important counties, have very deficient crops on certain varieties

of soil. All that can be said of the present crop is, that it is

a full one, generally speaking. More of it, I am sure, will yield

under 40 bushels an acre than over 40; and very little, indeed, 60

or 68, as Mr. Gladstone says a _single_ acre has produced." So much

for the general yield; let us now revert to the seasons which Mr.

Gladstone has selected for comparison.

The crop of 1835 was not only larger than that of 1849, but it came

to us under circumstances which entirely preclude a comparison

of the years, if prices are to be taken as a criterion. THE CROP

OF 1835 WAS THE LAST OF A SERIES OF FINE ONES. We subjoin the

statistics from 1830, which was a bad season, to 1836, when the

harvest was again unfavourable:--

Year. Quarters imported. Average price.

_s._ _d._

1830, 1,701,889, 64 3

1831, 1,491,631, 66 4

1832, 325,435, 58 8

1833, 82,346, 52 11

1834, 64,653, 46 2

1835, 28,483, 39 4

1836, 24,826, 48 6

It will thus be seen that it was a succession of good harvests

which brought down the prices gradually from 66s. 4d. in 1831, to

39s. 4d. in 1835. Last year we had one good harvest following a

remarkably bad one, and yet Mr Gladstone would attempt to persuade

us that the present reduction of price arises solely from excessive

plenty, as in 1835! If it were so, where would be the room for that

importation, which, during the first eight months of the bygone

year, has more than doubled that of 1848, for the corresponding

period? For his own sake, we are sorry to find Mr Gladstone

resorting to fallacies so exceedingly flimsy and transparent. Surely

he must be aware that the extreme depreciation of price, which is

the cause of agricultural distress, could not by any possibility be

the result of the late harvest--for this unanswerable reason, that,

in the earlier parts of the year, before the corn had shot in the

fields, prices were rapidly dwindling. The deficient crop of 1848

could not have put prices down--we presume that even Mr Gladstone

will not maintain _that_--and yet, for the week ending April 7, 1849

we find the averages of England as follows:--

AVERAGE PRICES OF GRAIN FOR WEEK ENDING APRIL 7, 1849.

Wheat. Barley. Oats. Rye. Beans. Pease

44s. 5d. 28s. 9d. 16s. 9d. 26s. 5d. 28s. 1d. 29s. 6d.

So then, after a poor crop in 1848, we find prices lower than they

were in 1834, after a series of fine crops, and we are calmly asked

to adopt the conclusion that a single good crop in 1849 has done

all the mischief! Mr Gladstone might just as well tell us that our

present prices are affected by the crop of 1850, which is now lying

in embryo in the seed.

But we have not yet done with Mr Gladstone, who goes on to assert

that low prices have nothing to do with importations from abroad.

This position he tries to fortify by rather an ingenious process, as

will be seen from the following extract from his speech:--

"Let me point out also that I had the curiosity to obtain an

account of the last month's importations into this country, and,

on comparing the same with those of 1848, the decrease this year

is very remarkable; and, besides, with diminished importations

this year, must be taken into account the fact, that from the

condition of the crop this year, as compared with the last, the

value of our grain is at least 5s. superior to the mere nominal

price. In October, last year, you had good prices for wheat;

in this year, bad. I ask, was this owing to importations from

abroad, or was it not? I give you the result in figures, which

I think will convince you what is the reason of the low prices.

In October 1848, the importation of wheat to this country was

no less than 506,000 quarters; in 1849, it is only 154,000

quarters. How are we to account for this, but simply from the

great abundance of wheat at home this year, while in 1848 the

supply was somewhat short; and, so far as regards the English

farmer, I consider he is better off this year, with his large

crop and low prices, than he was last, with his small crop and

high prices."

If anything could make us lose our patience, while dealing with

so momentous a subject, it would be the sight of such statements

as these. Observe how the matter stands. Mr Gladstone is arguing

that importations from abroad do not affect prices here, and, by

way of proof, he gives us the statistics of a single month. He

says--Last October you had good prices and large importations: this

October you have bad prices and diminished importation. _Ergo_,

importations have nothing to do with prices! Is Mr Gladstone

ignorant of the fact, that, for the first eight months of the year

1849, the quantity of grain imported was more than double that of

the preceding season, and that almost every warehouse in our ports

is filled almost to bursting with foreign grain? Is he aware that

this diminished import for October, if extended over the year, would

give an amount greater than was brought in during any famine year

previous to 1839? Let us see how this matter stands, adopting his

very favourable calculations.

IMPORTS OF WHEAT AND WHEAT FLOUR

IN BAD SEASONS.

Quarters.

