Various "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, 57 3 1843, 50 1 1844, 51 3 1845, 50 10 1846, 54 8 1847, 69 9 6)333 10 55 72/3 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] "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., £800 0 0 Invested capital of £6 per acre at entry, £3000. Interest upon this sum, at rate of 10 per cent, 300 0 0 Floating capital of £4 per acre, £2000. Interest thereon, 5 per cent, 100 0 0 Expenses of management, wages, tradesmen's accounts, insurances, grass seeds, &c., at the rate of 20s. per acre per annum, 500 0 0 Annual loss by casualties on live stock by disease and accidents, 100 0 0 Public burdens leviable upon the farmer, including poor-rates, 50 0 0 Sum chargeable against the farm annually, £1850 0 0 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, 2400 at 3s. £360 0 0 40 acres of spring wheat, producing 32 bushels per acre, 1280 Off for seed, 160 Disposable wheat, 1120 at 7s. 392 0 0 60 acres of barley, producing 42 bush. per acre, 2520 Off for seed and horses, &c., 500 Disposable barley, 2020 at 4s. 404 0 0 £1156 0 0 Profits from live stock, fed upon 200 acres grass, and 100 acres green crop, 800 0 0 Total returns, £1956 0 0 1956 0 0 Leaving annually to the farmer, for his skill and industry, over interest of capital employed, a sum of £106 0 0 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, £240 0 0 1120 bushels of wheat, at 5s. per ditto, 280 0 0 2020 bushels of barley, at 2s. 9d. per ditto, 277 15 0 £797 15 0 Live stock, (as above, £800,) less 20 per cent on former prices, leaves 640 0 0 Net return, £1437 15 0 Sum chargeable as above against the farm, 1850 0 0 Leaving the farmer minus, for rent, capital, and expenses of management, £412 5 0 412 5 0 Total loss annually incurred by difference in price occasioned by free trade, £518 5 0 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, £800 0 0 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, £250 0 0 Interest on capital invested in stock, &c., yielding an annual return of £1500, at 5 per cent, 75 0 0 Expenses of management—wages, tradesmen's accounts, extra manures, &c., 550 0 0 Casualties, loss on stock, &c., 50 0 0 Public and Parish Burdens, 45 0 0 £970 0 0 £1770 0 0 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, servants 210 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., £357 0 0 1800 Wheat, at 7s., 630 0 0 1390 Barley, at 4s., 278 0 0 £1265 0 0 Returns upon stock estimated, at prices then current, to yield, 750 0 0 £2015 0 0 Profit—remuneration for tenant's industry and skill, £245 0 0 The above grain produce yields, at the highest average I feel warranted in assuming, under free trade— Bushels. 2380 Oats, at 2s., £238 0 0 1800 Wheat, at 5s., 450 0 0 1390 Barley, at 2s. 9d., 191 0 0 £879 0 0 In place of, as above, 1265 0 0 £386 0 0 Thus the difference of proceeds of grain crop alone, more than absorbs all the tenant's remuneration, by £141 0 0 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, £262 10 0 Invested capital, £1000—interest at 10 per cent, 100 0 0 Floating capital, in stock, &c., £1800—interest at 5 per cent, 90 0 0 Servants' wages, per annum, 129 0 0 Day-labourers' wages, &c., 15 0 0 Rye-grass and clover seeds, 20 0 0 Tradesmen's accounts, 50 0 0 Public burdens, 15 0 0 Casual losses of stock, and partial insurance, 40 0 0 Expenses in driving grain and extraneous manures, in the shape of tolls, &c., with necessary expenses at markets, 20 0 0 Total expenditure, £741 10 0 Annual Income. 250 acres, on the five-course rotation:— In oats—80 acres, at 6 qrs. per acre, 480 qrs. Deduct for seed, 60 qrs. Do. for horses, meal, &c.,120 qrs. —— 180 qrs. —— Oats to be disposed of, 300 qrs. at 21s. = £315 0 0 —— 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. =137 15 0 Realised from cattle fed on 100 acres of grass and 50 acres of turnips, 400 0 0 Total income, 852 15 0 Profit—or return for labour, skill, and risk of capital, £111 5 0 Income under Free-trade Prices. And—on the supposition that no reduction of the price of fat cattle is to take place on account of the free importation of foreign animals—let us take the receipts from cattle fed on the grass and turnips as above, viz.,	400	0	0
Total income under free-trade prices of grain,	£705	0	0
Brought forward,	£705	0	0
Expenditure as above, viz.,	741	10	0
Loss per annum,	£36	10	0
Or, adding former profit, viz. as above,	111	5	0
Total loss, on grain alone, by free trade,	£147	15	0

I consider the above a fair statement of the expenditure and income on a farm in the lower district of Aberdeenshire, under former and under present circumstances. It will be observed that no wheat is grown; but the soil is well adapted for the rearing and feeding of cattle, and from this source the Aberdeenshire farmer expects to derive a large proportion of his returns. In the comparison, reference is had solely to the fall in the price of the kinds of grain cultivated. Whatever decline in the price of fat cattle may arise from free trade, will fall heavily on the farmers of this district; and the reduction of income thus occasioned will, of course, add to the amount of loss shown above.

JAMES HAY,
Little Ythsie, 13th December 1849.

Having lately had an opportunity of examining a number of actual accounts of income and expenditure on various farms, I can confirm the substantial accuracy and fairness of the above statements, Nos. I. and II. Mr Hay's statement above, referring to the system of agriculture with which, in this part of the country, we are most conversant, may, in my humble opinion, be regarded as fair and just, and as near the average that a comparison of a number of individual cases would indicate, as it can be made.

I am sensible that, in many cases of calculations—more especially in those in which certain assumptions have to be made—it is quite possible, even with a show of fairness, to bring out by means of figures almost any result that may be desired; but it is to be observed that, in the above statements, the same assumptions (if they can be regarded as such) are made on both sides of the comparison, with the exception of the prices at which agricultural produce is taken; and it is submitted with confidence that these are neither made higher in the one case, nor lower in the other, than experience warrants.

W. HAY,
Tillydesk, 14th December 1849.

No. IV.

Estimated Value, of the produce upon a farm in Roxburghshire of 500 acres,
managed according to the five-shift rotation, thus:—
200 acres of corn crop.
200"of grass.
100"of turnips.
——
500

It is here assumed that there are no local advantages, the whole green crops being consumed upon the farm by sheep and cattle.

I. Produce of Corn Crops.

Average Value during the ten years preceding Crop 1848.

Expenses and Rent—

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

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.

To meet this sum there is the produce of 230 acres corn crop, 10 acres potatoes, and the profits from live stock as follows:—

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

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.

[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.]

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.

JOHN GIBSON,
Woolmet, 18th December 1849.
{John Finnie, Swanston.
Attested by {George Watson, Libberton Mains.
{Alexander Scott, Craiglockhart.

Let those who believe that, by high farming, the soil can be stimulated so as to produce enormously augmented crops, at a large additional profit, consider the above statistics well. They are the statistics of the very highest farming in Scotland. The English agriculturist has been taunted for his backwardness in not adopting the improvements of his northern neighbour, who, with a worse climate, has made the most of the soil. Such has been the language used by some of the advocates and apologists of free trade, who are now urging the farmer to lay out more capital in draining and manures—assuring him that, by doing so, the returns will far exceed the interest of the outlay. With a fine disregard for the elements of arithmetic, they insist that low prices can in no way interfere with his success, and that only exertion and enterprise are wanting to raise him above the reach of foreign competition. The above tables exhibit the experiment, worked out to its highest point. In these cases capital has been liberally expended, energy tasked to the utmost, and every means, which science can devise or experience suggest, called into active operation. The farmers of Mid-Lothian, Berwickshire and Forfarshire may fairly challenge the world in point of professional attainments. They have done all that man can do, and here is the reward of their toil.

