"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]
| " | 90 acres potatoes, at 71⁄2 tons each, £2 per ton, | £1350 | 0 | 0 |
| | 60 acres wheat, at 36 bushels each, £2 per quarter, | 540 | 0 | 0 |
| | Profit on 130 cattle, at £6 each, | 780 | 0 | 0 |
| | Profit on 150 sheep, at 10s. each, | 75 | 0 | 0 |
| | Profit of 5 milk cows, at £12 each, | 60 | 0 | 0 |
| | | | | | £2805 | 0 | 0 |
| Deduct— |
| | Rent, | £262 | 0 | 0 |
| | Labour, 40s. per acre, | 520 | 0 | 0 |
| | Manure purchased, (p. 23, Caird,) | 256 | 0 | 0 |
| | Food for cattle purchased, (do.,) | 270 | 0 | 0 |
| | Seed potatoes, 108 tons, at £2, for 90 acres, | 216 | 0 | 0 |
| | Seed wheat, 120 bushels, at 5s., | 30 | 0 | 0 |
| | Tradesmen's bills, at £7 per pair horses each half-year, | 70 | 0 | 0 |
| | Incidental expenses, | 50 | 0 | 0 |
| | Interest on £2000 capital, at 10 per cent, | 200 | 0 | 0 |
| | | | | | 1874 | 0 | 0 |
| | | | | | £931 | 0 | 0 |
"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.
| Oats, 300 quarters, at 14s. per quarter, | £210 | 0 | 0 |
| Barley, 95 quarters, at 20s. per quarter, | 95 | 0 | 0 |
And—on the supposition that no reduction of the price of fat cattle is to take place on account of the free importation of foreign animals—let us take the receipts from cattle fed on the grass and turnips as above, viz., | 400 | 0 | 0 |
| Total income under free-trade prices of grain, | £705 | 0 | 0 |
|
| Brought forward, | £705 | 0 | 0 |
| Expenditure as above, viz., | 741 | 10 | 0 |
| Loss per annum, | £36 | 10 | 0 |
| Or, adding former profit, viz. as above, | 111 | 5 | 0 |
| Total loss, on grain alone, by free trade, | £147 | 15 | 0 |
I consider the above a fair statement of the expenditure and income on a
farm in the lower district of Aberdeenshire, under former and under present
circumstances. It will be observed that no wheat is grown; but the soil is
well adapted for the rearing and feeding of cattle, and from this source the
Aberdeenshire farmer expects to derive a large proportion of his returns. In
the comparison, reference is had solely to the fall in the price of the kinds
of grain cultivated. Whatever decline in the price of fat cattle may arise
from free trade, will fall heavily on the farmers of this district; and the reduction
of income thus occasioned will, of course, add to the amount of loss
shown above.
JAMES HAY,
Little Ythsie, 13th December 1849.
Having lately had an opportunity of examining a number of actual accounts
of income and expenditure on various farms, I can confirm the substantial
accuracy and fairness of the above statements, Nos. I. and II. Mr Hay's
statement above, referring to the system of agriculture with which, in this part
of the country, we are most conversant, may, in my humble opinion, be
regarded as fair and just, and as near the average that a comparison of a
number of individual cases would indicate, as it can be made.
I am sensible that, in many cases of calculations—more especially in those
in which certain assumptions have to be made—it is quite possible, even with
a show of fairness, to bring out by means of figures almost any result that
may be desired; but it is to be observed that, in the above statements, the
same assumptions (if they can be regarded as such) are made on both sides of
the comparison, with the exception of the prices at which agricultural produce
is taken; and it is submitted with confidence that these are neither made
higher in the one case, nor lower in the other, than experience warrants.
W. HAY,
Tillydesk, 14th December 1849.
No. IV.
Estimated Value, of the produce upon a farm in Roxburghshire of 500 acres,
managed according to the five-shift rotation, thus:—
200 acres of corn crop.
200 " of grass.
100 " of turnips.
——
500
It is here assumed that there are no local advantages, the whole green crops
being consumed upon the farm by sheep and cattle.
