Part 7 — BRITISH AGRICULTURE AND FOREIGN COMPETITION.

"I do say it is for the public advantage that I should say to him, (the farmer,) continue your improvements: I cannot undertake to guarantee to you, by legislation, a particular price; but this I will say, that as long as corn is under 51s., you shall not be exposed to the importation of foreign corn." So spoke Sir Robert Peel in February 1842, as the proposer of an excellent law for the improved regulation of the corn trade. The pledge was a distinct one; and the very homeliness of the language saves it from equivocal construction. In the course of the same debate, Sir Robert, with just and prudent caution, expressly abstained from committing himself to the obviously fallacious doctrine of a fixed remunerative price. He held, as we hold, that, according to varying circumstances, that remunerating price must vary. He did not, and could not, forget that, under war prices and war taxes, wheat could not be cultivated with profit in this country, unless the quarter sold for 80s.; neither was he blind to the fact, that we had seen the average price so low in 1835 as 39s. 4d., notwithstanding the operation of a highly protective law. But he also held that, although it was impossible, with all the aids which agricultural experiment and statistical science could bring, to fix an immutable price for the quarter of wheat—as he had previously done in the instance of the ounce of gold—still, from averages taken throughout the country for a series of years, it was possible to frame some general proximate conclusion, which the legislature was bound to keep in mind, whilst considering any laws or alterations of rates that might hereafter affect the interests of the British farmer. So that, when Sir Robert Peel enunciated the following opinions, we maintain that the principle which guided him was strictly correct; and we accept these as embodying the main argument that led to the conclusion, which we have placed above as the commencement and the text of this article. "Now, with reference to the probable remunerating price, I should say that, for the protection of the agricultural interest, as far as I can possibly form a judgment, if the price of wheat in this country, allowing for its natural oscillations, could be limited to some such amount as between 54s. and 58s., I do not believe that it is for the interest of the agriculturist that it should be higher. Take the average of the last ten years, excluding from some portion of the average the extreme prices of the last three years, and 56s. would be found to be the average; and so far as I can form an idea of what would constitute a fair remunerating price, I, for one, should never wish to see it vary more than I have said. I cannot say, on the other hand, that I am able to see any great or permanent advantage to be derived from the diminution of the price of corn beyond the lowest amount I have named, if I look at the subject in connexion with the general position of the country, the existing relations of landlord and tenant, the burdens upon the land, and the habits of the country."

These opinions are quite distinct, and from them we gather that Sir Robert Peel, in 1842, considered that, on an average, 54s. was the lowest price at which the British farmer could raise wheat for the market—so long, at least, as he was liable to the same burdens as formerly, occupied the same position in the country, and paid the same rent to his landlord. Following out these views, Sir Robert Peel introduced his sliding-scale of duties, and the result would seem in a great measure to vindicate his sagacity. Let us take the averages for the six years immediately following:—

s. d.

1842, 573

1843,501

1844,513

1845,5010

1846,548

1847,699

6)33310

557²⁄₃

It will thus be seen that the average price of wheat, during those years, was within fivepence of the calculation made by Sir Robert as the fair and natural average for the preceding ten years, and that it almost hit the precise medium between the two extremes which he assumed.

Now, we are not aware that Sir Robert Peel has ever directly retracted these opinions, although many passages might be quoted from his speeches to show that he considered increased cheapness—the necessary result of his free-trade measures—some sort of compensation for the probable decline in the value of agricultural produce. But the income-tax and increased public burdens may fairly be set against any saving on the ground of cheapness, and the question remains precisely where it was before. The averages of sixteen years, excluding extraordinary impulses to an unnatural rise or fall, entitle us to assume that the British farmer cannot raise wheat profitably at lower prices than 56s. per quarter; and Sir Robert Peel, whatever may be the effect of his subsequent measures, once gave his solemn guarantee that, when prices should fall below 51s., there should be no foreign competition.

We have no desire to rake up old matters of discussion, or to reflect upon pledges which may either have lapsed or been broken. Our present business with Sir Robert is simply to have his evidence as to the remunerating prices of corn, and that evidence we have stated above. We are, therefore, entitled to assume that any great and permanent decline of prices, following upon increased foreign imports, must have a most deleterious effect upon the agriculture of the country, unless some remedy can be found which shall lessen the cost of production. As usual, there is no lack of volunteers to suggest remedies. Dr Buckland, of iguanodon and icthyosaurus celebrity, discourses learnedly of subsoils and manures, and offers to show how acres of wheat may be raised upon soils hitherto yielding no other crop than rushes, ling, or heather. It is the misfortune of scientific men that they live in a world of their own; for, had the learned fossilist been aware of what has been passing around for the last twenty years, he would have known that no sane person ever questioned the truth of his assertions. With the aid of draining, manure, and other artificial appliances, corn may be grown almost anywhere within the compass of the British islands. No man disputes that. The simple question is: Will the corn, when grown, yield a fair return for the expenses attendant upon its growth? Until the geologists and chemists have acquired so much real practical knowledge as to be able to answer this query satisfactorily, they will best consult the public interest by confining themselves to their quarries and their laboratories. That agriculturist who should deny the advantages which his own science has derived from the aid of chemistry, would not only be an ungrateful, but an exceedingly unreasonable man; nevertheless, he cannot be charged with either ingratitude or folly if, after calculating the cost of the productive agent, and the value of the produce, he declines to expend his capital in forced improvements, which at the end of the year, and with diminished prices, must leave him a considerable loser. If high farming could be shown to be productive, high farming would be the rule and not the exception. In Scotland we have farmed so high, that we are quoted at all hands as an example to the rest of the world. If we mistake not, Dr Buckland himself, in some of his stimulating addresses, has referred to the agricultural system of the Lothians as a specimen, or rather the specimen, of what may be achieved by science combined with energy. We accept the compliment; and in the course of the following pages we shall endeavour to show him, and his friends, how the pattern farmer is likely to fare, and how he has fared already, under the operation of the new code which modern liberalism has introduced for the encouragement of British enterprise.

Next to the chemists, and moving closely in their wake, come the free-trading landlords who assented to the great experiment. If we select Lords Ducie and Kinnaird as fair specimens of this class in England and in Scotland, we shall do no more than give that prominence to their names which is challenged by their late assertions. Our occupancy of the Scottish field, from which we are unwilling to depart, precludes us from entering into any investigation of the views promulgated by the English earl. But we have no scruple at all in dealing with the Scottish baron, who, in the letter of advice addressed to his tenantry of the Carse of Gowrie, has taken infinite pains to show that the superior husbandry of Scotland has been stimulated, if not created, by the exaction of high rents; and, by an easy corollary, that future improvement depends mainly upon the maintenance of these rents, irrespective altogether of the decline in the value of produce! This, we are bound to admit, is a comfortable landlord's theory; and, if the agricultural tenants who frequent the reading-room at Inchture are convinced of its practical soundness, we should be extremely sorry to utter a single word which might tend to unsettle their faith. But we fear that Lord Kinnaird, like many other inconsiderate individuals, has committed a serious mistake in rushing precipitately into print. We agree with him, on the whole, that rent is a desirable thing, which ought not, under ordinary circumstances, to be violently diminished; still we must adhere to our deliberate opinion, that, if a great organic change, affecting the interests of agriculture to a serious degree, is consequent upon any measures of the legislature, both landlord and tenant must be prepared to suffer in a certain ratio. It is all very well to recommend the aid of chemistry, provided, at the same time, that adequate capital is forthcoming. Even with capital, to be drawn from the tenant's, and not the landlord's pocket, it will require more than mere assertion to persuade the former that, by an enormously increased outlay in phosphate of lime, sulphuric acid, magnesia, manganese, gypsum, guano, and what not, he may raise crops the abundance of which shall compensate him for a direct loss of 16s. or 20s. on the quarter of wheat, with a corresponding diminution in the value of every other kind of agricultural produce. Some of those who, according to Lord Kinnaird, have shown themselves "the best and most successful farmers," men who have heretofore been engaged in business—that is, commercial business—may be induced to try the experiment; but if there be any truth in the reply which Mr Thomas Ross of Wardheads, a farmer in the Carse of Gowrie, has made to his lordship's pamphlet, the result of the trials hitherto attempted by such enterprising persons, upon the Kinnaird estates and in the immediate neighbourhood, may be best estimated by a perusal of the Gazette, wherein the names of divers unfortunate speculators are recorded. But, to speak plainly, the time has gone by for any such absurd trifling. What we want are facts, not theories; least of all, theories so palpably preposterous as to carry their refutation on their face.