Supposing, then, that hereafter the permanent price of wheat were to be 40s. a quarter; that other cereal produce remained at corresponding rates; and that the value of live stock did not diminish—points, upon all of which we are truly more than sceptical—it will follow that high farming, such as is at present practised in the best agricultural districts of Scotland, cannot by possibility be carried on. No possible reduction of rent would suffice to enable the farmer to continue his competition. Such a fall must necessarily have the effect of annihilating one of the two classes; for the landlord, burdened as he is, would cease to draw the means of maintenance from his estate, and it is questionable whether the residue would suffice to pay the interest of the mortgages and preferable burdens. To the people of Scotland this is the most vital question that has engaged their attention since the Union. Our national prosperity does not depend upon manufactures to the same degree as that of England. By far the greater portion of our wealth arises directly from the soil: by far the larger number of our population depend upon that for their subsistence. Even if Manchester statistics were applicable to England, the case is different here. If the prices of agricultural produce should continue as low as at present—and we cannot see what chance exists of their rising, in the face of such a tremendous import—the effect upon this country must be disastrous. Such prices would reduce Scotland, at one fell swoop, to the condition of Ireland: paralyse the home market for manufactures; throw hundreds of thousands out of employment; lower the revenue; augment the poor-rates; and utterly disorganise society. And yet what help for it? The farmer cannot be expected to pay for the privilege of losing several hundreds per annum by cultivation. Let Mr Watson's statement be examined, and it will appear that the enterprising and skilful tenant of a farm of five hundred acres, in the best corn district of Forfar, cannot clear his expenses unless the rent of the land is reduced by one-half, and, even if that were done, he could only realise a profit of sixpence per acre! Such a result, we fairly allow, would appear, at first sight, to be incredible; yet there it is—vouched for by men of name, character, and high reputation. This is the extreme case; but, if we pass to Berwickshire, we shall find that a reduction of half the rent would barely place the tenant in the same position which he occupied previous to the withdrawal of protection. Look at No. IV., and the result will appear worse. Even were one half of the rent remitted, the profits of the tenants, at present prices, would be less by £100 than they were at the former rates of corn. Very nearly the same results will be brought out, if we calculate the necessary reductions on the rents of the Mid-Lothian farms. Lord Kinnaird may see in those tables the fate which is in store for him; and he cannot hope to escape it long, even by inserting, in his new leases, the most stringent stipulations as to money payments which legal ingenuity can devise. It is just possible that "men of business habits," retired shopkeepers, and others of that class, may be coaxed and persuaded into trying their hands at a trade of which they know literally nothing. They may be incautious enough to put their names to covenants, not conceived according to Mr Caird's liberal principle, and so pledge their capital for the fulfilment of a bargain which common sense declares, and experience proves, to be preposterous. The necessary consequence will be, that the rent must be paid out of capital, a process which cannot last long; and the unhappy speculator, as he finds his earnings disappearing, will curse the hour when he yielded to the delusion, that high farming must be profitable in spite of the variations of price. The poor seamstress, who weekly turns out of hand her augmented number of improved shirts—and who lately, though on exceedingly erroneous principles, has found a warm advocate in the kind-hearted Mr Sydney Herbert—has, in her own way, tested the value of the experiment. There is more cotton to be shaped, and more work to be done, but the prices continue to fall. She makes two additional shirts, but she receives nothing for the additional labour, because the remuneration for each is beaten down. The free-trade tariffs are the cause of her distress, but the unfortunate creature is not learned in statistics, and therefore does not understand the source of her present misery. No more, probably, do the female population of the Orkney islands, whom Sir Robert Peel reduced to penury some years ago, by a single stroke of his pen, through the article of straw-plait. From Lerwick to the Scilly Isles, the poor industrious classes were made the earliest victims. The tiller of the land is liable to the operation of the same rules. By the outlay of capital, he forces an additional crop, but, the value of produce having fallen, his returns, estimated in money, are just the same as before. If the maintenance of rents throughout the United Kingdom depends simply upon the supply of dupes, we are afraid that the Whig landlords will speedily find themselves in a sorry case.

We by no means wish to treat this question as if Scotland alone were concerned. The English agriculturist, who knows that strict economy is the rule in northern farming, will readily acknowledge that our observations have even greater force when applied to his own case. It would have been presumption in us, had we passed beyond the limits of our own field of illustration, which, however, will bear comparison with any other. On the whole, we think it will hardly be questioned, that, if high farming in the Lothians or on the Border is a losing trade, it cannot be made profitable elsewhere within the boundaries of Britain.

We are told that this is a landlord's question; and we find Messrs Bright and Cobden, with more than their usual malignity, chuckling over the prospects of the downfall of a class which they honour with their rancorous hatred. They do not affect to disguise the pleasure which they derive from knowing that, at this moment, the rents are being paid from the farmer's capital; and, so far, they bear important testimony to the truth of the calculations we have submitted. It is not our business at present to diverge into ethics, else we might be tempted to hazard a few observations on the brutal and un-British spirit which pervades the whole of their late harangues. All that we shall do now is to remark that they are trying, by every means in their power, to persuade the tenantry of Britain that this is a mere landlords' question; and we are bound to confess, that such writers as Lord Kinnaird have materially contributed towards fostering this delusion. A very little consideration, however, will show the utter fallacy of such an opinion; and we feel convinced that the good sense of the tenantry of Scotland will interfere to prevent them from being led astray by the devices of their inveterate enemies.

So far as we can gather from the opinions enunciated by the leaders of the Manchester school, at their late gatherings, their view resolves itself into this. Abolish the rents, and agriculture will go on as before. Little argument is necessary to show, that the proposition, even were it admitted, is by no means in favour of the farmer.

Our excellent contemporary, The Standard, has already disposed of it in a single sentence:—Wipe off the rents, and you wipe away the class which heretofore has paid the rents. Mr Bright would fain attempt to persuade the farmers that they are altogether independent of the landlords, and that no suffering can reach them. Have then the landlords, in most instances, expended nothing on the soil? Their outlay does not appear in balance sheets, however large may be its amount; but, were that outlay added to the farmer's expenditure of capital, there can be no doubt that, even without rent, at present prices, farming would be otherwise than profitable. But did it never strike Mr Bright that, failing rents, the landlords must necessarily take their farms into their own hands, as indeed has occurred already in several districts of the country? We presume he does not contemplate a quiet confiscation of estates—if he does, confiscation will not stop there. We suppose the owner must still have the option of keeping his property; and if so, as he will derive no profit from it in the shape of rent, he must either farm it himself, or act as labourer on wages under a farmer. We apprehend there can be little doubt as to the course he will take, when driven to such an extremity. As a body, tenant-farmers will cease to exist. They may go to Poland if they please, and employ their practical skill, and such remnant of capital as they can save from the wreck of their fortunes, in the patriotic task of growing wheat cheaper than before, for the British manufacturing market; but in this country there will be no longer any room for them. We shall be thankful to know if any course more feasible can be suggested; but indeed ingenuity seems to be at fault, and the Free-traders hardly affect to conceal their conviction that such must be the result. The following extract from a leading article in the Times of 6th December, will show the views entertained by that very influential journal.