1810, 1,491,341

1817, 1,020,949

1818, 1,593,518

1829, 1,364,200

1830, 1,701,889

1838, 1,834,452

The October imports, which Mr Gladstone considers as being reduced

in consequence of the good harvest at home, would, if spread over

the year, amount to 1,848,000 quarters--being very little less than

the average amount imported from 1836 to 1840, when we had five

bad or indifferent seasons in succession. Mr Gladstone, however,

we apprehend, leaps too rapidly at his conclusions. He should have

waited until the frost set in, and then, perhaps, he might have been

able to point to a materially diminished importation. We should

like to know how he will dispose of the ascertained statistics for

November. They are as follows:--

IMPORTS OF FOREIGN GRAIN INTO UNITED

KINGDOM, FOR NOVEMBER 1849.

Quarters.

Wheat and wheat flour, 215,134

Barley and barley meal, 90,304

Oats and oat meal, 114,311

Rye and rye meal, 6,201

Beans, 19,061

Pease, 22,269

Indian corn, 46,306

Buckwheat, 30

being equal to 513,615 quarters of all kinds of grain for the month!

These are the diminished importations! But we shall come down

even later, and inquire what sort of proportion the arrivals of

foreign grain bear to those of British growth in the London market,

according to the last accounts. We copy from the _Times_ of December

11:--

"CORN EXCHANGE, Monday, _Dec. 10._--Throughout the past week,

there have been good arrivals of wheat, barley, and oats into

this market from abroad, although of wheat the quantity reported

has been less than of other grain. Of English corn of any kind,

(if we except barley,) the total reports are insignificant, and

but a few cargoes of oats from Ireland. The state of the trade,

on the several market days, was languid, and even at lower

prices for barley and oats, buyers were indisposed to get into

stock."

The following is a statement of the arrivals of grain at London

from the 3d to the 8th of December, which may serve to indicate the

sources from which the population of our vast metropolis is fed; and

we leave Mr Gladstone to reconcile it, as he best can, with his new

theory of importations:--

British Foreign

Qrs. Qrs.

Wheat, 4601 19,617

Barley, 6144 19,842

Oats, 7370 21,718

Rye, 514

Beans, 962 337

Pease, 1077 6,713

____ ____

20,154 68,741

So then, after the harvesting of "the largest wheat crop ever known

in England," and at the dead season of the year, when the navigation

of the Elbe is closed, the importation of foreign wheat into the

London market exceeds the arrival of English wheat by a ratio of

nearly five to one! And, with such facts before us, we are forbidden

to believe that imports affect prices! We hope, when we next meet Mr

Gladstone, to find him in a more logical humour, and better prepared

with his facts.

It is not surprising if, in a controversy of this kind, we should

find the Free-traders openly contradicting each other, and very

often themselves, in the advice which they gratuitously offer to the

agriculturist. One section recommends further outlay on the land,

more extended and elaborate tillage, and prophesies in return an

augmented cereal crop. Another totally repudiates this view, but

advises that the loss should be made good by green crops, wider

pastures, and an infinite multiplication of cattle. The former

philanthropists want more grain; the latter insist upon an extended

consumption of butcher meat. The tendency of late legislation has

been in favour of the latter view, and the consequence has been a

depreciation in the value of cattle throughout the kingdom, of at

least from 15 to 20 per cent. The consumer has not yet got the full

benefit of it, but the farmer has incurred the loss; and we know

instances of pasturings on which, for the last two years, not a

single shilling of profit has been realised. The cattle when sent to

market, after being fattened, have brought the same price which was

given for them in their lean and hungry condition. The Free-traders

are very bold about cattle, alleging that, in this respect, there

is nothing to fear from the effects of foreign competition. And

undoubtedly, to a casual observer, this would appear to be one

of the least objectionable parts of their scheme. Still there

is something mysterious in the fact of the great depreciation.

The prices of cattle have fallen, until profit has been nearly

extinguished; and if we exclude altogether the idea of foreign

competition, the necessary conclusion will be, that the supply has

vastly exceeded the demand. This is but poor comfort to those who

are told to look to green crops for their remuneration. But we

think that the subject requires a closer examination than it has

yet received. We are convinced that the depreciation of live stock

is intimately connected with importation, and the result of our

inquiries will show whether we are right or wrong. But first let us

glance at the ascertained effects of importation under the relaxed

tariff.

The first fruit of the unrestricted trade in live stock--which

exhibited a number that mounted up, for the first five years, at a

rate increasing annually fourfold, until the number of "oxen and

bulls" reached from 1385 in 1843, to 27,831 in 1848--was no doubt

sufficiently alarming. But, judging from the trade of the year

ending 1848, and of the present season, this influx would appear

to have reached its full. Assuming this to be the case--as the

entire number would not, on a rough calculation, furnish more than

a week or ten days' supply of beef to the whole country--perhaps

there is not much reason to apprehend any great depression in

home prices from the influence of the importation of foreign

_live_ stock. Besides, from the tendency of recent improvements in

agriculture--should these fortunately continue in operation--to

increase materially the supplies of beef and mutton, it is possible

that these necessaries could, in future, be afforded at such a

price as to exclude the probability of any great accession to our

importations for many years.