We do not, by any means, intend to insinuate that Lord Kinnaird is to be taken as a type of the Scottish or British landlords. On the contrary, we believe that he forms one of a minority so infinitesimally small, that the number of them would hardly be worth the reckoning. The position of the landlord and the tenant is, on the clearest of all grounds, inseparable; and it is in vain to suppose that the one class can, by possibility, have a distinct interest from the other. No doubt, during the currency of existing leases, entered into before the rapid conversion of the two great political rivals to the doctrines of free trade, the landlord may insist upon having the full penalty of his bond, and may wring the last farthing from the hand of the despairing farmer. We are living in times when vested interests have lost their character of sanctity: the legislature, while forcing down prices, provided no remedy for the relief of those who were tied up by bargains, reasonable when contracted, but ruinous under the altered circumstances; and the tenant, though forced to struggle against the might of foreign importation, has no legal claim on the proprietor of the soil for a corresponding deduction from his rent. But the good feeling which has always existed between the landlords and the tenantry of this country, if we assume no higher motive, will doubtless operate, in the majority of instances, to temper the rigour of the bargain, should the pressure continue to increase; and year after year, as leases expire, and as the results of practical experience become more generally understood, competition will disappear, and rents fall to a point exactly corresponding to the expectation of future prices. It is a bad sign of the times, though certainly an instructive one, when we find a wealthy peer, in a letter addressed to his tenantry, expressing his opinion that retired tradesmen and others—men who have never handled a plough in their lives, and who are far better versed in the mysteries of long-stitch than in those of draining—make much better farmers than those who have been reared to agriculture from their infancy. According to this view, the farmer is a mere booby compared to the man whose intellects have been sharpened in the shop, the counting-house, or the manufactory; and the experience which he has gained positively unfits him for the actual exercise of his profession! Such views must be corroborated by the testimony of deeper sages than Lord Kinnaird, before they pass into general acceptation; and we cannot help thinking that the noble author would have used a wise discretion had he been less explicit in his reasons for preferring the novice to the practised farmer. Besides their habits of accurate accounting, and their total freedom from prejudice, retired tradesmen appear valuable, in the eyes of Lord Kinnaird, for two especial reasons:—"In the first place, that they have capital; secondly, that they are not afraid to expend it, knowing that thus alone can their land be made productive." To such persons we would address a word of warning, cautioning them to use their acquired powers of accounting rather before than after they enter into any agricultural bargain; and in particular, we would advise them to look narrowly to the figures of their noble encourager, detailing the results of his own experience in the farm of Mill-hill, brought down, with great show of accuracy, to the close of 1847—before protection ceased, or prices fell—but no later. In the course of such investigations, they may light upon an anomaly or so which no arithmetician can explain, and be rather chary of receiving his lordship's dogmas, that remuneration from farming is "not dependent on high prices," and that "no one possessing capital need be afraid of investing it in a farm."

The last champion of increased production as an antidote against free trade, is not the type of a class, but a single individual—whose testimony, however, being in some respects practical, is worth more than that of all the chemical doctors and interested landlords put together. We allude to Mr James Caird, whose pamphlet, entitled "High Farming under Liberal Covenants, the best Substitute for Protection," has already excited so much attention, that, if rumour does not err, its author has been deputed by government, at the recommendation of Sir Robert Peel, to visit Ireland with the view of reporting upon the agricultural capabilities of that country. We shall presently have occasion to examine the details of that pamphlet, as minutely as their importance deserves; at present we shall merely note, in passing, that it does not profess to set forth the results of the author's own practical experience, although Mr Caird is well known to be a farmer of great intelligence and ability; and, further, that it directly points to liberal covenants on the part of the landlord as an indispensable basis of the arrangement. In fact, therefore, we find that Lord Kinnaird and Mr Caird, though both writing on the same side, entertain views widely differing from each other, as to the future terms of adjustment between the two great agricultural classes. Lord Kinnaird is for "high rents;" Mr Caird for "liberal covenants." It is impossible that both of them can be right; and were we to join issue solely upon the facts which each of them has adduced, we should have no hesitation in deciding in favour of the practical farmer. But we apprehend that, even with the aid of liberal covenants, Mr Caird has failed in making out his case, as we shall shortly prove, when we proceed to analyse his statements.

We have already made an approximation to the price which, in ordinary seasons, and under existing burdens and covenants, grain ought to bear, in order to yield a fair remuneration to the British grower. That price, as we have already said, has been held to range from 54s. to 58s. per quarter. This we hold to be a moderate computation; but if a further limit be desired, we shall admit—though for argument's sake only—that with great retrenchment and economy, curtailing his own comforts, but not materially reducing the wages of the labourer, the farmer may continue to grow wheat at an average of 50s., and nevertheless pay up his annual rent as before. A glance at former averages will show that this is a remarkably low figure; and, being taken as an average, it of course implies the supposition that in some years the price will be higher, in order to compensate for others in which it may be lower. Our primary business, therefore, is to ascertain whether, under the operation of the new system, prices can ever rise, supposing the present breadth of land to remain in tillage, above this average amount; or whether they must not permanently diminish so much as to destroy the vestige of an independent average in this country, and substitute foreign growing prices for our own. The question is a very momentous one, for it involves the existence of our national agriculture, and not only that, but the existence of the larger portion of the home market for our manufactures, compared with which our exports are comparatively as nothing. It is our earnest desire to approach it with all candour, temper, and moderation; and we shall not, if possible, allow ourselves to be betrayed into a single angry word, or discourteous expression, towards those who have differed from us hitherto in opinion. Neither shall we advance or reiterate opinions upon grounds purely theoretical. Ever since this contest began, we have taken a decided and consistent part, and have not scrupled to expose, by argument, what we held to be the glaring fallacies of free trade. That argument, necessarily inferential at first, has since been borne out and corroborated by every fact which has emerged; and, on that account alone, we think we are entitled to demand a serious consideration of the matter which we now lay before the public, as the result of an investigation, in the course of which no pains or trouble have been spared, and which may help to guide us all, be our politics what they may, to a true sense of the danger which must immediately arrive, if we remain but a few months longer in a state of fancied security. Our warning may be derided by some, but the day of reckoning is at hand.

The first point, therefore, to which we shall entreat attention is, the prospect of future prices; regarding which we possess some information that may possibly take the reader by surprise.

The adoption of free-trade principles, as regards the trade in corn, proceeded upon a false estimate of the precise quantities available for the supply of this country. Those who, from various motives, combined for the purpose of allowing the foreigner an unrestrained competition in the British market, had no idea of the strength of the power which they had thus evoked; while the fearful and doubting protectionist, who yielded too soon to the clamour, was little aware of the extent of the evils which his supineness was to bring upon him. The statistics of the question were altogether overlooked—at least no proper means were taken to obtain them in a faithful manner. The returns made by the foreign consuls, and the evidence collected as to the ordinary available supplies at foreign ports, were, in nearly every instance, the mere reflex of the views of interested parties, furnished to men unable, from their habits or education, to judge of their approach to accuracy. The voluminous report of Mr Jacob, which might have been of use as a warning, at any rate, that cheap food does not always make a happy and comfortable people, seems to have been forgotten in these latter days. Hence the theories of those who had some experience in trade, and whose published opinions on mercantile matters had obtained credit and celebrity, came to be mainly relied upon. Among these, the ideas of Mr Tooke, whose authority stands pre-eminently high in such matters, as to prices, and the quantity of foreign grain which might, in the event of free trade, find its way to our shores, were much insisted on. But how far these are erroneous and delusive has been sadly proved by our experience of the effects of free trade in corn since 1846.