"If any landowners or tenants are thoroughly persuaded that, under the operation of free trade, land will yield no rent to the owner, or no profit to the farmer, let them dispose of their land or their farms. The whole world lies before them. The funds, the share-market, trades and manufactures innumerable and new ones every day, the colonies, the United States, the Antipodes, Europe, and literally the whole surface of the globe, is open to the enterprise of wealthy or ingenious men. Those who regard an English landlord or yeoman as an animal to be kept in a hothouse will think this very cruel advice, but it is advice which nine-tenths of our fellow-subjects have to follow, at least once in their lives. The law of change is impressed on the whole face of society. Man improves by being transplanted to new soils, and grafted on new stocks. Why should not the heroic qualities of our gentry be employed in the improvement of the world, and in the spread of civilisation, religion, and manners? Why should not the skill of our farmers be turned to account in making the whole earth bring forth its full produce? As it happens, there are no classes actually concerned in the material and operations of industry who can change their place with so little difficulty or cost as the owners and cultivators of the soil. The landowner can sell his estate, and buy another, or invest the money in the funds, any day he pleases. The tenant can dispose of his lease and his stock without much sacrifice. Can an attorney, a physician or surgeon, a beneficed clergyman, a merchant, a retail shopkeeper, or, indeed, any commercial or professional person, change his locality ten miles without sacrificing at least 30 or 50 per cent of his present income? Yet many such are obliged to migrate, and resign present income, besides all the other losses involved in a move, in the mere hope of ultimately improving their condition. As for our agricultural labourers, who, we are often told, are the staple of our population, for many years the whole force and pressure of our social institutions has been applied to compel their migration. Landlord, tenant, parson, overseer, and even a man's own fellow-labourers, are all in a conspiracy to elbow him out of the crowd, and the sooner he yields to that pressure the better. Why, then, should it be thought a hard thing to give the same advice to the landowner and the farmer?"

So write the Free-traders, and we wish them joy of their argument. Henceforth, then, we ought to abandon all foolish scruples connected with home, and kindred, and country—all national considerations, all the ties and common feelings that hitherto have held Englishmen together! Truly, the cause which requires such advocacy as this must be in a desperate condition. Such language however, extravagant and puerile as it is, has some extrinsic value; for it shows us the utter selfishness and entire disregard of the Free-traders for every other interest in Britain except their own.

We shall probably be told that we are alarmists. It is no new charge against us. The same thing was said when we denounced the policy of government towards the West Indian interest, and also when we foreshadowed the commercial crisis which overtook us in 1847. One exception may be taken to our agricultural views, on the ground that farms have been let in Scotland without any diminution of rent. We allow that such is the case. We admit that, even during the bygone year, there has been considerable competition for farms; and we know very well that this circumstance has tended to allay the fears of many. But, after all, what does it prove? Nothing more, we apprehend, than that the farmer is most reluctant to abandon the profession to which he has been bred, and in which his capital is invested; and that, in times of notoriously unsettled and vacillating legislation, he may be, perhaps, too sanguine as to the possibility of another change. The fact that some farms, in various parts of the country, have, of late, brought full and even higher rents, is not enough to warrant the idea that present engagements can be met. It does not follow that these will continue to be paid; nor do the parties themselves, we presume, expect to be able to fulfil their engagements, if future prices are such as we have felt constrained to reckon them. We have seen of late, in other matters, how easily people are deceived by sanguine anticipations; and it has recently been lamentably proved, that it is often long before disastrous events produce their due effect in indicating true value. If, in the less intricate matter of railway speculations, we have seen men who boasted of their superior information, involving themselves in the downward course of these unfortunate concerns, under the idea that the turning-point of depression had been attained, and that golden profits might be realised, is it marvellous if the farmer should be deceived in a matter which has been so much mystified, and which his predilections and peculiar position, in most instances, will not admit of his viewing calmly and dispassionately, even if he possessed the means of correct information? His education and habits compel him to endeavour to continue his occupation at all hazards. If once he abandon his calling, he is out of a situation as well as a home. It often happens, besides, and now it is peculiarly the case, that, to dispose of his stocking—a necessity incumbent upon the loss of his farm—is to make a sacrifice of his property. At present, live stock is from 15 to 20 per cent under what he has been in the habit of receiving for the last few years. Hence, upon such a vexed question as the effects of the corn laws, modified and free, have become, it is only natural that, in his doubt, and darkness, and perplexity, he should stretch a point to keep possession of his occupation; trusting that, if matters continue to be adverse, his landlord will have the like commiseration for him which it is his duty to testify for his neighbour, who, under other circumstances, is also writhing beneath the pressure. In such a case, rent becomes altogether a question of chance, left to be modified and controlled by after circumstances.

In this view it is not difficult to understand why farms falling out of lease have been taken at rates absurdly disproportioned to the present prices of agricultural produce. Ask any intelligent farmer, who has placed himself in this position, and he will frankly confess that he does not expect to be able to pay his rent, unless some very material change in the value of produce shall take place. How should he think otherwise? In the better districts of Scotland, farming has been carried so high that there is hardly any margin left for improvement. Up to a certain point, the soil may be artificially stimulated; but, that point once reached, any further appliances become positively hurtful, and defeat the intentions of the grower. The flower of our tenantry—the men whose exertions have made the land what it is—can go but a little way further. Nor can the severest moralist tax them with a breach of probity if they should enter into bargains which, under the operation of the present laws, they cannot possibly fulfil. The legislature took no account of them when it abolished protection. Parliament dealt with them more tyrannically than any irresponsible monarch would have dared to deal with a people far less intelligent and far less cognisant of their rights. The laws have ceased to be, in the estimation of the multitude, final. We now consider them, and most justly, as mere make-shifts which cannot stand against the pressure of a well-organised agitation; and men speculate on the probability of their changes, just as gamblers make adventures on the probable fluctuations of the funds. No man can deny that such is the case. Free trade is in the ascendant to-day: to-morrow, protection may be uppermost. A sad state of things truly; but such as must necessarily occur, when statesmen, whose heads have grown hoary in office, desert principle to adopt expediency, and repudiate the professions of a whole lifetime, for the sake of outwitting their political opponents. Our steadfast conviction is, that unsettled legislation has tended more than anything else to prevent an immediate depreciation in the rents. Foster gambling, and you create gamblers. Farms are now taken on speculation, with the view, not to increased production of the land, but to further changes in the experimental policy of the nation.

But in reality we apprehend that such cases are the exception, and not the rule. We have heard it trumpeted abroad that certain farms in East Lothian were let during the course of last year at an advance. We have taken pains to investigate this matter; and we find on inquiry that, in some cases, such farms have been taken by new men of little agricultural experience. Lord Kinnaird may be glad to hear this, but we cannot view it in the light of an encouraging symptom. Others, no doubt, have been retaken, probably under the influence of such considerations as we have just stated. Again, we find that some farms in the south of Scotland are very differently situated now, than they were before. The extension of the railway system has given to such of them as are near stations, advantages which were enjoyed heretofore by such farms only as were in the immediate vicinity of large towns; and in this way their value has been increased. But it is quite evident, that, unless some extraordinary fallacy lurks in the tables which we have given above—unless the leading practical agriculturists of Scotland are either possessed by some monstrous arithmetical delusion, or banded in some organised conspiracy to mislead the public mind—no exceptional case can be admitted as of any weight whatever in determining the general question. On the part of ourselves, and of our correspondents, we not only invite, but we broadly challenge investigation. We desire that the truth may be made known, because any delusion on either side must tend to the public detriment.

If our statistics should be admitted as correct, we think it must be clear to demonstration that British agriculture cannot maintain itself longer against the competition of the foreign grower. We believe it impossible for any man who has attended to the minute statements given above, to arrive at an opposite conclusion. No appliances, no energy, no high farming, can avail in this ruinous struggle. To expect that more capital will be embarked in so losing a trade, is perfectly idle. Even if tenants had the wish to do so, they would fail for the want of means. It will be seen from the preceding tables what amount of capital is usually perilled on Scottish farms, and what amount of loss, at present prices, the farmer must necessarily sustain. Even in better times, few men could afford to do as much as has already been done by the agriculturists of the Lothians and Berwickshire; and, under existing circumstances, the great body of the tenantry cannot find the means to continue their ordinary operations. With capital exhausted and credit denied to him, what is the farmer to do? The question is one which we would fain see answered, and that immediately, by those who have brought us to the present pass. It cannot remain long unanswered, without such an augmentation of distress as must render all remedy ineffectual.