We believe that the only considerable harm which has resulted from

the importation of live stock, has been the importation of two

very fatal diseases, which have, since then, carried off numbers

of cattle and sheep, and which, like most epidemics, will in all

human probability become permanent. The mortality was so serious,

that Parliament has already passed an act establishing a sort of

conditional quarantine; and it has been calculated by those who are

skilled in such matters, that the number of animals that have died

in consequence, is considerably greater than the whole amount of

the importation. In this way it is easy to reckon the amount of our

losses and our gains.

But there is a farther importation of butchers' meat in another

shape, which is far more difficult to contend against--namely, that

of "cured beef, bacon, and pork." The importation of these articles

has increased so rapidly and enormously, since the introduction of

free trade--the two latter to upwards of sixfold since 1847--that

the whole together, it may be reckoned, now afford a quantity of

food exceeding in weight four times that of the "oxen and bulls"

imported during the last year. This is a mere beginning, but already

the effects of it have been widely and calamitously felt. It is

not only affecting the graziers, but it is displacing a large and

hitherto flourishing trade, both in Britain and in Ireland; and, if

carried out further, as it clearly will be, not one single rallying

point or chance of escape will be left to the British agriculturist.

The following is the statement of a Liverpool correspondent, dated

6th December last:--

"I enclose you a price-current, with the latest quotations of

American provisions, which are the prices to the wholesale dealers.

In the best qualities of beef and pork, the trade generally get 5s.

to 10s. a package profit, and on an _ordinary_ article a much larger

margin is allowed.

"American beef is far superior to Irish, and brings more money. The

import of the latter is about 1000 tierces--of the former, 20,000

tierces. Irish pork stands higher than American, and the finest

quality eastern will sell within 5s. per barrel of Irish. The import

of Irish is about 3000 barrels--of American, 35,000 barrels."

The following table will show the comparative prices of Irish and

American produce:--

_Comparative Table of Prices of Irish and American Provisions at

Liverpool, in December 1849._

Irish. American.

Prime mess beef, per _s._ _s._ _s._ _d._ _s._

tierce, 304 lbs., 80 to 85 67 6 to 81

Prime mess pork, per

barrel, 200 lbs., 62 to 66 34 0 to 60

Mess do., per do., 54 to 60 45 0 to 50

Bacon, per cwt., 45 to 48 30 0 to 32

Lard, per do., 38 to -- 33 6 to 34

These are figures which may well astound the boldest Free-trader;

for they show that the provision trade is altogether passing from

our hands. To those who regard the welfare of Great Britain, they

furnish additional proof of the headlong rate of our decline. But

we have yet other statements to make, for which, we are certain, no

one was prepared, though the facts they disclose are the necessary

consequence of such comparative prices as we have just given. _We

believe that the British navy, which is victualled by contract, is

at this moment supplied from foreign, and not British produce!_

We crave the special attention of the reader to the following letter

from a gentleman residing in Dundee, who stands nearly at the head

of the meat-curing business in Scotland. We have authority to give

his name, if that should be considered necessary. His letter bears

date 12th November 1849:--

"In reply to the queries put to me by you, as to the value, &c.

of foreign provisions, I beg leave to hand you a statement of the

difference of price of Scotch and American beef, calculating the

Scotch beef at the present low price of 40s. per cwt., and the

present price of my American prime mess beef at 87s. 6d. per tierce

of 304 lbs., the quality of which is not inferior to the best Scotch

beef.

Present price of Scotch beef, from

butcher, 40s. per cwt., or for 304

lbs., £5 8 6

Price of tierce, 5s. 6d.--expense of

curing, 4s., 0 9 6

In leakage of weight. 0 7 6

Allowance of value between necks,

shanks, and prime beef, 0 2 6

________

Present price of one tierce

Scotch beef, £6 8 0

Present price of my prime

mess American beef, 4 7 6

________

Difference, £2 0 6

"By this statement you will see that there is a difference of £2,

Os. 6d. per tierce, or 14s. 9d. per cwt., in favour of the American;

besides, I allow 2-1/2 per cent off for cash, which I hardly think

the butcher does at the above price. Neither am I the importer of

this beef, but purchase at the sales in Liverpool, though a broker;

neither am I an underseller, 87s. 6d., (2-1/2 per cent off,) being

about the general price for such an article in various markets.

Owing to the low price and excellent quality of American beef,

almost every ship from this port, going to the south, takes it in

preference to our home beef; and when in England, last month, we

found there was nothing else used by the English vessels, with the

exception of a little fresh beef, which they take with them when

they go out; and one house in London informed me that they had

supplied the navy with 3080 tierces of American beef.