Mr Tooke says, in the third volume of his work on the History of Prices, in the section entitled, "Conjectures as to the Prices at which Wheat would range, in the event of Free Trade"—which, under ordinary circumstances, he assumes to be 45s. per quarter,—"The quantity which we might look to import, at an average of the price I have named, might approach to from 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 of quarters." He goes on to say, "If there were to be a fixed duty of 8s. the quarter, I very much doubt whether the annual importation would reach that quantity;" and afterwards adds, "Before quitting this point, however, I must observe that my estimate of the price at which a foreign supply might be expected, of the extent supposed, may be considered by some of the opponents of the corn laws as strengthening the ground for the supporters of them, inasmuch as such statements may be made to work upon the minds of the farmers, in frightening them with the prospect of cheap foreign corn."

What wonder, then, if the panic has materially increased, since the history of free trade, for the last three years, has revealed such a fearful addition to this estimate: for how stands the fact? In place of 2,000,000 quarters of wheat annually, from the passing of the Corn-Law Repeal Act (26th June 1846) until the 5th November 1847, a period of little more than sixteen months, we imported 7,229,916 quarters of wheat—while the total of all kinds of grain entered for consumption amounted to 16,331,282 quarters! Some idea may be formed of the effects of such an augmented importation, if we bear in mind that, from 5th July 1828 to 1st Jan. 1841, a period of nearly thirteen years, the whole quantity of foreign wheat and flour entered for home consumption was 13,475,000 quarters.

But lest it should be argued that this was a supply produced by extraordinary circumstances, and which could only be furnished from accumulations of former seasons—as was, indeed, said at the time—the further history of the trade has shown us that our foreign supplies continue to pour in at precisely the same rate. The total of all kinds of grain and flour entered for consumption in the last nine months, ending 5th September 1849, as exhibited by the Board of Trade returns, shows an amount of 9,870,823 quarters, the quantity of wheat being for this period 3,821,292 quarters; and of wheaten flour—besides frightening the farmers, bearing ruin to our own millers—3,236,993 cwt.—together equivalent to quarters of wheat, 4,746,147. And all this, be it observed, has been imported while the average price per quarter has been one sixpence only above that named as likely to exclude the approach of more than 1,500,000 or 2,000,000 quarters from our shores! Formerly—in the first years of the century, up to 1842—the farmer had to contend against a foreign supply of grain amounting to little more than 1,000,000 quarters per annum—now, in some cases, under obligations contracted on the faith of protection to native industry, he is called upon to make the vain struggle against an inundation of foreign corn amounting to upwards of 1,000,000 quarters per month! He cannot, it is evident, maintain the contest long.

Such were the facts assumed as the basis of our legislation, and already they stand forth to the public eye as gross and palpable blunders. The British agriculturist has, beyond all question, been injured to an extent infinitely greater than was anticipated by any one—an extent so vast, that, could it have been predicted as a certainty, the rashest theorist would have recoiled from the danger of such an experiment.

But we have by no means, as yet, attained the lowest point of depression. At the close of the year 1849, we take the general average price of wheat as at 40s. per quarter, and we shall probably have a breathing time of two or three months, until the Continental ports are again available for navigation. We shall hereafter consider whether, under any circumstances, the price which we have just quoted can remunerate the farmer: in the mean time, let us see whether it is likely that, in future, even this price can be maintained.

It is no easy matter to ascertain the rates at which corn may be grown on the Continent. The current prices at foreign ports, such as Hamburg, have, in reality, little bearing upon this most vital point, though they have been eagerly assumed by the free-traders as a sure index of future prices. Very little consideration will show every one that the true way towards forming a fair conclusion on the subject, is to ascertain, as nearly as may be, the cost of grain, not at the ports from whence it issues, but in the inland countries where the greater proportion of it is grown. The reason for this is obvious. Under the old system, when protective duties were the rule, the demand for foreign corn was exceedingly fluctuating and uncertain. We never dealt directly with the foreign grower; but, between him and the British consumer, at least three profits intervened. There were middlemen, principally Jews, who made it their regular business to purchase up the superfluity of the Polish crops on speculation, and to sell it to the Dantzic dealers. Then came the profit of the latter, and also that of the British corn-merchant; and, as the trade was notoriously a precarious one, these profits were of considerable amount. The demand, however, may now be considered as fixed and steady. Henceforward, under the operation of free trade, the two considerations of quality and cheapness must alone regulate the market. Not only the superfluity of Continental harvests will be available, but new land, of which there are immense tracts of the finest description, hitherto untilled, will be put under cultivation, and the produce regularly transmitted to this country, where a ready market can at all times be found. The first symptom of this new regular trade will be the disappearance of one of the intermediate profits. This is not subject of prophecy; it has already taken place. The foreigners have now taken the whole of the foreign grain trade exclusively into their own hands. We are informed by the first corn-merchants of Leith, that there is not a single order sent for grain from this country. "The finest Dantzic wheat, free on board," writes one of our correspondents, "will not be sold to a British merchant for less than 38s. the quarter; and as no more than 40s. or 41s. could be got for it here, there is no margin for a profit, and the risk is not run. But the foreigner will send it on his own account, and sell it here at 38s. and realise a profit. You thus see that the entire trade is out of British hands, for the prices of our own grain must entirely be ruled by those of the foreigner; and the consequence is, that every bushel sent to this country is on consignment and not to order."