So far we have spoken for the tenant, who, as an old contracting party, has been utterly sacrificed by free-trade legislation. As a new contractor, we have shown that he is placed under circumstances of peculiar disadvantage, arising from ignorance as to his real position, his past exertions, and his future prospects. Had we spoken rashly on this matter, we should have been liable to the utmost blame; but we have not put forward any one position which is not based upon facts, laboriously ascertained, and closely scrutinised; and all these are open to challenge, if any assailant has the mind, or the power, to refute us. We state nothing which is not founded on evidence of the clearest kind, and we shall be glad if our statements can be met in a precisely similar manner.

We observe that Mr William Ewart Gladstone, in an address delivered at the late meeting of the Fettercairn Farmers' Club, has taken a different line of argument; and if his views should prove to be correct, we must necessarily admit that the British agriculturist has no ground for complaint at all. We are, it seems, making a vast deal of noise without anything to justify it. We are clamouring about an imaginary evil, when we ought to be deeply grateful for natural benefits vouchsafed to us. So thinks Mr Gladstone, or at least so he speaks; and as his undeniable talents, and the high official position which he formerly occupied, entitle him to an attentive hearing, we shall briefly recapitulate his views. These are not new, for, if we recollect right, they were enunciated so early as last spring by the Hon. Sydney Herbert, a gentleman belonging to the same political section as Mr Gladstone, and they were then triumphantly refuted by Mr John Ellman, in his letter addressed to the Duke of Bedford. Since that time, however, another harvest has intervened, and Mr Gladstone now takes up the argument of his friend under better auspices, and with a greater show of plausibility.

Foreign competition, according to Mr Gladstone, is not the cause of low prices. "This is not," says he, "the first time that we have had difficulties. We have had many periods when low prices prevailed. Certainly, at present, prices are extremely low; but, in many parts of the country, there is a sort of compensation for these low prices arising from great abundance—the result of improved processes of growing the crop, and, of consequence, an improved yield. With regard to the cause of declining prices, I cannot adopt the line of argument of those who look only to importations as the chief cause. I do not pretend to speak so accurately of Scotland, but, as to England, the wheat crop this year was the largest ever known. Upon one single acre of land, of average quality, no less than sixty-eight bushels of wheat have been taken from the crop of this year. I must also point out the fact to you, that, although the crop is the largest, the prices are by no means the lowest we have seen—for instance, in the year 1835, when the sliding-scale was in full operation, we had wheat at 35s. per quarter, and this not only for a short time, but for the whole year. If it be true, therefore, that, at the present time, we have prices 5s. per quarter higher than they were in 1835, with a corn-law prohibitory till wheat rose to 70s. per quarter, then I cannot see that we have any such great cause for alarm as many imagine."

The first remark that we shall make with reference to this statement, is, that it is utterly incorrect. We do not know from what source Mr Gladstone ordinarily draws his figures, but if any one will consult the official tables of returns for the year 1835, he will find that the average of wheat was 39s. 4d., and not 35s., as Mr Gladstone has unwarrantably asserted. We have gone over the weekly averages for the whole of that year, and we find that wheat was never once quoted so low as 35s. In a matter of this kind, accuracy is a cardinal virtue, and we cannot allow such a statement as this to pass unnoticed. The following are the lowest weekly and aggregate averages for the whole year, taken from the official tables, and we have purposely selected these in order that Mr Gladstone may have the full benefit of the nearest approximation to his figures.

LOWEST WEEKLY AND AGGREGATE AVERAGES
THROUGHOUT THE YEAR 1835.

What, then, are we to think of Mr Gladstone's averment, that, in 1835, we had wheat at 35s., "and this not only for a short time, but for the whole year?" Not even for the week have we a vestige of any such quotation! This is blunder the first, and it is so serious a one, that, on his own showing, it is enough to invalidate the whole of his argument. It is not a fact "that, at the present time, we have prices 5s. per quarter higher than they were in 1835." The difference is a fractional part of a shilling; and if Mr. Gladstone wishes to find a time when the prices were five shillings lower than at present, he must go back to the year 1779; and, in travelling towards that period, he will meet with some startling facts in the financial history of the country, which are well worthy of observation. In 1779, he will find wheat at 33s. 8d., the produce of such a harvest that the export of grain exceeded the import by 217,222 quarters. But he will also find that the national debt, at that period, was just one-fourth of what it now is; and that the poor-rates of England, instead of touching eight millions, were considerably short of two.

Secondly, it is not true that the last wheat crop was the largest ever known in England. This is a wild and utterly extravagant assertion. The bygone crop was a good one, less on account of quality than of gift; but every agriculturist knows that, within the experience of the present generation, we have had far finer crops. That of 1815 was enormous in its yield—so great that we did not import a single quarter of grain, and the average price of wheat for that year was 63s. 8d. The crop of 1822 was not very much inferior. These are notorious instances; but in order to ascertain, with as much precision as possible, the relative quality of the bygone crop, we submitted the statement of Mr. Gladstone to one of the most extensive corn-dealers in Leith, and the following is his reply. "Mr. Gladstone's statement is certainly very unlike that of a person of his high authority; though I conceive it as calculated to do much mischief in the present depressed state of the corn-trade, as many people will judge of it from Mr. Gladstone's high standing. In my opinion, however, nothing can be more absurd than estimating a crop by a yard in any field, or by a single acre. We hear now a great deal of the land being more productive, by draining and other improvements; and it was to be expected that, when a good wheat season occurred, we should have more wheat than in previous years; but, from all the confirmation we have yet obtained, I am by no means disposed to believe that the last crop is a great one, far less that it is greater than ever known. The present generation, I have no doubt, have seen larger crops of wheat than our forefathers; but I think 1814, 1815, 1822, 1825, 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834, 1835, 1841, and 1842, were better seasons than the last. Essex, and several other English counties which had bad crops in 1848, have much greater crops in 1849; but Lincolnshire, and several other very important counties, have very deficient crops on certain varieties of soil. All that can be said of the present crop is, that it is a full one, generally speaking. More of it, I am sure, will yield under 40 bushels an acre than over 40; and very little, indeed, 60 or 68, as Mr. Gladstone says a single acre has produced." So much for the general yield; let us now revert to the seasons which Mr. Gladstone has selected for comparison.

The crop of 1835 was not only larger than that of 1849, but it came to us under circumstances which entirely preclude a comparison of the years, if prices are to be taken as a criterion. The crop of 1835 was the last of a series of fine ones. We subjoin the statistics from 1830, which was a bad season, to 1836, when the harvest was again unfavourable:—

It will thus be seen that it was a succession of good harvests which brought down the prices gradually from 66s. 4d. in 1831, to 39s. 4d. in 1835. Last year we had one good harvest following a remarkably bad one, and yet Mr Gladstone would attempt to persuade us that the present reduction of price arises solely from excessive plenty, as in 1835! If it were so, where would be the room for that importation, which, during the first eight months of the bygone year, has more than doubled that of 1848, for the corresponding period? For his own sake, we are sorry to find Mr Gladstone resorting to fallacies so exceedingly flimsy and transparent. Surely he must be aware that the extreme depreciation of price, which is the cause of agricultural distress, could not by any possibility be the result of the late harvest—for this unanswerable reason, that, in the earlier parts of the year, before the corn had shot in the fields, prices were rapidly dwindling. The deficient crop of 1848 could not have put prices down—we presume that even Mr Gladstone will not maintain that—and yet, for the week ending April 7, 1849 we find the averages of England as follows:—

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

So then, after a poor crop in 1848, we find prices lower than they were in 1834, after a series of fine crops, and we are calmly asked to adopt the conclusion that a single good crop in 1849 has done all the mischief! Mr Gladstone might just as well tell us that our present prices are affected by the crop of 1850, which is now lying in embryo in the seed.