"American pork can be purchased at a very low price, but as yet I

have seen none fine, and there are but few of our shipowners that

would take it. There is, however, hardly anything else than American

hams and flitch bacons sold in this and other manufacturing towns;

and although the quality is not fine, still the price is low, and

purchasers are to be found on that account.

"Hamburg beef and pork are both of a good quality, and sell

generally about 10s. per cwt. below the price of Scotch. I had,

however, an offer of 500 barrels from one of the largest houses in

Hamburg fully 15 per cent below what I can afford to cure Scotch;

it, however, being last year's cure, I did not accept of the offer.

"There are several houses opened lately in Hamburg, who are curing

a first-rate article in a first-rate style for the London market;

and one of my London correspondents, writing lately, informs me

of a house in London (to which I have sent a great quantity of

pickled pork for the last twenty years,) having opened a curing

establishment in Hamburg for the cure of pickled pork on the Scotch

system. It was doing up nicely, and affecting the market for Scotch

greatly; he adds that, from the price and quality of the article,

it would be a death-blow to the Scotch curers. I may also say that

it looks very like it. Some years ago I was curing about seven tons

a-week for the London market alone, and found plenty of demand; now,

at the present day, I can hardly get clear of two tons a-week, and

that at very low prices--so low, indeed, that we are compelled to

look for other markets in other places; and I am confining myself

principally to prime mess pork among the shipping of this and other

ports. These are facts which I can authenticate, as I have had many

years' experience in the curing both of beef and pork for home and

foreign markets; and you are at perfect liberty to make any use of

this information which you may think proper."

From this, and other statements of a similar nature which have

reached us, and which we refrain from inserting, solely on account

of the unusual space which our remarks must otherwise occupy,

we entertain no doubt whatever that in the article of meat the

competition is as formidable as in that of grain; and that there is

no limit to the extent of competition, save the ultimate inability

of the burdened British agriculturist to hold his ground against the

untaxed and unreciprocating foreigner. In a very short time, if the

system is not perfected at present, we may expect to see the rations

of the army, the stores of the navy, and the contracts for all large

establishments, supplied from foreign produce. The displacement of

home industry, and the extinguishment of important trades indicated

in the foregoing letter, are perhaps matters of minor importance in

such a revolution as this: nevertheless, they are too serious to be

contemplated without the greatest alarm.

So stands the agricultural interest at this moment--an interest, be

it observed, in which the prosperity of wellnigh three-fourths of

the population of this mighty empire is concerned. We might say,

with perfect truth, the interest of the whole population; but as

those of the Manchester school deny their identity with the rest of

us, we must exclude them; and they cannot think us ungracious or

illiberal if we assign to them a number of adherents far greater

than we believe they actually possess. These are the effects of

what they call free trade; BUT FREE TRADE IT IS NOT, being simply

the most shameful species of one-sided and partial legislation. The

Manchester men dare not, for their souls, carry out the principle

to its full extent. The agriculturist has a right to demand that

this shall be done; that, exposed as he is to the competition of

the world, and burdened, as he must remain, with debts contracted

ages ago to the profit of the capitalist, and burdens swollen to

their present amount by manufacturing pauperism, no other class

shall be protected from a similar free competition. No plea for

revenue duties to be raised upon customs can be held valid in equity

now. Why should there still exist a protective duty of from ten

to fifteen per cent against foreign manufactures? Why is any one

portion of our consumption to be taxed, whilst another is allowed

to go free? Are we not entitled to demand that the same measure

which has been dealt to us, shall be meted out to every man in Great

Britain and Ireland, let his trade or occupation be what it may?

Are we not entitled to say this much to the manufacturers, who were

foremost in the late movement--You have compelled us to compete

with Poland for grain on equal terms: you therefore must in future

compete with the foreign manufacturer on a similar condition of

equality? Why are we to pay fifteen per cent duty for foreign silk

manufactures; for velvets, gauzes, satins, and suchlike? Why ten

per cent for more than a hundred articles of consumption, including

cotton, woollen, and hair manufactures, lace, gauze, brass, brocade,

stoneware, steel, &c.? Why should we be prohibited from growing, if

we can do it, our own tobacco? Why are Messrs Cobden and Bright,

and their confederates, to nestle under the wing of protection,

whilst the agriculturalist is left utterly bare? Apart from policy,

and simply on the ground of justice, we denounce such infamous

partiality. If, without even the shadow of a coming reciprocity on

the part of foreign nations, we are desired to face competition, let

there be no exceptions whatever. There can be, and there is, no just

medium between entire free trade and equitable protection for all.