I. Produce of Corn Crops.
| | | Bush. | Bush. | Bush. |
| Oats, | 100 acres, | at 48, = | 4800, off 2400, | leaves for sale, | 2400 |
| Wheat, | 60 " | at 38, = | 1980, off 180, | " | 1800 |
| Barley, | 40 " | at 42, = | 1680, off 340, | " | 1340 |
Average Value during the ten years preceding Crop 1848.
| 2400 bushels of oats, at 3s., | £360 |
| 1800 bushels of wheat, at 7s., | 630 |
| 1340 bushels of barley, at 4s., | 268 |
| | | 1258 | 0 | 0 |
| Value of grass and turnips, | | 800 | 0 | 0 |
| Total amount of produce sold, | | £2058 | 0 | 0 |
| Brought forward, | | £2058 | 0 | 0 |
Expenses and Rent—
| Annual charges for wages and tradesmen's bills, &c., | £400 | 0 | 0 |
| Public and parish burdens, | 45 | 0 | 0 |
| Annual outlay for extra manures, | 150 | 0 | 0 |
| | £595 | 0 | 0 |
| Capital sunk upon improvements, £2500, at 10 per cent, | 250 | 0 | 0 |
| Value of stock and crop, forming a floating capital of £2000, at 5 per cent per annum, | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Insurance of stock against deaths and other casualties, | 50 | 0 | 0 |
| | | | | 995 | 0 | 0 |
| | | | | £1063 | 0 | 0 |
| Rent, | | | | 800 | 0 | 0 |
| Tenant's profit, | | | | £263 | 0 | 0 |
Estimated Value of the same amount of produce at the present rate of
prices:—
| 2400 bushels of oats, at 2s., | £240 | 0 | 0 |
| 1800 " of wheat, at 5s., | 450 | 0 | 0 |
| 1340 " of barley, at 2s. 9d., | 214 | 5 | 0 |
| | | | | £904 | 5 | 0 |
| Value of grass and turnips, | | | | 700 | 0 | 0 |
| Total amount of produce, | | | | £1604 | 5 | 0 |
| Amount of expenses, as above, | | | | 995 | 0 | 0 |
| | | | | £609 | 5 | 0 |
| Rent, | | | | 300 | 0 | 0 |
| Tenant's loss | | | | £191 | 15 | 0 |
| Value of produce by 1st estimate, | | | | £2118 | 0 | 0 |
| Do. by 2d do, | | | | 1615 | 10 | 0 |
| Difference, | | | | £502 | 10 | 0 |
The total amount of capital invested is £4500, of which £2500 is sunk upon
improvements. According to the first estimate, the annual return, exclusive
of 5 per cent per annum for repayment of the sum sunk, would be £548, or
at the rate of about 121⁄5 per cent. According to the second estimate, the
annual return would be £45, 10s., or at the rate of about 1 per cent per
annum upon the same sum.
I shall be glad to allow my name to be affixed to Mr Dudgeon's statement,
as attesting, in so far as my experience goes, the accuracy of it.
My estimates and his very nearly correspond; but as every one has his own
method of making up such statements, I take the liberty of handing along with
it this detail of my own.
In all, excepting in regard to the value of live stock, or produce of grass
and turnips, we nearly agree; and this difference may be accounted for, because
no part of farm produce varies so much in its return as that of the live
stock. Upon such a farm as that which is taken as an example, sheep and
cattle are not wholly reared upon the farm, but part are bought in to fatten;
hence the returns depend upon three circumstances,—1st, upon the crops of
turnips and grass being less or more abundant; 2d, upon the price of lean stock;
and, 3d, upon the price of fat. While, therefore, the butcher market may be
very high, the feeder may not necessarily be well paid,—and hence, in making
up returns under this head, a correct average is not easily ascertained; and as
there must always be a difference of opinion among practical men upon this
part of the subject, I think, for publication, Mr Dudgeon's method of stating
the returns in one sum is preferable to giving them in detail.
JAS. ROBERTON,
Ladyrig, 13th Dec. 1849.
No. V.
Statement of the Annual Charge against, and Returns from, a 400 imperial
acre Farm in Mid-Lothian—on an average of ten years previous to free
trade in corn and cattle;—with a comparative statement of the Returns of
Produce from the same farm under the present free-trade measures affecting
agriculture. The farm alluded to is managed on the four-course shift—the
whole straw, turnips, and clover being consumed on it, and an average
number of stock fattened.