But we have not yet done with Mr Gladstone, who goes on to assert that low prices have nothing to do with importations from abroad. This position he tries to fortify by rather an ingenious process, as will be seen from the following extract from his speech:—

"Let me point out also that I had the curiosity to obtain an account of the last month's importations into this country, and, on comparing the same with those of 1848, the decrease this year is very remarkable; and, besides, with diminished importations this year, must be taken into account the fact, that from the condition of the crop this year, as compared with the last, the value of our grain is at least 5s. superior to the mere nominal price. In October, last year, you had good prices for wheat; in this year, bad. I ask, was this owing to importations from abroad, or was it not? I give you the result in figures, which I think will convince you what is the reason of the low prices. In October 1848, the importation of wheat to this country was no less than 506,000 quarters; in 1849, it is only 154,000 quarters. How are we to account for this, but simply from the great abundance of wheat at home this year, while in 1848 the supply was somewhat short; and, so far as regards the English farmer, I consider he is better off this year, with his large crop and low prices, than he was last, with his small crop and high prices."

If anything could make us lose our patience, while dealing with so momentous a subject, it would be the sight of such statements as these. Observe how the matter stands. Mr Gladstone is arguing that importations from abroad do not affect prices here, and, by way of proof, he gives us the statistics of a single month. He says—Last October you had good prices and large importations: this October you have bad prices and diminished importation. Ergo, importations have nothing to do with prices! Is Mr Gladstone ignorant of the fact, that, for the first eight months of the year 1849, the quantity of grain imported was more than double that of the preceding season, and that almost every warehouse in our ports is filled almost to bursting with foreign grain? Is he aware that this diminished import for October, if extended over the year, would give an amount greater than was brought in during any famine year previous to 1839? Let us see how this matter stands, adopting his very favourable calculations.

IMPORTS OF WHEAT AND WHEAT FLOUR
IN BAD SEASONS.

The October imports, which Mr Gladstone considers as being reduced in consequence of the good harvest at home, would, if spread over the year, amount to 1,848,000 quarters—being very little less than the average amount imported from 1836 to 1840, when we had five bad or indifferent seasons in succession. Mr Gladstone, however, we apprehend, leaps too rapidly at his conclusions. He should have waited until the frost set in, and then, perhaps, he might have been able to point to a materially diminished importation. We should like to know how he will dispose of the ascertained statistics for November. They are as follows:—

IMPORTS OF FOREIGN GRAIN INTO UNITED
KINGDOM, FOR NOVEMBER 1849.

being equal to 513,615 quarters of all kinds of grain for the month! These are the diminished importations! But we shall come down even later, and inquire what sort of proportion the arrivals of foreign grain bear to those of British growth in the London market, according to the last accounts. We copy from the Times of December 11:—

"Corn Exchange, Monday, Dec. 10.—Throughout the past week, there have been good arrivals of wheat, barley, and oats into this market from abroad, although of wheat the quantity reported has been less than of other grain. Of English corn of any kind, (if we except barley,) the total reports are insignificant, and but a few cargoes of oats from Ireland. The state of the trade, on the several market days, was languid, and even at lower prices for barley and oats, buyers were indisposed to get into stock."

The following is a statement of the arrivals of grain at London from the 3d to the 8th of December, which may serve to indicate the sources from which the population of our vast metropolis is fed; and we leave Mr Gladstone to reconcile it, as he best can, with his new theory of importations:—

So then, after the harvesting of "the largest wheat crop ever known in England," and at the dead season of the year, when the navigation of the Elbe is closed, the importation of foreign wheat into the London market exceeds the arrival of English wheat by a ratio of nearly five to one! And, with such facts before us, we are forbidden to believe that imports affect prices! We hope, when we next meet Mr Gladstone, to find him in a more logical humour, and better prepared with his facts.

It is not surprising if, in a controversy of this kind, we should find the Free-traders openly contradicting each other, and very often themselves, in the advice which they gratuitously offer to the agriculturist. One section recommends further outlay on the land, more extended and elaborate tillage, and prophesies in return an augmented cereal crop. Another totally repudiates this view, but advises that the loss should be made good by green crops, wider pastures, and an infinite multiplication of cattle. The former philanthropists want more grain; the latter insist upon an extended consumption of butcher meat. The tendency of late legislation has been in favour of the latter view, and the consequence has been a depreciation in the value of cattle throughout the kingdom, of at least from 15 to 20 per cent. The consumer has not yet got the full benefit of it, but the farmer has incurred the loss; and we know instances of pasturings on which, for the last two years, not a single shilling of profit has been realised. The cattle when sent to market, after being fattened, have brought the same price which was given for them in their lean and hungry condition. The Free-traders are very bold about cattle, alleging that, in this respect, there is nothing to fear from the effects of foreign competition. And undoubtedly, to a casual observer, this would appear to be one of the least objectionable parts of their scheme. Still there is something mysterious in the fact of the great depreciation. The prices of cattle have fallen, until profit has been nearly extinguished; and if we exclude altogether the idea of foreign competition, the necessary conclusion will be, that the supply has vastly exceeded the demand. This is but poor comfort to those who are told to look to green crops for their remuneration. But we think that the subject requires a closer examination than it has yet received. We are convinced that the depreciation of live stock is intimately connected with importation, and the result of our inquiries will show whether we are right or wrong. But first let us glance at the ascertained effects of importation under the relaxed tariff.

The first fruit of the unrestricted trade in live stock—which exhibited a number that mounted up, for the first five years, at a rate increasing annually fourfold, until the number of "oxen and bulls" reached from 1385 in 1843, to 27,831 in 1848—was no doubt sufficiently alarming. But, judging from the trade of the year ending 1848, and of the present season, this influx would appear to have reached its full. Assuming this to be the case—as the entire number would not, on a rough calculation, furnish more than a week or ten days' supply of beef to the whole country—perhaps there is not much reason to apprehend any great depression in home prices from the influence of the importation of foreign live stock. Besides, from the tendency of recent improvements in agriculture—should these fortunately continue in operation—to increase materially the supplies of beef and mutton, it is possible that these necessaries could, in future, be afforded at such a price as to exclude the probability of any great accession to our importations for many years.

We believe that the only considerable harm which has resulted from the importation of live stock, has been the importation of two very fatal diseases, which have, since then, carried off numbers of cattle and sheep, and which, like most epidemics, will in all human probability become permanent. The mortality was so serious, that Parliament has already passed an act establishing a sort of conditional quarantine; and it has been calculated by those who are skilled in such matters, that the number of animals that have died in consequence, is considerably greater than the whole amount of the importation. In this way it is easy to reckon the amount of our losses and our gains.

But there is a farther importation of butchers' meat in another shape, which is far more difficult to contend against—namely, that of "cured beef, bacon, and pork." The importation of these articles has increased so rapidly and enormously, since the introduction of free trade—the two latter to upwards of sixfold since 1847—that the whole together, it may be reckoned, now afford a quantity of food exceeding in weight four times that of the "oxen and bulls" imported during the last year. This is a mere beginning, but already the effects of it have been widely and calamitously felt. It is not only affecting the graziers, but it is displacing a large and hitherto flourishing trade, both in Britain and in Ireland; and, if carried out further, as it clearly will be, not one single rallying point or chance of escape will be left to the British agriculturist.

The following is the statement of a Liverpool correspondent, dated 6th December last:—

"I enclose you a price-current, with the latest quotations of American provisions, which are the prices to the wholesale dealers. In the best qualities of beef and pork, the trade generally get 5s. to 10s. a package profit, and on an ordinary article a much larger margin is allowed.

"American beef is far superior to Irish, and brings more money. The import of the latter is about 1000 tierces—of the former, 20,000 tierces. Irish pork stands higher than American, and the finest quality eastern will sell within 5s. per barrel of Irish. The import of Irish is about 3000 barrels—of American, 35,000 barrels."

The following table will show the comparative prices of Irish and American produce:—

Comparative Table of Prices of Irish and American Provisions at Liverpool, in December 1849.