The voice of the whole nation will ere long declare that no such

medium shall exist. What enormous amount of benefit have Manchester

manufacturers conferred upon the community at large, that they are

to be bolstered up by customs' duties, whilst the agriculturist is

trodden under foot? What fractional portion of the greatness of this

country has been achieved by the professors of the spinning-jenny

and the billy-roller, who now, in defiance of history and of fact,

would fain persuade us that THEY, forsooth, are the flower of

Britain, the oracles of its wisdom, the regulators of its policy,

the masters of the destiny of mankind?

It has been the fashion of late, for those gentlemen, to talk as if

the British farmers were infinitely behind the rest of the world in

activity and intelligence. It has been insinuated, that they are

unworthy occupants of an exceedingly fertile soil, the capabilities

of which they have not tested, through indolence and prejudice. Some

such accusation is implied, in all the late stimulating exhortations

to increased exertion; and Lord Kinnaird does not hesitate to

tell us so, almost in as many words. These are, no doubt, recent

discoveries, for it is not long since we were told, by the very

same parties, that the superior agricultural skill of our farmers

was such as to set foreign competition at defiance! That was one of

the principal arguments employed for effecting the repeal of the

corn laws; but now, when the results have proved totally contrary

to anticipation, it is convenient to turn round, and accuse the

farmer of a total want of those very qualities which were assigned

as reasons for the change. The obvious fallacy in the first

proposition, does not make the inconsistency of the second a whit

less monstrous. No wonder if the insult should be bitterly felt by

the agriculturist.

We are perhaps too apt, at the present moment, to allow the former

promises of the Free-traders to slip out of memory. If we were to

search through the abandoned rubbish of the League, we should find

ample evidence of the gross fraud which was passed upon the country

by the leaders of that nefarious faction. On the 19th December last,

we find Mr Cobden, at Leeds, speaking as follows:--"I have always

contemplated a transition state in this country, when there would

be pinching and suffering in the agricultural class in passing

from a vicious system to a sound one; for you cannot be restored

from bad health to good without going through a process of languor

and suffering. I have always looked forward to that time." If this

statement be true--if Mr Cobden did "always contemplate" such a

state of matters--it would not be difficult to convict him of

something worse than hypocrisy. Three days later, at the memorable

meeting held at Huntingdon, Mr G. Day, one of the speakers, made

the following pithy remarks:--"He would refer, however, to the

magnificent promises which had been held out by Mr Cobden as certain

to be realised by free trade, and to do so he was free to refer to

his letters. 'First, with regard to the landlord, I do not mean to

say that the landlords will not get as good rents with free trade

as they have now with monopoly: No doubt they will get on a great

deal better with free trade. The landlord has nothing to fear.'

Again, he said, 'The landlords will have the same rents with free

trade as they have at present.' In speaking of the tenant-farmers

he said, 'The tenant-farmer will under free trade be an independent

man. I say that the farmer has nothing to fear from competition.'

With regard to the poor, what did this gentleman say? 'There

would be no complaining poor in our streets, no income-tax, no

property-tax, no poor-rates, but all classes would be benefited by

the adoption of free trade.' These were the promises made to them by

a free-trader--the leader of them; and in the _Bread-Tax Circular_,

No. 146, page 255, they would find what he had read to them--Mr

Cobden's own words."

Does Mr Cobden admit that he wrote this circular? If he does,

perhaps he will be good enough to explain how he reconciles the

views contained in it with his new assertion that he always

contemplated a transition state of suffering for the agricultural

class? We recommend him, for his own sake, to clear this matter up.

Rash averments may be pardoned; but deliberate double-dealing, never.

"It is cruel," writes one of our correspondents, a practical

farmer of great experience, "that the advocates of the measure, in

their exultation, should pretend not to see that the facts of the

case have revealed a much more alarming aspect to their opponents

than they anticipated; and that even the danger to themselves,

from this cause, does not bring conviction of the falsity of

their views. They affect to blame the farmer for ignorance, want

of skill and enterprise--forgetting that, not long since, he

was wont to be held up as a pattern of all that was superior in

agricultural advancement, and that our island stands conspicuous

among foreigners for its garden cultivation. Still, we are told,

it is want of energy, and of a free application of capital, which

prevents the British farmers from successfully competing with

the Continent: as if overwhelming supplies of foreign corn, and,

consequently, a greatly reduced price, were not sufficient reasons

to oblige the agriculturist to modify the enterprise, and curtail

the expenditure for which he had hitherto been so distinguished.

Such unjust reflections may serve to raise up and maintain a feeling

of prejudice against the farmer, and to bring him into obnoxious

comparison with other arts, where science has fortunately been more

successfully applied; but it is not to be expected, that a hopeless

rivalry, and a low price, are to have the effect of stimulating to

efforts and outlay, beyond what was induced by protection and a

remunerating return.