| Rent of farm, 400 acres at 45s. per acre, | £900 | 0 | 0 |
| Interest on sunk and floating capital, | 240 | 0 | 0 |
| Expenses of management, wages, tradesmen's accounts, extra manures, grass and clover seeds, and miscellaneous expenses, | 817 | 0 | 0 |
| Casualties in stock, and fire insurance, | 40 | 0 | 0 |
| Public and parish burdens, | 40 | 0 | 0 |
| Total yearly charge, | £2037 | 0 | 0 |
To meet this sum there is the produce of 230 acres corn crop,
10 acres potatoes, and the profits from live stock as follows:—
| 100 acres oats, at 48 bushels per imperial acre, | 4800 |
| Less for seed, servants' meal, and horses, | 2004 |
| Leaving for sale, | 2796 | at 3s. 3d., | £454 | 7 | 0 |
| 70 acres wheat, at 32 bushels per acre, | 2240 |
| Less for seed, | 220 |
| Leaving for sale, | 2020 | at 7s., | 707 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 acres barley, at 48 bushels per acre, | 1440 |
| Less for seed, | 100 |
| Leaving for sale, | 1340 | at 4s., | 268 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 acres beans, at 40 bushels per acre, | 1200 |
| Less for seed, | 110 |
| Leaving for sale, | 1090 | at 4s. 6d., | 245 | 5 | 0 |
| Produce of 10 acres potatoes, after deducting seed, | | | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Profits from live stock fed upon 60 acres turnips and 100 acres grass, | | | 550 | 0 | 0 |
| Total return, | | | | £2324 | 12 | 0 |
| | | 2324 | 12 | 0 |
| Profit, | | £287 | 12 | 0 |
The like quantities of disposable grain, taken at the present prices,
fetch as follows:—
| 2796 bushels oats, @ 2s. 4d., | £326 | 4 | 0 |
| 2020 bushels wheat, @ 4s. 9d., | 479 | 15 | 0 |
| 1340 bushels barley, @ 3s. 0d., | 201 | 0 | 0 |
| 1090 bushels beans, @ 3s. 3d, | 177 | 12 | 6 |
| 10 acres potatoes, | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Add profits from live stock, | 550 | 0 | 0 |
| Total returns | £1834 | 11 | 6 |
| Sum chargeable as above against the farm, | £2037 | 0 | 0 |
| | 202 | 8 | 6 |
| Leaving the farmer short, for rent, capital, and expenses of management, | | | | 202 | 8 | 6 |
| Total loss annually incurred, | | | | £490 | 0 | 6 |
THOs. SADLER,
Notron Mains, 14th December 1849.
No. VI.
Valuation of Produce, and Expense of Management of a Farm of 320
Scots acres, situated within five miles of Edinburgh, on an average of
seven years previous to potato failure in 1846, and farmed according to
the four-shift rotation, the straw being sold in Edinburgh, and dung
bought. The produce is a fair average of the best-managed farms within
five miles of Edinburgh, during the period from which the average is taken.
The prices noted are what were realised, being about 3s. 6d. per qr.
above the average prices of the county, and the expense of management
charged is what was actually paid.
| Acres. | | £ | s. | d. |
| 50 | Potatoes, at £17 per acre, | 850 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | Turnip, at £16 per do., | 480 | 0 | 0 |
| 50 | Wheat, 5 qrs. per acre, at 58s. per qr., | 725 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | Barley, 7 do. do., at 34s. do., | 357 | 0 | 0 |
| 50 | Pasture, let at £4 per Scots acre, | 200 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | Hay, at £7 per do., | 210 | 0 | 0 |
| 80 | Oats, 71⁄2 qrs. per acre, at 26s. per qr., | 780 | 0 | 0 |
| 320 |
| | Produce of straw sold, | 450 | 0 | 0 |
| | Manure made on the farm from horses, &c., | 80 | 0 | 0 |
| | Value of produce, | 4132 | 0 | 0 |
| | Expense of management, | 4025 | 17 | 6 |
| | Profit, | £106 | 2 | 6 |
[We ought, perhaps, to explain that
this case is peculiar. It is that of a
first-class farm in the neighbourhood
of Edinburgh, attested by men of the
same standing as its tenant, and similarly
situated; the average of the
produce is very high, and the rent
corresponding. Mr Gibson, the tenant
farmer, has taken the details of the
following statement from his books; so
that it becomes of much value, as
showing the statistics of farming in
the immediate vicinity of the metropolis
of Scotland. In estimating the
productiveness of this farm by the
extent of the yield, our English
readers must bear in mind, that it is
divided by the Scots and not the imperial
acre as in the other estimates, the
former being one-fifth larger. It will
be allowed, on all hands, that the
yield of this farm is extraordinary.]