These are figures which may well astound the boldest Free-trader; for they show that the provision trade is altogether passing from our hands. To those who regard the welfare of Great Britain, they furnish additional proof of the headlong rate of our decline. But we have yet other statements to make, for which, we are certain, no one was prepared, though the facts they disclose are the necessary consequence of such comparative prices as we have just given. We believe that the British navy, which is victualled by contract, is at this moment supplied from foreign, and not British produce!

We crave the special attention of the reader to the following letter from a gentleman residing in Dundee, who stands nearly at the head of the meat-curing business in Scotland. We have authority to give his name, if that should be considered necessary. His letter bears date 12th November 1849:—

"In reply to the queries put to me by you, as to the value, &c. of foreign provisions, I beg leave to hand you a statement of the difference of price of Scotch and American beef, calculating the Scotch beef at the present low price of 40s. per cwt., and the present price of my American prime mess beef at 87s. 6d. per tierce of 304 lbs., the quality of which is not inferior to the best Scotch beef.

"By this statement you will see that there is a difference of £2, Os. 6d. per tierce, or 14s. 9d. per cwt., in favour of the American; besides, I allow 2¹/₂ per cent off for cash, which I hardly think the butcher does at the above price. Neither am I the importer of this beef, but purchase at the sales in Liverpool, though a broker; neither am I an underseller, 87s. 6d., (2¹/₂ per cent off,) being about the general price for such an article in various markets. Owing to the low price and excellent quality of American beef, almost every ship from this port, going to the south, takes it in preference to our home beef; and when in England, last month, we found there was nothing else used by the English vessels, with the exception of a little fresh beef, which they take with them when they go out; and one house in London informed me that they had supplied the navy with 3080 tierces of American beef.

"American pork can be purchased at a very low price, but as yet I have seen none fine, and there are but few of our shipowners that would take it. There is, however, hardly anything else than American hams and flitch bacons sold in this and other manufacturing towns; and although the quality is not fine, still the price is low, and purchasers are to be found on that account.

"Hamburg beef and pork are both of a good quality, and sell generally about 10s. per cwt. below the price of Scotch. I had, however, an offer of 500 barrels from one of the largest houses in Hamburg fully 15 per cent below what I can afford to cure Scotch; it, however, being last year's cure, I did not accept of the offer.

"There are several houses opened lately in Hamburg, who are curing a first-rate article in a first-rate style for the London market; and one of my London correspondents, writing lately, informs me of a house in London (to which I have sent a great quantity of pickled pork for the last twenty years,) having opened a curing establishment in Hamburg for the cure of pickled pork on the Scotch system. It was doing up nicely, and affecting the market for Scotch greatly; he adds that, from the price and quality of the article, it would be a death-blow to the Scotch curers. I may also say that it looks very like it. Some years ago I was curing about seven tons a-week for the London market alone, and found plenty of demand; now, at the present day, I can hardly get clear of two tons a-week, and that at very low prices—so low, indeed, that we are compelled to look for other markets in other places; and I am confining myself principally to prime mess pork among the shipping of this and other ports. These are facts which I can authenticate, as I have had many years' experience in the curing both of beef and pork for home and foreign markets; and you are at perfect liberty to make any use of this information which you may think proper."

From this, and other statements of a similar nature which have reached us, and which we refrain from inserting, solely on account of the unusual space which our remarks must otherwise occupy, we entertain no doubt whatever that in the article of meat the competition is as formidable as in that of grain; and that there is no limit to the extent of competition, save the ultimate inability of the burdened British agriculturist to hold his ground against the untaxed and unreciprocating foreigner. In a very short time, if the system is not perfected at present, we may expect to see the rations of the army, the stores of the navy, and the contracts for all large establishments, supplied from foreign produce. The displacement of home industry, and the extinguishment of important trades indicated in the foregoing letter, are perhaps matters of minor importance in such a revolution as this: nevertheless, they are too serious to be contemplated without the greatest alarm.

So stands the agricultural interest at this moment—an interest, be it observed, in which the prosperity of wellnigh three-fourths of the population of this mighty empire is concerned. We might say, with perfect truth, the interest of the whole population; but as those of the Manchester school deny their identity with the rest of us, we must exclude them; and they cannot think us ungracious or illiberal if we assign to them a number of adherents far greater than we believe they actually possess. These are the effects of what they call free trade; BUT FREE TRADE IT IS NOT, being simply the most shameful species of one-sided and partial legislation. The Manchester men dare not, for their souls, carry out the principle to its full extent. The agriculturist has a right to demand that this shall be done; that, exposed as he is to the competition of the world, and burdened, as he must remain, with debts contracted ages ago to the profit of the capitalist, and burdens swollen to their present amount by manufacturing pauperism, no other class shall be protected from a similar free competition. No plea for revenue duties to be raised upon customs can be held valid in equity now. Why should there still exist a protective duty of from ten to fifteen per cent against foreign manufactures? Why is any one portion of our consumption to be taxed, whilst another is allowed to go free? Are we not entitled to demand that the same measure which has been dealt to us, shall be meted out to every man in Great Britain and Ireland, let his trade or occupation be what it may? Are we not entitled to say this much to the manufacturers, who were foremost in the late movement—You have compelled us to compete with Poland for grain on equal terms: you therefore must in future compete with the foreign manufacturer on a similar condition of equality? Why are we to pay fifteen per cent duty for foreign silk manufactures; for velvets, gauzes, satins, and suchlike? Why ten per cent for more than a hundred articles of consumption, including cotton, woollen, and hair manufactures, lace, gauze, brass, brocade, stoneware, steel, &c.? Why should we be prohibited from growing, if we can do it, our own tobacco? Why are Messrs Cobden and Bright, and their confederates, to nestle under the wing of protection, whilst the agriculturalist is left utterly bare? Apart from policy, and simply on the ground of justice, we denounce such infamous partiality. If, without even the shadow of a coming reciprocity on the part of foreign nations, we are desired to face competition, let there be no exceptions whatever. There can be, and there is, no just medium between entire free trade and equitable protection for all. The voice of the whole nation will ere long declare that no such medium shall exist. What enormous amount of benefit have Manchester manufacturers conferred upon the community at large, that they are to be bolstered up by customs' duties, whilst the agriculturist is trodden under foot? What fractional portion of the greatness of this country has been achieved by the professors of the spinning-jenny and the billy-roller, who now, in defiance of history and of fact, would fain persuade us that THEY, forsooth, are the flower of Britain, the oracles of its wisdom, the regulators of its policy, the masters of the destiny of mankind?

It has been the fashion of late, for those gentlemen, to talk as if the British farmers were infinitely behind the rest of the world in activity and intelligence. It has been insinuated, that they are unworthy occupants of an exceedingly fertile soil, the capabilities of which they have not tested, through indolence and prejudice. Some such accusation is implied, in all the late stimulating exhortations to increased exertion; and Lord Kinnaird does not hesitate to tell us so, almost in as many words. These are, no doubt, recent discoveries, for it is not long since we were told, by the very same parties, that the superior agricultural skill of our farmers was such as to set foreign competition at defiance! That was one of the principal arguments employed for effecting the repeal of the corn laws; but now, when the results have proved totally contrary to anticipation, it is convenient to turn round, and accuse the farmer of a total want of those very qualities which were assigned as reasons for the change. The obvious fallacy in the first proposition, does not make the inconsistency of the second a whit less monstrous. No wonder if the insult should be bitterly felt by the agriculturist.