"It has been customary to bring the farmer's position into

contrast with that of the manufacturer, who is said to fear no

foreign competition. But is the comparison a just one? The British

manufacturer possesses every advantage and appliance to render his

productions superior, and, consequently, also cheaper. Britain

is the great mart of all the chief staples of new produce. Her

machinery is the best--her fuel is the cheapest. On the other

hand, the farmer here is deficient in _raw material_. He labours

an obstinate soil, for the use of which he pays high; while his

climate--the main element to give security and save expense--is far

inferior to that of his rival."

Our friend might have gone further; for, if we enter into the

comparison, we shall find that the British farmer has taken more

advantage of his natural position than the British manufacturer. The

true way of arriving at a just conclusion upon this point is, by

contrasting, in the first instance, the natural advantages enjoyed

by either class.

The motive power of the British manufacturer is derived from coal,

of which he has an unlimited supply: the motive power of the British

farmer is, except to a very small extent, dependent upon animals,

which is infinitely more expensive and tedious; requiring more work

with less command of power. The manufacturer can try any experiment

he pleases, either in the construction of his machinery or in the

texture of his fabric, in the course of a few days or weeks, and

adopt or reject it as best suits his purpose: the farmer cannot

attempt any experiment upon his crops without waiting a whole

year for the result; nor any upon his live stock in less than two

or three years. In the mean time, his expenses and rent go on as

usual. The British manufacturer is not dependent on the climate:

the British farmer is altogether so dependent; the climate of this

country being proverbially uncertain and changeable, and very often

ungenial. We apprehend, therefore, that, as to natural advantages,

the home manufacturer stands on a far more advantageous footing

than the home agriculturist.

Let us next contrast the state of the two classes abroad. The

foreign manufacturer has few natural advantages. He does not possess

the command of coal for his motive power, but is compelled to erect

his factory on the bank of some stream, without regard, otherwise,

to the convenience of the locality. Iron for machinery is far

more expensive abroad than here; in fact, most of the Continental

machinery is directly exported from Britain. On the other hand, the

foreign farmer has all the advantages of an equable, rich soil, and

of a good and steady climate.

Now, then, let us see how far the British manufacturer, with all

his natural advantages, has surpassed his foreign rival. Does

he make a _better_ article than the foreigner? Can he beat the

German linen, the Russian duck, the Swiss calico, the Saxon or

Austrian broad-cloth, the porcelains of Dresden and Sèvres, or

the silks, stained papers, and prints of France? If not, where

is his superiority? As to _designs_, it is notorious that he is

infinitely behind the Continent. No doubt he sends ship-loads of

flimsy textures, with flaring colours and incongruous patterns,

to semi-barbarous countries; and he can deluge the markets of the

world with cheap goods, so furbished and tricked out that they sell

from appearance only. But what hold has he of the Continent? He

cannot compete with the manufacturers there in point of _quality_:

if he could make a better article, no Zollvereins or combinations

would be able to keep him out. These remarks apply to the bulk of

our manufactures, which are made for foreign export; and these,

in point of quality, are precisely what we have described them.

There are undoubtedly high class manufacturers here, especially

in the woollen and linen trades, who supply the home market with

high class goods. But how do they stand? _They are protected from

foreign competition._ It is in their favour that the highest import

duties remain; and, were those restrictions removed to-morrow, they

would be undersold in the British market. If any one thinks we are

wrong in this matter, we shall be glad to hear him explain why the

duties remain? It cannot be for _revenue_, since, if the British

manufacturer can beat his foreign rival, without reciprocity, in

the foreign market, it would be an absurdity to suppose the tables

turned, and the foreign manufacturer paying duty solely for the

sake of offering us a worse article in Britain. If not for revenue,

why are the duties continued by statesmen who have declared for

free trade? The answer is clear. _These are protective duties_;

and they are continued for this reason, that, with all his natural

advantages, the British manufacturer is not able to set Continental

competition at defiance.

Lastly, let us look to the British farmer, in so far as energy

and enterprise are concerned, in contrast with _his_ rival. Here

no detailed statement is necessary. In spite of all natural

disadvantages, the soil of Britain is better tilled than that of

any other country. We ask with a natural pride, greater perhaps

on account of adverse circumstances, whether the husbandry of the

Lothians or of the Border counties can be matched anywhere out of

Britain? Where, on the surface of the globe, are the agriculturists

who have approached our tenantry in the free outlay of capital,

ready intelligence, persevering enterprise, and high professional

skill? And yet these men, admittedly at the head of their craft, are

to be told, forsooth, that they have been indolent and ignorant; and

that retired tradesmen and shopkeepers would make far better farmers

than they!