There still remains another profit, that of the middleman, to be reduced. The creation of a constant and steady demand from the foreign ports—which demand cannot be otherwise unless a protective law is reimposed—will naturally excite the dealers to purchase directly from the Polish grower. In this way they will have double profits, without enhancing materially, if at all, the original cost of the grain; for, in other Continental corn-growing countries, untilled land may be had to any extent for next to nothing, and no farming capital, as we understand the word, is required. Here a remark or two, founded upon past history, may be useful. About a century and a half ago, or rather about the time of the Revolution of 1688, the average price of wheat, as stated by Adam Smith, amounted to 28s. in England. Public burdens were at that time moderate, and so were poor-rates; still they were of such an amount as to be felt by the farmer. The wages of the agricultural labourer were at least seven shillings per week, equal to about 10s. 6d. of our present money, and the rent of arable land might be estimated over-head at 5s. 6d. per acre. All these items are enormously above the rates at present known in the Continental corn-growing countries, and some of them have no existence there. It is difficult to get at Polish charges, especially since the late change in our policy, for we have invariably found that foreign proprietors are most jealous of disclosing their true domestic position. Nor can we wonder at this, for the truth, were it broadly told, might tend materially to check that liberal sympathy, which of late years has been so abundantly shown to the insurgents of central Europe. We are, however, fortunately enabled to throw some useful light upon this matter. Our informant is a Scottish agriculturist, who, some years ago, was engaged as land-steward on the estates of a Polish nobleman in Gallicia, and who, therefore, had ample opportunity of witnessing the foreign system. If the reader glances at the map of Europe, tracing the course of the Vistula from Dantzic, and then following the upward line of its tributary, the Bug, he will find laid down in close proximity the extensive districts of Volhynia, Podolia, Kiow, Gallicia, and others, formerly Palatinates, which together constitute the largest, richest, and most productive corn-field of Europe. Here there are no farmers, and—what is more strange to us—no free labourers who receive a weekly wage. The land is tilled for the profit of the owner; a superintendant presides over it as taskmaster; and the workers of the soil are serfs in the actual position of slaves, who toil late and early without other remuneration than the coarse rye bread, and similar fare, which is necessary to support existence. The manufactures of Manchester and Sheffield have not found their way into this region, and never will; because the population, being utterly without means, could not purchase them, and probably would not were the means within their power. Their dress is of the most primitive kind, and differs in no respect from that of tribes utterly barbarous—being chiefly constructed of the skins of animals. They are hardy, docile, and exceedingly sensitive to kindness, but as far removed from civilisation as the tribes of Tartary; and their owners—for that is the proper term—take especial care that no doctrine shall reach them which in any way may interfere with the exercise of despotic rule. In short, they are like so many cattle cultivating the land for their masters at the bare expense of their keep. To demonstrate more clearly the difference of the value of labour, we may here state, on the best authority, that in that district where the finest wheat, distinctively known as "high-mixed Dantzic," is grown, the ordinary price of a quarter of wheat will defray the expense of from forty to forty-five days' work, whilst here it can procure only from twenty to twenty-five days. The climate is excellent, and the yield of the soil considerable. Wheat may be grown for several years successively without manure, and always with comparatively little work. The produce is floated down the numerous rivers which intersect the district, to Dantzic and other coast towns on the Baltic, where it is stored; and these will in future form the great depots of the grain furnished by central Europe for British consumption. Contrast this state of matters in modern Poland with that of England in 1688, when land yielded a considerable rent, when poor-rates and public burdens were levied, and when the labouring man received a reasonable wage; and we must arrive at the conclusion that the remunerating price of wheat in the former country must be something greatly lower than 28s. per quarter. We are almost afraid to state our conviction, lest it should appear exaggerated; but we do not doubt that Polish wheat could be delivered at Dantzic at 16s., and yet leave a considerable profit to the grower. We must also note that the variableness of our climate, and the comparative poorness of our soil, places us at a vast disadvantage in point of quality, as compared with the southern grower. It can be established, by consulting the prices-current of Mark Lane for a series of years, that it would require a differential duty of 6s. per quarter on wheat, on this account alone, to put the British farmer on a fair footing with the great bulk of his foreign competitors. Last season, the difference between the best foreign and English wheat throughout the year, as proved by the same authority, was upwards of 10s. per quarter.

We beg it will be distinctly understood, that, in estimating the remunerative prices of foreign grain, we do not profess to arrive at more than general conclusions. It matters nothing for or against our argument whether wheat can be delivered at Dantzic a little cheaper, or a little dearer, than the above sum. We leave room on either side for a considerable margin. This much, however, we know for a fact, that an eminent corn-merchant in Leith has, in former years, purchased fine wheat, free on board, at Dantzic for 18s., with the offer of a constant supply, and that no circumstances have since then emerged to enhance the cost of production. Besides this, as Mr Sandars well remarks in one of his published letters, we have had plain and evident experience of foreign production under the working of the corn law of 1842. We had a fixed duty of 20s. per quarter in actual operation for four years; and in 1844 and 1845, such duty was paid, week after week, and in the latter year for six months consecutively, at a time when our general averages were only 46s. to 47s. a quarter. Was the foreigner at that time selling at a loss? His price, then, adapting itself to ours, was 26s. and 27s., deducting the duty, and at that time, be it remembered, he was unprepared for competition. So that, from experience not five years old, we may gather what kind of future competition awaits us, and also what we are annually sacrificing in revenue, by madly abandoning protection. Does any one believe that, in 1845, had there been no duty on foreign corn, wheat would have fallen to 26s., or the foreigner have sold his crop at that price? The remitted duty goes into the pocket of the foreigner, who is selling in the dearest market, and underselling our farmers, as he will be able to do—for he has tested that ability already—down to a point which must extinguish British agriculture. We know also from Mr Meek's report, quoted by Sir Robert Peel in 1842, that "the prices of corn in Denmark have, during the last twenty-five years, averaged, for wheat, 28s. 10d., rye, 19s. 9d., barley, 14s., and oats, 10s. 6d. per quarter," and it is obviously ridiculous to suppose that the cost of production in Poland is nearly so high as in Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein. Last year Denmark sent us upwards of a million quarters of grain. These are facts which have distinctly emerged, and they are all-important at the present time, when the tenantry are urged to expend further capital on the chance of future rise of prices. It is now perfectly clear that the returns, which were assumed as the basis for the great experiment, are worthy of no confidence. On the other hand, we do not wish that our opinions, which point to a totally different result, should influence any one in his future line of conduct; but, beyond our opinions, there are certain facts, which we have just stated, and the import of which cannot be misunderstood, and these may serve as warnings for the future. Of the capability of the foreigner to supply us with any given amount of grain, we think no reasonable man can doubt. There is a breadth of soil open sufficient to supply more than twenty times the most exorbitant demand. It is his power to undersell us, and the extent of that power, which have been questioned; and on the solution of that question depends the utility of high farming, in this country, on a grand and comprehensive scale. We shall show that, at present prices, high farming is so far from remunerative, that those who practise it are actually incurring an immense loss; and that, unless rents come down to zero, or at least to a point which would utterly ruin the landlords, high farming cannot be proceeded with. We have shown that, within the last five years, we have been supplied, and that regularly, from abroad, when wheat was at 46s. per quarter, and a duty of 20s. existed; and, at such rates, it is quite evident that all attempt at competition would be hopeless. Wheat could not be grown remuneratively at 26s. or 27s. in England before a single shilling of the national debt was incurred; and no man is mad enough to insist upon its possibility now. When, therefore, the Free-traders tell us that the present is a mere temporary depreciation, we ask them—and we demand a distinct reply—for an explanation of the imports in 1845. How was it that, for a long period, foreign corn came in plentifully, paying the duty of 20s., when our home averages were at 46s. and 47s.? Can they assign any special reason for it? If not, the conclusion is plain, that the foreign growers can and will undersell us down to that point, if we possibly could compete with them so far, and all the while add to their profit, while they also abstract from our revenue.

Our belief, as we have said already, is, that the foreigner could afford to go much lower, and that he could furnish us with wheat at little more than 18s. We have stated above an instance of this kind, and, if necessary, we could furnish more. Nor will the statement appear exaggerated to those who will take the trouble of comparing English prices and English burdens, as they existed before the Revolution of 1688, with the prices and rates of the great corn-growing countries of central Europe at the present moment, making due allowance for climate and the difference of social institutions. At the same time, let it be understood that we do not aver, that all the foreign grain which way find its way here can be grown at such low prices. Pomeranian and Bohemian wheat is more expensive in culture than that of Poland; and we know that there is some difference between Hamburg and Dantzic prices. Still our conviction is most decided, that henceforward the foreigner has the game entirely in his hands; that he may prescribe what price he pleases to this country; and that every year, in spite of all efforts, all home harvests, all variety of seasons, prices must inevitably decline. If it were possible that, by high farming, or any other means, we could produce wheat remuneratively at 30s., or 25s., the foreigner would be ready to sell in competition at 25s. or 18s., even supposing he received hardly any profit. His business is to get hold of the British market, and that once accomplished, he may elevate or depress prices as he pleases. The declension will be gradual, but it will be perfectly steady. This year wheat has been brought down to 40s., not in consequence of an exuberant harvest, as in 1835, but through competition. A million of quarters per month have been poured in to sink prices, and we are now debating at home whether British agriculture can go on under such circumstances. Tenants are mourning over their losses; labourers are feeling the pinch of lowered wages; some landlords, in apprehension of diminished rents, are exhorting to further outlay of capital; statesmen are consulting with chemists; and agitators, who have made all the ruin, are shouting for financial reductions. In the mean time, the winter is crawling on apace. The price of grain in Britain has been beat down by competition with a poor foreign crop, for such unquestionably was the yield of 1848. That of 1849 was a splendid one, and, the moment the ports are opened in spring, its influence will be felt. The question will not then be of 40s, but of a price still lower; and we apprehend that, in that event, the argument will be nearly closed. We do not, however, anticipate that the reduction will be rapid. The dealers at the different foreign ports will best consult their own interest by keeping, as nearly as possible, just below the quotations current in the British market. In this way large profits will be secured during the whole maintenance of the struggle, which must end by the British farmer, overloaded with rent, taxes, and public burdens, giving way to his competitors, who, with no such impediments, and with a better climate and richer soil, will monopolise his proper function. We shall then experience in corn, what our West Indian colonists, under the same kind of legislation, have experienced in sugar. The greater part of the soil of Britain will be diverted from cereal growth; and, as the earth does not yield her produce without long wooing, we shall be at the mercy of the foreigner for our supplies of food, at any rates which he may choose to impose.