We are perhaps too apt, at the present moment, to allow the former promises of the Free-traders to slip out of memory. If we were to search through the abandoned rubbish of the League, we should find ample evidence of the gross fraud which was passed upon the country by the leaders of that nefarious faction. On the 19th December last, we find Mr Cobden, at Leeds, speaking as follows:—"I have always contemplated a transition state in this country, when there would be pinching and suffering in the agricultural class in passing from a vicious system to a sound one; for you cannot be restored from bad health to good without going through a process of languor and suffering. I have always looked forward to that time." If this statement be true—if Mr Cobden did "always contemplate" such a state of matters—it would not be difficult to convict him of something worse than hypocrisy. Three days later, at the memorable meeting held at Huntingdon, Mr G. Day, one of the speakers, made the following pithy remarks:—"He would refer, however, to the magnificent promises which had been held out by Mr Cobden as certain to be realised by free trade, and to do so he was free to refer to his letters. 'First, with regard to the landlord, I do not mean to say that the landlords will not get as good rents with free trade as they have now with monopoly: No doubt they will get on a great deal better with free trade. The landlord has nothing to fear.' Again, he said, 'The landlords will have the same rents with free trade as they have at present.' In speaking of the tenant-farmers he said, 'The tenant-farmer will under free trade be an independent man. I say that the farmer has nothing to fear from competition.' With regard to the poor, what did this gentleman say? 'There would be no complaining poor in our streets, no income-tax, no property-tax, no poor-rates, but all classes would be benefited by the adoption of free trade.' These were the promises made to them by a free-trader—the leader of them; and in the Bread-Tax Circular, No. 146, page 255, they would find what he had read to them—Mr Cobden's own words."

Does Mr Cobden admit that he wrote this circular? If he does, perhaps he will be good enough to explain how he reconciles the views contained in it with his new assertion that he always contemplated a transition state of suffering for the agricultural class? We recommend him, for his own sake, to clear this matter up. Rash averments may be pardoned; but deliberate double-dealing, never.

"It is cruel," writes one of our correspondents, a practical farmer of great experience, "that the advocates of the measure, in their exultation, should pretend not to see that the facts of the case have revealed a much more alarming aspect to their opponents than they anticipated; and that even the danger to themselves, from this cause, does not bring conviction of the falsity of their views. They affect to blame the farmer for ignorance, want of skill and enterprise—forgetting that, not long since, he was wont to be held up as a pattern of all that was superior in agricultural advancement, and that our island stands conspicuous among foreigners for its garden cultivation. Still, we are told, it is want of energy, and of a free application of capital, which prevents the British farmers from successfully competing with the Continent: as if overwhelming supplies of foreign corn, and, consequently, a greatly reduced price, were not sufficient reasons to oblige the agriculturist to modify the enterprise, and curtail the expenditure for which he had hitherto been so distinguished. Such unjust reflections may serve to raise up and maintain a feeling of prejudice against the farmer, and to bring him into obnoxious comparison with other arts, where science has fortunately been more successfully applied; but it is not to be expected, that a hopeless rivalry, and a low price, are to have the effect of stimulating to efforts and outlay, beyond what was induced by protection and a remunerating return.

"It has been customary to bring the farmer's position into contrast with that of the manufacturer, who is said to fear no foreign competition. But is the comparison a just one? The British manufacturer possesses every advantage and appliance to render his productions superior, and, consequently, also cheaper. Britain is the great mart of all the chief staples of new produce. Her machinery is the best—her fuel is the cheapest. On the other hand, the farmer here is deficient in raw material. He labours an obstinate soil, for the use of which he pays high; while his climate—the main element to give security and save expense—is far inferior to that of his rival."

Our friend might have gone further; for, if we enter into the comparison, we shall find that the British farmer has taken more advantage of his natural position than the British manufacturer. The true way of arriving at a just conclusion upon this point is, by contrasting, in the first instance, the natural advantages enjoyed by either class.

The motive power of the British manufacturer is derived from coal, of which he has an unlimited supply: the motive power of the British farmer is, except to a very small extent, dependent upon animals, which is infinitely more expensive and tedious; requiring more work with less command of power. The manufacturer can try any experiment he pleases, either in the construction of his machinery or in the texture of his fabric, in the course of a few days or weeks, and adopt or reject it as best suits his purpose: the farmer cannot attempt any experiment upon his crops without waiting a whole year for the result; nor any upon his live stock in less than two or three years. In the mean time, his expenses and rent go on as usual. The British manufacturer is not dependent on the climate: the British farmer is altogether so dependent; the climate of this country being proverbially uncertain and changeable, and very often ungenial. We apprehend, therefore, that, as to natural advantages, the home manufacturer stands on a far more advantageous footing than the home agriculturist.

Let us next contrast the state of the two classes abroad. The foreign manufacturer has few natural advantages. He does not possess the command of coal for his motive power, but is compelled to erect his factory on the bank of some stream, without regard, otherwise, to the convenience of the locality. Iron for machinery is far more expensive abroad than here; in fact, most of the Continental machinery is directly exported from Britain. On the other hand, the foreign farmer has all the advantages of an equable, rich soil, and of a good and steady climate.

Now, then, let us see how far the British manufacturer, with all his natural advantages, has surpassed his foreign rival. Does he make a better article than the foreigner? Can he beat the German linen, the Russian duck, the Swiss calico, the Saxon or Austrian broad-cloth, the porcelains of Dresden and SÈvres, or the silks, stained papers, and prints of France? If not, where is his superiority? As to designs, it is notorious that he is infinitely behind the Continent. No doubt he sends ship-loads of flimsy textures, with flaring colours and incongruous patterns, to semi-barbarous countries; and he can deluge the markets of the world with cheap goods, so furbished and tricked out that they sell from appearance only. But what hold has he of the Continent? He cannot compete with the manufacturers there in point of quality: if he could make a better article, no Zollvereins or combinations would be able to keep him out. These remarks apply to the bulk of our manufactures, which are made for foreign export; and these, in point of quality, are precisely what we have described them. There are undoubtedly high class manufacturers here, especially in the woollen and linen trades, who supply the home market with high class goods. But how do they stand? They are protected from foreign competition. It is in their favour that the highest import duties remain; and, were those restrictions removed to-morrow, they would be undersold in the British market. If any one thinks we are wrong in this matter, we shall be glad to hear him explain why the duties remain? It cannot be for revenue, since, if the British manufacturer can beat his foreign rival, without reciprocity, in the foreign market, it would be an absurdity to suppose the tables turned, and the foreign manufacturer paying duty solely for the sake of offering us a worse article in Britain. If not for revenue, why are the duties continued by statesmen who have declared for free trade? The answer is clear. These are protective duties; and they are continued for this reason, that, with all his natural advantages, the British manufacturer is not able to set Continental competition at defiance.

Lastly, let us look to the British farmer, in so far as energy and enterprise are concerned, in contrast with his rival. Here no detailed statement is necessary. In spite of all natural disadvantages, the soil of Britain is better tilled than that of any other country. We ask with a natural pride, greater perhaps on account of adverse circumstances, whether the husbandry of the Lothians or of the Border counties can be matched anywhere out of Britain? Where, on the surface of the globe, are the agriculturists who have approached our tenantry in the free outlay of capital, ready intelligence, persevering enterprise, and high professional skill? And yet these men, admittedly at the head of their craft, are to be told, forsooth, that they have been indolent and ignorant; and that retired tradesmen and shopkeepers would make far better farmers than they!