Judging from results, then, which of the two classes has best done

its duty to the state? Which of the two has availed itself most of

the advantages which lay within its reach, and done most to overcome

the power of natural disadvantages? We apprehend that, in all

respects, the efforts of the agriculturist have been greater than

those of the manufacturer. If the former is to fall a sacrifice,

let it not at least be said that his indolence provoked his fate.

Out of agriculture manufactures arose; and it is now, we presume,

the intention of our rulers, that the one shall decay, and the

other survive: that the former shall fall unprotected, and the

latter struggle on with the whole monopoly of protection. If so,

the results are clear enough. The manufacturer who the other day

accosted Mr Muntz in the following terms:--"We have eaten up the

West Indian planters, we have eaten the Irish landlords, we have

finished the colonies, and now we are at the farmers; and I don't

know that we won't be eaten ourselves,"--saw plainly the effect of

our legislation. Mr Cobden sees its effect as well; but now, at the

eleventh hour, when the tide is turning against him, he is straining

every nerve to maintain his false position. It is the misfortune of

demagogues, but a great blessing to the rest of mankind, that they

invariably become intoxicated with the first draught of success,

and seldom recover their reason. So is it with Cobden now. His

late rabid harangue at Leeds, in which he ransacked the vocabulary

for terms of abuse to heap upon the landed gentry, was perhaps the

most insolent speech ever uttered in a free nation. Surrounded by

his fetid chimneys, and his squalid dupes, he assumes the tone of

a dictator, holds out threats of annihilation to all who dare to

question his policy, and actually throws the gauntlet of defiance

to the constituencies of the United Kingdom! There is no mistake

at all about the force and significance of his SHALL. Right or

wrong, every man in this empire must walk as Cobden directs him,

else some nondescript vial of unutterable wrath and retribution is

to be poured on his devoted head. These are not the arguments of

a reasonable man, but the ravings of a positive maniac. They will

delude no one, whilst they serve to show the base nature of the

man who utters them. The gladiator of old, blowing sulphur flames

through a hollow nut, and passing himself off for a god, was not

a more rank impostor than this seven times baffled prophet. Is

it not something unparalleled in the annals of assurance to find

this person, himself protected, declaiming against all protection,

save that of his immediate class, and avowing his deliberate

determination to overthrow every institution of the country, if we

shall cease from enriching the Polish magnates at the expense of

the British labourer? Let us see what this man is doing. He, whose

fortunes were notoriously redeemed by the questionable wages of

agitation, is now publicly announcing his intention, if thwarted,

of pursuing a line of conduct which would necessarily result in

the abolition of the monarchy, and the establishment of a republic

in Britain. There is no mistaking the tendency of the hints which

are thrown out by him and his fellows. They abstain, indeed, and

certainly wisely for themselves, from broadly proclaiming their

ends in such language as would bring them within the immediate

grasp of the law. They say nothing about the Crown, for that would

be dangerous; but they resolutely avow their determination, if

possible, to pull down the aristocracy; and they point to the

abolition of the House of Peers as a measure which, at some future

period, may engage their serious attention. Add to this their

perpetual laudation of American institutions, as preferable to

our own--their open and avowed sympathy with the insurgents of

democratic Europe--their bitter and malignant abuse of every one who

has been instrumental in putting down insurrection--their scheme for

abandoning the colonies as worthless appendages, and so breaking up

the integrity of the empire--their proposals, so violently urged

and reiterated, of such a reduction in the army and navy, as would

render both arms of the service utterly inefficient--add all these,

and we shall be at no loss to discover the real aim of this foul and

scandalous confederacy. We are aware that it is somewhat difficult

to define the limits of sedition; still Mr Cobden had better have

a care of his language whilst indulging in such revelations as he

has of late chosen to set forth. It will be no child's-play if he

actually should attempt to put the smallest of his threats into

practice.

Setting Mr Cobden aside, we have still an observation to make. It

is not a little edifying to contrast the tone assumed at present by

the disciples of the Manchester school with that which they adopted

after the passing of the disastrous measures of 1846. We were then

entreated, in Parliament and out of it, to give the experiment a

fair trial. It was admitted that divers extraordinary occurrences

had intervened to postpone the great advantages to the nation which

must flow from the opening of the ports, yet still we were asked

to believe that the calculations of Mr M'Gregor were perfectly

sound, and that in a little time all would be well. We have

waited, patiently enough, until the last fragment of agricultural

protection has been removed--until it is obvious to every one, save

an exporting and protected manufacturer, that nothing short of

protection can save the landed interest of Great Britain from total

ruin--and until ruin, in its worst shape, has already overtaken

Ireland. And what was it that we waited for? RECIPROCITY; the sole

thing which, by the acknowledgment of the Peel party, could justify

the experiment. RECIPROCITY, which Mr Cobden promised us if we would

only show the example. Now that reciprocity is out of the question,

our antagonists turn round, revile us as fools for adhering to our

original opinions--though the experience of each succeeding year

has attested their accuracy and soundness--and, in the contemptible

cant of the day, denominate their free-trade policy "an accomplished

fact."