As to the matter of freights, about which so much was at one time said and written, we need not complicate the question by entering into minute details. From information upon which we can rely, we learn that, at this moment, steamers are constructing for the sole purpose of effecting rapid and continual transit between foreign and British ports, for the conveyance of grain—a circumstance which speaks volumes as to the anticipations of the Continental traders. We may also observe that ordinary freights form no bar to importation, since they are now hardly greater from the Baltic to this country than from Ross-shire to Leith, or from many parts of England to London. One fact, communicated by a correspondent connected with the shipping trade, has peculiarly impressed us. We give it in his own words: "I enclose you a price-current, which will give you the prices of all grain. Grain from America has lately come home, both in American and British ships, at 4d. per bushel freight, and flour at 6d. per barrel—but much more frequently shipped on the condition that, if it leaves a profit, the one half goes to the shipper, and the other half to the owner of the ship for freight." He adds, "The freights from Quebec and Montreal are higher—say 2s. 6d. or 3s. for flour; but as British shipping ceases being protected after 1st January, they will be equally low there." So much for pulling down one interest by way of compensation to another!

The reader—or rather the critical economist—may treat the foregoing remarks as speculative or not, according to the colour of his opinions. All the discussion upon free-trade has been speculative, and so was the legislation also. We take credit for having anticipated what we now see realised; but beyond that, and beyond the facts which the experience of former years has given us, and which we have just laid before our readers, we are, as a matter of course, open to objection, and also liable to error. We have not been arguing, however, without sound data—such as, we suspect, never were brought fully under the eye of our statesmen—and they all tend manifestly and clearly to the same conclusion. That conclusion is, that, without the reimposition of a protective duty, prices cannot rise above the present level. Our argument goes further; for we hold it to be clear that, without some extraordinary combination of circumstances which we cannot conceive, prices must decline, and decline greatly. We look for nothing else; but having had our say as to the future, and pointed out the prospect before us, we shall now confine ourselves to present circumstances, and endeavour to ascertain whether, with a continuance of present prices, and under existing burdens, agriculture can be carried on in Britain at a reasonable profit to the farmer.

Mr Caird's pamphlet, though it has attracted a good deal of attention, contains no hints or information which are new to the practical farmer. Its high-sounding title would lead us to suppose that he had discovered some improved system of agriculture, which might be applicable throughout the kingdom. We read the pamphlet; and we find that it contains nothing beyond the description of a very low-rented and peculiarly-situated farm, the occupant of which appears to have realised considerable profits from an extensive cultivation of the potato. It is not necessary that we should do more than allude to the general tone of the pamphlet, which seems to us rather more arrogant than the occasion demanded. Mr Caird, we doubt not, is a good practical farmer; but we should very much have preferred a distinct and detailed statement of his own experiences at Baldoon, to an incomplete and unattested account of his neighbour's doings at Auchness. A man is fairly entitled to lecture to his class when he can show that, in his own person, he is a thorough master of his subject. A farmer who has devised improvements, tested them, and found them to answer his expectations, and to repay him, has a right to take high ground, and to twit his brother tenants with their want of skill or energy. But Mr Caird is not in this position. He is occupier of a farm of considerable extent, but he does not venture to give us the results of his own experience. It is possible that he may himself pursue the system which he advocates, but he does not tell us so; he points to Mr M'Culloch as the model. This is at best but secondary evidence; howbeit we shall take it as it comes; and as this is strictly a farmer's question, it may be best to allow one practical agriculturist to reply to the views of another. We might, indeed, have abstained altogether from doing so, for Mr Monro of Allan, in a very able pamphlet, entitled Landlords' Rents and Tenants' Profits, has distinctly and unanswerably exposed the fallacies of Mr Caird. Still, lest it should be said that we are disposed to reject, too lightly, any evidence which has been adduced on the opposite side, we have requested Mr Stephens, author of The Book of the Farm, to favour us with his views as to Auchness cultivation. We subjoin them, for the benefit of all concerned.

"On perusing Mr Caird's pamphlet, every practical man must be struck with astonishment at the inordinate quantity of potatoes cultivated at Auchness.

"The entire thirty acres of dried moss, (p. 7,) and twenty-five acres of lea, (p. 15,) were in potatoes in 1848; and the county Down farmer, whose statement is reprinted at the close of Lord Kinnaird's pamphlet, reports that the number of acres occupied by potatoes in 1849 was ninety. This is more than one-third of the whole area of the land. I have considered attentively the calculation made by the farmer; and I think that, in order to meet present prices, it should be modified as below. You will also observe that, in my opinion, the outlay on the farm has been too highly estimated.[21]

"90 acres potatoes, at 7¹⁄₂ tons each, £2 per ton,£135000

60 acres wheat, at 36 bushels each, £2 per quarter,54000

Profit on 130 cattle, at £6 each,78000

Profit on 150 sheep, at 10s. each,7500

Profit of 5 milk cows, at £12 each,6000

£280500

Deduct—

Rent,£26200

Labour, 40s. per acre,52000

Manure purchased, (p. 23, Caird,)25600

Food for cattle purchased, (do.,)27000

Seed potatoes, 108 tons, at £2, for 90 acres,21600

Seed wheat, 120 bushels, at 5s.,3000

Tradesmen's bills, at £7 per pair horses each half-year,7000

Incidental expenses,5000

Interest on £2000 capital, at 10 per cent,20000

187400

£93100

"This balance sheet shows a profit of £931; but as the potatoes are worth £1350, which is no less than £419 more than all the profit, it is evident that it is the potato alone that affords any profit under this instance of high farming. Indeed Mr Caird admits as much when he says, 'The great value of a sound potato crop induces the tenant to adopt such means as will not interfere with the continued cultivation of this root.' The admission is, that the profit rests entirely on the precarious potato. The potato has hitherto been safe in the moss of Auchness, and it is safe there in no other class of soil. In Ireland, even the moss does not save it. There is no high farming in the matter, in so far as manures are concerned, for as much and richer manure is used in the neighbourhood of large towns; and as on the moss at Auchness too much manure may be applied, at least after a certain time, so there may be on other soils; and thus high farming, in reference to soils, just means heavy manuring. Mr Caird says, 'The potato has been grown on the moss land successively, year after year; but the entire reclaimed portions, from being so frequently manured, are becoming too rich, and the crop beginning to show signs of disease, and a tendency to grow to tops rather than roots, which makes it necessary to adopt some plan of reducing its fertility.' It is known to every farmer, that it is quite possible to overmanure any crop, and the effects of overmanuring are, the breaking down of the straw of the grain crops, and the hollowing of the core of the tubers and bulbs of the green crops. The inference then is, that a profit which depends entirely on potatoes is uncertain in any year; and the particular case of Auchness, in which that profit is derived from moss, is not generally applicable to the country, and cannot, therefore, be held up as an example to farmers.