Judging from results, then, which of the two classes has best done its duty to the state? Which of the two has availed itself most of the advantages which lay within its reach, and done most to overcome the power of natural disadvantages? We apprehend that, in all respects, the efforts of the agriculturist have been greater than those of the manufacturer. If the former is to fall a sacrifice, let it not at least be said that his indolence provoked his fate. Out of agriculture manufactures arose; and it is now, we presume, the intention of our rulers, that the one shall decay, and the other survive: that the former shall fall unprotected, and the latter struggle on with the whole monopoly of protection. If so, the results are clear enough. The manufacturer who the other day accosted Mr Muntz in the following terms:—"We have eaten up the West Indian planters, we have eaten the Irish landlords, we have finished the colonies, and now we are at the farmers; and I don't know that we won't be eaten ourselves,"—saw plainly the effect of our legislation. Mr Cobden sees its effect as well; but now, at the eleventh hour, when the tide is turning against him, he is straining every nerve to maintain his false position. It is the misfortune of demagogues, but a great blessing to the rest of mankind, that they invariably become intoxicated with the first draught of success, and seldom recover their reason. So is it with Cobden now. His late rabid harangue at Leeds, in which he ransacked the vocabulary for terms of abuse to heap upon the landed gentry, was perhaps the most insolent speech ever uttered in a free nation. Surrounded by his fetid chimneys, and his squalid dupes, he assumes the tone of a dictator, holds out threats of annihilation to all who dare to question his policy, and actually throws the gauntlet of defiance to the constituencies of the United Kingdom! There is no mistake at all about the force and significance of his SHALL. Right or wrong, every man in this empire must walk as Cobden directs him, else some nondescript vial of unutterable wrath and retribution is to be poured on his devoted head. These are not the arguments of a reasonable man, but the ravings of a positive maniac. They will delude no one, whilst they serve to show the base nature of the man who utters them. The gladiator of old, blowing sulphur flames through a hollow nut, and passing himself off for a god, was not a more rank impostor than this seven times baffled prophet. Is it not something unparalleled in the annals of assurance to find this person, himself protected, declaiming against all protection, save that of his immediate class, and avowing his deliberate determination to overthrow every institution of the country, if we shall cease from enriching the Polish magnates at the expense of the British labourer? Let us see what this man is doing. He, whose fortunes were notoriously redeemed by the questionable wages of agitation, is now publicly announcing his intention, if thwarted, of pursuing a line of conduct which would necessarily result in the abolition of the monarchy, and the establishment of a republic in Britain. There is no mistaking the tendency of the hints which are thrown out by him and his fellows. They abstain, indeed, and certainly wisely for themselves, from broadly proclaiming their ends in such language as would bring them within the immediate grasp of the law. They say nothing about the Crown, for that would be dangerous; but they resolutely avow their determination, if possible, to pull down the aristocracy; and they point to the abolition of the House of Peers as a measure which, at some future period, may engage their serious attention. Add to this their perpetual laudation of American institutions, as preferable to our own—their open and avowed sympathy with the insurgents of democratic Europe—their bitter and malignant abuse of every one who has been instrumental in putting down insurrection—their scheme for abandoning the colonies as worthless appendages, and so breaking up the integrity of the empire—their proposals, so violently urged and reiterated, of such a reduction in the army and navy, as would render both arms of the service utterly inefficient—add all these, and we shall be at no loss to discover the real aim of this foul and scandalous confederacy. We are aware that it is somewhat difficult to define the limits of sedition; still Mr Cobden had better have a care of his language whilst indulging in such revelations as he has of late chosen to set forth. It will be no child's-play if he actually should attempt to put the smallest of his threats into practice.

Setting Mr Cobden aside, we have still an observation to make. It is not a little edifying to contrast the tone assumed at present by the disciples of the Manchester school with that which they adopted after the passing of the disastrous measures of 1846. We were then entreated, in Parliament and out of it, to give the experiment a fair trial. It was admitted that divers extraordinary occurrences had intervened to postpone the great advantages to the nation which must flow from the opening of the ports, yet still we were asked to believe that the calculations of Mr M'Gregor were perfectly sound, and that in a little time all would be well. We have waited, patiently enough, until the last fragment of agricultural protection has been removed—until it is obvious to every one, save an exporting and protected manufacturer, that nothing short of protection can save the landed interest of Great Britain from total ruin—and until ruin, in its worst shape, has already overtaken Ireland. And what was it that we waited for? Reciprocity; the sole thing which, by the acknowledgment of the Peel party, could justify the experiment. Reciprocity, which Mr Cobden promised us if we would only show the example. Now that reciprocity is out of the question, our antagonists turn round, revile us as fools for adhering to our original opinions—though the experience of each succeeding year has attested their accuracy and soundness—and, in the contemptible cant of the day, denominate their free-trade policy "an accomplished fact."

They are right in one sense. It is a fact that this great nation has suffered itself to be misled by the machinations of a selfish and unscrupulous faction. It is also a fact, that for a time these machinations have been successful. But the great fact which now concerns us is, that the British nation is fully alive to the imposture; and that being the case, we entertain not the slightest doubt as to the ultimate issue.

One word in conclusion to our friends. It is the policy of those who are against us—and indeed their last desperate chance—to promote disunion among the ranks of those who draw their subsistence from the land, and whose welfare depends upon the agricultural prosperity of Britain. They are trying to set the tenant against the landlord, the labourer against the farmer; and their efforts have been assisted, to no inconsiderable extent, by the folly of weak men, who, in their terror, are attempting, by all the means in their power, to shelter themselves from the consequences which they thoroughly foresee. Our policy, as well as our duty, is to maintain a firm and united front. It would be madness to suppose that among the three great agricultural classes, there can be any disunion of interest. Landlord and farmer depend upon each other; the one class cannot be prostrated without the other falling a victim. And both of them have a duty to perform to the labourer, which must not be disregarded. He, as the lowest in the scale, is often the first to suffer; but woe to our land if the labourer should be trodden under foot!

We repeat that we have no fear for the future. We see on all hands the unmistakeable signs of a mighty reaction, which cannot but defeat the designs of that grasping faction for whose benefit alone this ominous experiment has been made. Deeply as we deplore the misery which has overtaken us, we must regard it as the penalty incurred for having swerved from the old path by which Britain attained her greatness—for having listened too readily to the suggestions of selfish and incompetent men. The experience of each succeeding month shows the error of the course we have been pursuing, and demonstrates the necessity of a return. Why should we fear? England—that noble country which stands pre-eminent among the nations of the world for its loyalty, enterprise, and independence—for its regard to sterling worth in the lowest, as well as the highest sphere—has awakened from its momentary trance. The voice of the people, before which that of faction must be silenced, is proclaiming, in clear and articulate language, that the virtual possession of its free and unviolated soil shall not be yielded, through fraud, to the foreigner, who never could have taken possession of it by force of arms; and that the English yeomanry will not submit to be sacrificed or annihilated for the wretched interest of a handful of manufacturers, whose gains are dependent upon the extension of a foreign market. We rejoice to see that the men of England are up and doing. Their energy, if rightly directed, nothing can withstand. Cobden may bluster, as demagogues always do; and Bright may insinuate revolutions which he has neither the courage nor the power to attempt; but the day for such trashy vapouring has gone by, and England will no longer allow her greatness to be perilled at the bidding of such miserable upstarts. The issue of the late elections, and the triumphant meetings which are everywhere held in England, for the maintenance of her national and agricultural prosperity, should excite us to similar efforts. If our statements of what is occurring here can strengthen the hands of our brethren in the south, we shall be more than amply repaid for the pains we have expended in a close and laborious investigation. England may not require support; but support is ready for her. Ireland, from the depths of present misery, sees the hand which is striving to keep her down, and prepares herself for another struggle. Scotland will not remain inactive. Her interest is so clear, that it would be almost wasting words to attempt to explain it further. Let but this experiment go on for a few years longer, and all that we have gained, by more than a century of unremitting toil, will be lost to us: our improvements will be annihilated, and our people pauperised. Deprived of her yeomanry, as noble a body of men as exists upon the face of the earth, the nationality of Scotland is gone. We trust, then, that in every part of the country the appeal will be energetically answered. Scotsmen are slow to move; but being moved, they have a will and resolution that can bear down any obstacle whatever. There never was a time when the old national spirit was more imperatively required to show itself than now. Let us then speak out boldly in defence of our country, and tell those Manchester conspirators, in answer to their insolent challenge, that—beyond that circle of smoking factories, which they falsely imagine to be the heart of Britain—there exists a majority of loyal British subjects, who despise their dictation, detest their hypocrisy, and utterly defy their power.

Printed by William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh.

[1] Æneid, i. 56.