They are right in one sense. It is a fact that this great nation

has suffered itself to be misled by the machinations of a selfish

and unscrupulous faction. It is also a fact, that for a time these

machinations have been successful. But the great fact which now

concerns us is, that the British nation is fully alive to the

imposture; and that being the case, we entertain not the slightest

doubt as to the ultimate issue.

One word in conclusion to our friends. It is the policy of those

who are against us--and indeed their last desperate chance--to

promote disunion among the ranks of those who draw their subsistence

from the land, and whose welfare depends upon the agricultural

prosperity of Britain. They are trying to set the tenant against

the landlord, the labourer against the farmer; and their efforts

have been assisted, to no inconsiderable extent, by the folly of

weak men, who, in their terror, are attempting, by all the means in

their power, to shelter themselves from the consequences which they

thoroughly foresee. Our policy, as well as our duty, is to maintain

a firm and united front. It would be madness to suppose that among

the three great agricultural classes, there can be any disunion of

interest. Landlord and farmer depend upon each other; the one class

cannot be prostrated without the other falling a victim. And both

of them have a duty to perform to the labourer, which must not be

disregarded. He, as the lowest in the scale, is often the first to

suffer; but woe to our land if the labourer should be trodden under

foot!

We repeat that we have no fear for the future. We see on all hands

the unmistakeable signs of a mighty reaction, which cannot but

defeat the designs of that grasping faction for whose benefit alone

this ominous experiment has been made. Deeply as we deplore the

misery which has overtaken us, we must regard it as the penalty

incurred for having swerved from the old path by which Britain

attained her greatness--for having listened too readily to the

suggestions of selfish and incompetent men. The experience of

each succeeding month shows the error of the course we have been

pursuing, and demonstrates the necessity of a return. Why should

we fear? England--that noble country which stands pre-eminent

among the nations of the world for its loyalty, enterprise, and

independence--for its regard to sterling worth in the lowest,

as well as the highest sphere--has awakened from its momentary

trance. The voice of the people, before which that of faction must

be silenced, is proclaiming, in clear and articulate language,

that the virtual possession of its free and unviolated soil shall

not be yielded, through fraud, to the foreigner, who never could

have taken possession of it by force of arms; and that the English

yeomanry will not submit to be sacrificed or annihilated for the

wretched interest of a handful of manufacturers, whose gains are

dependent upon the extension of a foreign market. We rejoice to see

that the men of England are up and doing. Their energy, if rightly

directed, nothing can withstand. Cobden may bluster, as demagogues

always do; and Bright may insinuate revolutions which he has

neither the courage nor the power to attempt; but the day for such

trashy vapouring has gone by, and England will no longer allow her

greatness to be perilled at the bidding of such miserable upstarts.

The issue of the late elections, and the triumphant meetings which

are everywhere held in England, for the maintenance of her national

and agricultural prosperity, should excite us to similar efforts. If

our statements of what is occurring here can strengthen the hands of

our brethren in the south, we shall be more than amply repaid for

the pains we have expended in a close and laborious investigation.

England may not require support; but support is ready for her.

Ireland, from the depths of present misery, sees the hand which

is striving to keep her down, and prepares herself for another

struggle. Scotland will not remain inactive. Her interest is so

clear, that it would be almost wasting words to attempt to explain

it further. Let but this experiment go on for a few years longer,

and all that we have gained, by more than a century of unremitting

toil, will be lost to us: our improvements will be annihilated, and

our people pauperised. Deprived of her yeomanry, as noble a body

of men as exists upon the face of the earth, the nationality of

Scotland is gone. We trust, then, that in every part of the country

the appeal will be energetically answered. Scotsmen are slow to

move; but being moved, they have a will and resolution that can

bear down any obstacle whatever. There never was a time when the

old national spirit was more imperatively required to show itself

than now. Let us then speak out boldly in defence of our country,

and tell those Manchester conspirators, in answer to their insolent

challenge, that--beyond that circle of smoking factories, which they

falsely imagine to be the heart of Britain--there exists a majority

of loyal British subjects, who despise their dictation, detest their

hypocrisy, and utterly defy their power.

_Printed by William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh._

* * * * *

Transcriber's note:

The transcriber has inserted missing anchors for the following:

Footnote 5: AMERICAN ADVENTURE.[5]

Footnote 9: HOWARD.[9]

Footnote 17: Cospatrick's stronghold of Dunbar[17]

Minor typographical errors have been corrected without note.

Irregularities and inconsistencies in the text have been retained as

printed.

Mismatched quotes are not fixed if it's not sufficiently clear where

the missing quote should be placed.