"The farm of Auchness contains nothing remarkable: for although the peculiar culture of the potato in moss is generally inapplicable, there are many farms in Scotland which have moss attached to them. The sea-ware may also be got on most farms on the coast, and where this is the case, it is commonly used. The soil is not good, and is certainly below the average quality; but I cannot understand what is meant by Mr Caird, when he asserts, on p. 7, that the '125 acres of light sandy soil is better adapted for wheat than for barley or oats when in a high state of cultivation,' for, in other parts of the country, such a soil would be eminently suited for barley. The steading is large for the size of the farm, but every steading ought to be made conformable to the farm by the landlord. The system of farming followed by Mr M'Culloch, of having 'no fixed rotation of crops,' is highly objectionable, and Mr Caird, with great propriety, does not commend it; since the farmer who manages so, has no dependence on the amount of crop he may receive any year, and must work according to circumstances, and not on principle, as the unhappy Irish hitherto have done. In this respect, also, Auchness is no example for the country; and, were a regular rotation followed on it, so many potatoes could not be grown, and the profits would be proportionally reduced.

"On the whole, then, I would say that Auchness farming is not generally applicable; and therefore it is useless to proclaim it as an antidote to free competition. For although it is probably true, as Mr Caird says, 'that green crops are likely henceforth to be the main stay of the agriculturists of this country,' yet he must be conscious that he is wrong in recommending, as an example, and as a substitute for protection, the enlarged cultivation of potatoes as a green crop, seeing that their growth has, of late years, been attended with great uncertainty. Is it not a mockery, then, to tell us that our main stay against foreign competition should depend upon a peculiarly uncertain crop? Will his pointing to a moss of 30 acres in Wigtonshire, convince the farmers of this great kingdom, that their future safety, as a class, must entirely depend upon their cultivating such a root on such a soil, in preference to wheat on the fertile loams of glorious old England? I apprehend that such a result is beyond the power of argument."

The non-agricultural reader must pardon us for the insertion of these details. They are necessary for our case, because, if high farming can be made an efficient substitute for protection, we are bound to adopt it, and we should owe a deep debt of gratitude to any one who could point out the way. We are fully alive to the necessity of agricultural enterprise; and, if we thought that our farmers were standing beside their mired waggon, clamorously invoking the assistance of Jupiter, when they should be clapping their own shoulders to the wheel, we would be the first to remonstrate on the heinous folly of their conduct. It is because no amount of personal exertion has been spared, that we seek to enforce their claim according to the utmost of our ability; and, in doing so, we are bound to prove, that no ordinary means which have been suggested for their extrication can be of the smallest avail. Mr Caird has come forward in the character of adviser, and we have stated the opinion of practical men as to the feasibility of his scheme. We have yet more to state, for nature has already denounced his plan far more effectually than opinion. When the county Down farmer visited Auchness in July last, he found more than one-third of the whole farm under potato culture. Upon that crop depended not only the whole profits, but a great deal more. Without the potatoes, there would have been a loss, at a more favourable calculation than his, of £419, on a farm paying only £262 of rent. Since then, we are informed on the best authority, that disease has attacked the potatoes. The highly-manured moss could not preserve from decay, if it did not accelerate it, the uncertain and precarious root. Mr Caird must not quarrel with the penalty he has incurred for having totally misunderstood the nature of the question which is now agitating the public mind. Whilst all others were directing their attention to cereal produce, he kept his eyes obstinately fixed on a little patch of ground which seemed to give unusual facilities for the growth of the doubtful potato. He never attempted to show that, without potatoes, and an exorbitant growth of that vegetable, high farming could pay at Auchness, even with the important elements of very low rent, and singular liberality on the part of an enthusiastic landlord. He perilled his whole case upon the probable returns of a root which every farmer views with suspicion; and—more than that—his statistics, which he wished to be inferred were of universal application, were only applicable to a few remote and isolated spots in Scotland. The result is, that, with all these advantages, the experiment has failed; and that all the liquid manures, economy of dung, guano stimulants, and so forth, as practised at Auchness, cannot, at present prices of produce, force up so much grain, or feed so much stock, as will nearly pay for the required and inevitable expenses. We pass over all possible mistakes. It may have been matter of delicacy for Mr Caird to have exposed the balance-sheet of his neighbour, or he may have assumed, rather hastily, statistics for which he had meagre warrant. We can allow him a large margin. Without potatoes, and such an extent of potato as would be plainly ludicrous if adopted as a general rule, Auchness never could have paid. With potatoes, it has failed in the very year wherein Mr Caird has chosen to exhibit it as a universal model.

So much for the only instance of high farming which has been adduced, as an example of its efficacy in superseding the protective system. In justice to Mr M'Culloch, whom we believe to be a most intelligent farmer, let it not be thought that we presume to call it empirical. On the contrary, we are convinced that that gentleman has acted with great judgment, suiting his management to the nature of the ground with which he had to deal; and that he has made as much of it as any man could do under similar circumstances. He was compelled to deal with a precarious crop, and few men could have dealt with it better: still, his method is no example to others differently situated, nor are his results to be taken by them either as matter of warning or of triumph. It is sufficient for us that Auchness farming, successful or not, is peculiar, and cannot be dragged in as a rule or example for the English or the Scottish farmer. We have enough of high farming statistics to lay before our readers, and, therefore, without any further apology, we dismiss the matter of Auchness, as totally inapplicable to the great question at issue.

In order to arrive as nearly as possible at the true state of the case, in so far as Scottish farming is concerned, we put ourselves into communication with two gentlemen, of the highest eminence in their profession. We need scarcely tell our countrymen on this side of the Border, that it would be difficult to find better testimony on such a subject than that of Messrs Watson of Keillor, and Dudgeon of Spylaw; and we apprehend, moreover, that many English agriculturists are fully acquainted with their character and high reputation. Through their kindness we have been furnished with the statistics of farms situated in the fertile grain-growing districts of Forfar and Roxburgh; and the calculations as to the yield, prices, and expenses, were made from their own books. The rent set down is that which is usual in the district for land of the best description, and the tenant's capital is named at an amount which might enable him to develop the full capabilities of the soil. The estimates have been most carefully framed, with the view of avoiding every kind of exaggeration; and they have been gone over by Mr Stephens, who attests their general accuracy. They are as follows:—

No. I.

Returns of Produce from a 500 acre farm in Strathmore, county of Forfar, on a five-shift rotation of crops, with an improved stock of cattle and sheep, on an average of years previous to free trade in corn, cattle, &c.; and

Comparative Statement of what may be calculated upon as the returns from the same farm under the present legislative measures affecting British agriculture.

Rent of the farm, as fixed for 19 years, assuming former average price of corn and cattle, &c.,£80000

Invested capital of £6 per acre at entry, £3000. Interest upon this sum, at rate of 10 per cent,30000

Floating capital of £4 per acre, £2000. Interest thereon, 5 per cent,10000

Expenses of management, wages, tradesmen's accounts, insurances, grass seeds, &c., at the rate of 20s. per acre per annum,50000

Annual loss by casualties on live stock by disease and accidents,10000

Public burdens leviable upon the farmer, including poor-rates,5000

Sum chargeable against the farm annually,£185000

To meet this sum there is the produce of 200 acres of corn crop, and the profits on live stock, (the whole grass and green crop being consumed on the farm.)

Bushels.

100 acres of oats, producing 48 bushels per acre,4800

Off for servants, horses, seed, &c.2400

Leaves disposable oats,2400at 3s.£36000

40 acres of spring wheat, producing 32 bushels per acre,1280

Off for seed,160

Disposable wheat,1120at 7s.39200

60 acres of barley, producing 42 bush. per acre,2520

Off for seed and horses, &c.,500

Disposable barley,2020at 4s.40400

£115600

Profits from live stock, fed upon 200 acres grass, and 100 acres green crop, 80000

Total returns, £195600195600

Leaving annually to the farmer, for his skill and industry, over interest of capital employed, a sum of £10600

Convert the above disposable produce into money, at the present prices, or rather at what may be fairly calculated upon for future seasons, under a system of free trade, and the following is the result:—

2400 bushels of oats, at 2s. per bushel,£24000

1120 bushels of wheat, at 5s. per ditto,28000

2020 bushels of barley, at 2s. 9d. per ditto,277150

£797150

Live stock, (as above, £800,) less 20 per cent on former prices, leaves64000

Net return,£1437150

Sum chargeable as above against the farm,185000

Leaving the farmer minus, for rent, capital, and expenses of management,£4125041250

Total loss annually incurred by difference in price occasioned by free trade, £51850

HUGH WATSON, Keillor, 1st December 1849.

No. II.

Statement of the average Produce of a farm in a full state of productiveness, managed agreeably to the five-shift course, as usually adopted in the south-eastern Borders of Scotland, where the returns of stock form a very considerable means of remuneration, and the price of which, of course, is a material element in the calculation as to the rent to be given.

Thus, then, assuming the rent of 500 acres of useful land for this purpose—upon the estimate of the price of grain and stock, as warranted by their value previous to the introduction of the new corn law and tariff—to be,£80000

This farm has been put into good productive condition by means of the tenant's capital, at a cost in draining and lime, (sunk,) £2500. It is well known that nearly twice this amount has in many instances been thus expended; but we assume this as a fair average on a farm so rented.

Interest upon which sum, to enable him to recover the same during an ordinary lease of from nineteen to twenty-one years, at 10 per cent,£25000

Interest on capital invested in stock, &c., yielding an annual return of £1500, at 5 per cent,7500

Expenses of management—wages, tradesmen's accounts, extra manures, &c.,55000

Casualties, loss on stock, &c.,5000

Public and Parish Burdens,4500

£97000

£177000

To meet this sum, there is the produce of 200 acres of grain, in each year, distributed as follows:—

Acres.Bushels.Bushels. Bushels.

100 Oats,at 48 per acre—4800.Off seed, horses, and servants,2420

60 Wheat,at 33 per acre—1980.Off seed,180

40 Barley,at 40 per acre—1600.Off seed, servants210

Remain disposable, at the prices on which his calculations were founded and warranted by the rates, as is proved, under protection:—

Bushels.

2380 Oats, at 3s.,£35700

1800 Wheat, at 7s.,63000

1390 Barley, at 4s.,27800

£126500

Returns upon stock estimated, at prices then current, to yield,75000

£201500

Profit—remuneration for tenant's industry and skill, £24500

The above grain produce yields, at the highest average I feel warranted in assuming, under free trade—

Bushels.

2380 Oats, at 2s.,£23800

1800 Wheat, at 5s.,45000

1390 Barley, at 2s. 9d.,19100

£87900

In place of, as above,126500

£38600

Thus the difference of proceeds of grain crop alone, more than absorbs all the tenant's remuneration, by £14100

JOHN DUDGEON, Spylaw, 3d December 1849.[22]

We addressed the following circular letter to some of the most eminent agriculturists in Scotland, enclosing copies of the above statements:—

"Edinburgh, 8th December 1849.

"Sir,—Wishing to publish in our Magazine as accurate a statement as we could obtain of the real condition and prospects of agriculture in Scotland at present, we have for some time been engaged in correspondence on the subject with various gentlemen connected with agricultural pursuits.

"The enclosed statements of the working of a farm, and the quantity and value at present prices of the produce, have been drawn out by Mr Watson, Keillor, Forfarshire, and Mr Dudgeon, Spylaw, near Kelso, assisted by Mr Stephens, author of the "Book of the Farm."

"At the suggestion of Mr —— we write to ask whether you will consent to allow us to affix your name to these statements, as attesting their accuracy, to the best of your experience, in farming. If it strikes you that in any of these statements the profits are either over or under estimated, we shall feel greatly obliged by your pointing out where you think the error lies. Any correction you may make we shall submit to the consideration of one or all of the above-mentioned gentlemen, with whose names, as competent judges of the working of a farm, you are probably acquainted.

"We shall feel further obliged by your making any remarks that may occur to you, and stating any facts that have come within your own observation, our only wish being to get as near the truth as may be. The article in the Magazine, into which this attested statement will be introduced, is founded upon the facts that we have been able to gather in the course of somewhat extended inquiries by ourselves, or rather by friends on whose knowledge of agriculture we could safely rely.

"Will you be so good as to send any answer you may think proper to this application, within a week from this date, or sooner if you can, as we have very little time to get everything into order for publication in the January number of our Magazine.—We are," &c.

The following gentlemen have given us permission to use their names, as attesting the accuracy of these statements, to the best of their experience, in farming:—

Mid-Lothian—[23] Thomas Sadler, Norton Mains, Ratho. East-Lothian— John Brodie, Abbey Mains, Haddington. Andrew Howden, Lawhead, Prestonkirk. Peter Ronaldson, Moreham Mains, Haddington. Wm. Tod, Elphinstone Tower, Prestonkirk. Berwickshire— Robt. Hunter, Swinton Quarter, Coldstream. Wm. Dove, Wark, Coldstream, attests Mr Dudgeon's only. Robt. Nisbet, Lambden, Greenlaw. Roxburghshire— R. B. Boyd, of Cherrytrees, Yetholm. Nicol Milne, Faldonside. Wm. Broad, Clifton Hill, Kelso. Fred. L. Roy, of Nenthorn, Kelso. James Roberton, Ladyrig, Kelso. Fifeshire— James B. Fernie, of Kilmux. John Thomson, Craigie, Leuchars. Forfarshire— Alexander Geekie, Baldowrie, Coupar-Angus. David Hood, Hatton, Glammis. James Adamson, Middle Drums, Brechin. Wm. Ruxton, Farnell, Brechin. Aberdeenshire— Robert Walker, Portleithen Mains, Aberdeen. John Hutchison, Monyruy, Peterhead. Robt. Simpson, Cobairdy, Huntly. William Hay, Tillydesk, Ellon. William M'Combie, Tillyfour, Aberdeen. Elginshire— Peter Brown, Linkwood, Elgin. Kincardineshire— J. Garland, Cairnton. R. Barclay Allardyce, of Ury, Stonehaven. James Falconer, Balnakettle, Fettercairn.

We further subjoin extracts from the letters of several of these gentlemen, containing remarks or suggestions about the statements:—

"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,£262100

Invested capital, £1000—interest at 10 per cent,10000

Floating capital, in stock, &c., £1800—interest at 5 per cent,9000

Servants' wages, per annum,12900

Day-labourers' wages, &c.,1500

Rye-grass and clover seeds,2000

Tradesmen's accounts,5000

Public burdens,1500

Casual losses of stock, and partial insurance,4000

Expenses in driving grain and extraneous manures, in the shape of tolls, &c., with necessary expenses at markets,2000

Total expenditure,£741100

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 qrs.

——

180 qrs.

——

Oats to be disposed of,300 qrs.at 21s.= £315 00

——

In barley—20 acres, at 5¹⁄₂ qrs. per acre,110 qrs.

Deduct for seed, malt,15 qrs.

——

Barley to be disposed of,95 qrs.at 29s.=137150

Realised from cattle fed on 100 acres of grass and 50 acres of turnips, 40000

Total income, 852150

Profit—or return for labour, skill, and risk of capital, £11150

Income under Free-trade Prices.

Oats, 300 quarters, at 14s. per quarter,£21000

Barley, 95 quarters, at 20s. per quarter,9500

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.,40000

Total income under free-trade prices of grain,£70500

Brought forward,£70500

Expenditure as above, viz.,741100

Loss per annum,£36100

Or, adding former profit, viz. as above,11150

Total loss, on grain alone, by free trade,£147150

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 bushels of wheat, at 7s.,630

1340 bushels of barley, at 4s.,268

125800

Value of grass and turnips, 80000

Total amount of produce sold, £205800

Brought forward, £205800

Expenses and Rent—

Annual charges for wages and tradesmen's bills, &c.,£40000

Public and parish burdens,4500

Annual outlay for extra manures,15000

£59500

Capital sunk upon improvements, £2500, at 10 per cent,25000

Value of stock and crop, forming a floating capital of £2000, at 5 per cent per annum,10000

Insurance of stock against deaths and other casualties,5000

99500

£106300

Rent, 80000

Tenant's profit, £26300

Estimated Value of the same amount of produce at the present rate of prices:—

2400 bushels of oats, at 2s.,£24000

1800 " of wheat, at 5s.,45000

1340 " of barley, at 2s. 9d.,21450

£90450

Value of grass and turnips, 70000

Total amount of produce, £160450

Amount of expenses, as above, 99500

£60950

Rent, 30000

Tenant's loss £191150

Value of produce by 1st estimate, £211800

Do. by 2d do, 1615100

Difference, £502100

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 12¹⁄₅ 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,£90000

Interest on sunk and floating capital,24000

Expenses of management, wages, tradesmen's accounts, extra manures, grass and clover seeds, and miscellaneous expenses,81700

Casualties in stock, and fire insurance,4000

Public and parish burdens,4000

Total yearly charge,£203700

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,2796at 3s. 3d.,£45470

70 acres wheat, at 32 bushels per acre,2240

Less for seed,220

Leaving for sale,2020at 7s.,70700

30 acres barley, at 48 bushels per acre,1440

Less for seed,100

Leaving for sale,1340at 4s.,26800

30 acres beans, at 40 bushels per acre,1200

Less for seed,110

Leaving for sale,1090at 4s. 6d.,24550

Produce of 10 acres potatoes, after deducting seed, 10000

Profits from live stock fed upon 60 acres turnips and 100 acres grass, 55000

Total return, £2324120

2324120

Profit, £287120

The like quantities of disposable grain, taken at the present prices, fetch as follows:—

2796 bushels oats, @ 2s. 4d.,£32640

2020 bushels wheat, @ 4s. 9d.,479150

1340 bushels barley, @ 3s. 0d.,20100

1090 bushels beans, @ 3s. 3d,177126

10 acres potatoes,10000

Add profits from live stock,55000

Total returns£1834116

Sum chargeable as above against the farm,£203700

20286

Leaving the farmer short, for rent, capital, and expenses of management, 20286

Total loss annually incurred, £49006

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.

50Potatoes, at £17 per acre,85000

30Turnip, at £16 per do.,48000

50Wheat, 5 qrs. per acre, at 58s. per qr.,725 0 0

30Barley, 7 do. do., at 34s. do.,35700

50Pasture, let at £4 per Scots acre,20000

30Hay, at £7 per do.,21000

80Oats, 7¹⁄₂ qrs. per acre, at 26s. per qr.,78000

320

Produce of straw sold,45000

Manure made on the farm from horses, &c.,8000

Value of produce,413200

Expense of management,4025176

Profit,£10626

[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

e50Potatoes, at £2 per Scots acre,10000

e30Turnip, at 4s. per do,600

d50Wheat, 23 qrs. at 60s.,6900

30Barley, 14 qrs. at 35s., 24100

f50Pasture, at 17s. per acre,42100

o30Hay, at 15s. per do.,22100

r80Oats, at 40 qrs. at 28s.,5600

320

50 acres potatoes, 34 tons per acre, horse and cow manure driven from Edinburgh, at 6s. per ton,51000

30 acres turnip, 30 tons do., at 4s. per ton,18000

Keep of 15 horses, at £28 per annum,42000

Do. of 1 riding horse, do.,2800

Wages of farm overseer, per annum,3200

Do. 8 ploughmen, at £27 per do.,21600

Do. 2 labourers at 10s., and 1 boy at 5s. per week,6500

Outdoor women-workers per annum,16500

Reaping 160 acres corn crop, at 12s. per acre,9600

Wages of extra men securing crop,1300

Cutting 30 acres hay, at 3s. 9d.,5126

Cutting hedges, and keeping fences, gates, and houses in repair,1000

Smith work, per annum,3500

Carpenter work, do.,2200

Veterinary surgeon, do.,700

Saddler work, do.,1700

Millwright, engineer, mason, and slater's accounts,1000

Coals for steam-engine, and steaming and bruising horse food,1200

Annual loss on live and dead stock, from death and tear and wear,9000

Tolls, custom, and marketing expenses,2500

Insurance,600

Poor-rates and statute-labour, previous to passing of New Poor Law,30170

Assessed taxes and income tax,19180

Interest on £1500 capital, sunk in permanent improvements, at 10 per cent,15000

Interest on floating capital of £2000, at 5 per cent,10000

Rent of 320 Scots acres, at £4 10s. per acre,144000

Expense of management,£4025176

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.

25Potatoes, supposing them to be sound, at £20,50000

35Turnips, at £14,49000

20Beans, 5 qrs. per acre, at 26s. per qr.,13000

45Wheat, 6 qrs. per acre, at 38s. per qr.51300

35Barley, 7 qrs. per acre, at 23s. per qr.,281150

50Pasture, let at £4 per acre,20000

30Hay, at £5, 10s. per acre,16500

80Oats, 7¹⁄₂ qrs. per acre, at 18s. per qr.,54000

320

Produce of straw, sold, at present prices,40000

Manure made on the Farm,7000

Value of Produce,£3,289150

Expense of Management,3,786140

Loss,£496190

Annual Profit previous to 1846,£10626

Loss incurred by difference of price under free-trade,£60316

Acres.

S25Potatoes, at £4 per Scots acre,10000

E35Turnips, at 5s. per acre,8150

E20Beans, 12¹⁄₂ qrs., at 34s., per qr., price, at seed time,2150

D45Wheat, 20 qrs., at 62s., do.,6200

35Barley, 17¹⁄₂ qrs., at 33s., do.,28176

F50Pasture, at 14s. per acre, do.,3500

O30Hay, at 12s. do., do.,1800

R80Oats, 40 qrs., at 22s. per qr., do.,4400

320

25 acres potatoes, 30 tons per acre, horse and cow manure, driven from Edinburgh, at 5s. per ton,187100

20 acres beans, 20 tons manure per acre, at 5s. per ton,10000

35 acres turnips, 25 tons do., at 3s. 6d. per ton,15326

Guano and other extra manures applied to turnip, potato, and other crops,12500

Keep of 15 horses, at £22 per annum,33000

Keep of 1 riding horse, do.,2200

Wages of farm overseer, per annum,3000

Do. 8 ploughmen, at £25 per do.,20000

Do. 2 labourers, at 9s. each, and 1 boy 5s. per week,59160

Outdoor women workers, per annum,16500

Reaping 160 acres corn crop, at 10s. 6d. per acre,8400

Wages of extra men securing crop,1200

Cutting 30 acres hay, at 3s. per acre,4100

Cutting hedges, and keeping fences, gates, and houses in repair,1000

Smith work, per annum,3500

Carpenter's work, do.,2200

Veterinary surgeon, do.,700

Saddler work, do.,1700

Millwright, engineer, mason, and slater's accounts,1000

Coals for steam engine, and steaming and bruising horses' food,1000

Annual loss on live and dead stock, from death and tear and wear,9000

Tolls, custom, and marketing expenses,2500

Insurance,600

Poor rates and statute labour under New Poor Law,5400

Assessed taxes and income tax,19 180

Interest on £1500 capital, sunk in permanent improvements, at 10 per cent,15000

Interest on floating capital of £2000, at 5 per cent,10000

Rent of 320 acres, at £4, 10s. per acre,1,44000

Expenses of Management,£3,786140

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.