| Acres. | | £ | s. | d. |
| S |
| e | 50 | Potatoes, at £2 per Scots acre, | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| e | 30 | Turnip, at 4s. per do, | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| d | 50 | Wheat, 23 qrs. at 60s., | 69 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | Barley, 14 qrs. at 35s., | 24 | 10 | 0 |
| f | 50 | Pasture, at 17s. per acre, | 42 | 10 | 0 |
| o | 30 | Hay, at 15s. per do., | 22 | 10 | 0 |
| r | 80 | Oats, at 40 qrs. at 28s., | 56 | 0 | 0 |
| | 320 |
| | | 50 acres potatoes, 34 tons per acre, horse and cow manure driven from Edinburgh, at 6s. per ton, | 510 | 0 | 0 |
| | | 30 acres turnip, 30 tons do., at 4s. per ton, | 180 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Keep of 15 horses, at £28 per annum, | 420 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Do. of 1 riding horse, do., | 28 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Wages of farm overseer, per annum, | 32 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Do. 8 ploughmen, at £27 per do., | 216 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Do. 2 labourers at 10s., and 1 boy at 5s. per week, | 65 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Outdoor women-workers per annum, | 165 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Reaping 160 acres corn crop, at 12s. per acre, | 96 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Wages of extra men securing crop, | 13 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Cutting 30 acres hay, at 3s. 9d., | 5 | 12 | 6 |
| | | Cutting hedges, and keeping fences, gates, and houses in repair, | 10 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Smith work, per annum, | 35 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Carpenter work, do., | 22 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Veterinary surgeon, do., | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Saddler work, do., | 17 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Millwright, engineer, mason, and slater's accounts, | 10 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Coals for steam-engine, and steaming and bruising horse food, | 12 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Annual loss on live and dead stock, from death and tear and wear, | 90 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Tolls, custom, and marketing expenses, | 25 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Insurance, | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Poor-rates and statute-labour, previous to passing of New Poor Law, | 30 | 17 | 0 |
| | | Assessed taxes and income tax, | 19 | 18 | 0 |
| | | Interest on £1500 capital, sunk in permanent improvements, at 10 per cent, | 150 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Interest on floating capital of £2000, at 5 per cent, | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Rent of 320 Scots acres, at £4 10s. per acre, | 1440 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Expense of management, | £4025 | 17 | 6 |
Valuation of Produce and Expenses of Management of the same Farm, for Crop
1849: as the Wheat crop is considered to be the best we have had in the
district since 1835, every allowance is made for this in estimating the produce.
The Oat, Barley, and Bean crops are under an average, but are charged at
average quantities; the prices noted are what are being realised. In the expense
of management full allowance is made in every item affected by present prices,
except the seed, which is charged as paid for at seed time: had it been charged
at present prices, there would fall to be deducted from expense of management
a sum of £28.
| Acres. |
| 25 | Potatoes, supposing them to be sound, at £20, | 500 | 0 | 0 |
| 35 | Turnips, at £14, | 490 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | Beans, 5 qrs. per acre, at 26s. per qr., | 130 | 0 | 0 |
| 45 | Wheat, 6 qrs. per acre, at 38s. per qr. | 513 | 0 | 0 |
| 35 | Barley, 7 qrs. per acre, at 23s. per qr., | 281 | 15 | 0 |
| 50 | Pasture, let at £4 per acre, | 200 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | Hay, at £5, 10s. per acre, | 165 | 0 | 0 |
| 80 | Oats, 71⁄2 qrs. per acre, at 18s. per qr., | 540 | 0 | 0 |
| 320 |
| | Produce of straw, sold, at present prices, | 400 | 0 | 0 |
| | Manure made on the Farm, | 70 | 0 | 0 |
| | Value of Produce, | £3,289 | 15 | 0 |
| | Expense of Management, | 3,786 | 14 | 0 |
| | Loss, | £496 | 19 | 0 |
| | Annual Profit previous to 1846, | £106 | 2 | 6 |
| | Loss incurred by difference of price under free-trade, | £603 | 1 | 6 |
| Acres. |
| S | 25 | Potatoes, at £4 per Scots acre, | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| E | 35 | Turnips, at 5s. per acre, | 8 | 15 | 0 |
| E | 20 | Beans, 121⁄2 qrs., at 34s., per qr., price, at seed time, | 21 | 5 | 0 |
| D | 45 | Wheat, 20 qrs., at 62s., do., | 62 | 0 | 0 |
| | 35 | Barley, 171⁄2 qrs., at 33s., do., | 28 | 17 | 6 |
| F | 50 | Pasture, at 14s. per acre, do., | 35 | 0 | 0 |
| O | 30 | Hay, at 12s. do., do., | 18 | 0 | 0 |
| R | 80 | Oats, 40 qrs., at 22s. per qr., do., | 44 | 0 | 0 |
| | 320 |
| | | 25 acres potatoes, 30 tons per acre, horse and cow manure, driven from Edinburgh, at 5s. per ton, | 187 | 10 | 0 |
| | | 20 acres beans, 20 tons manure per acre, at 5s. per ton, | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| | | 35 acres turnips, 25 tons do., at 3s. 6d. per ton, | 153 | 2 | 6 |
| | | Guano and other extra manures applied to turnip, potato, and other crops, | 125 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Keep of 15 horses, at £22 per annum, | 330 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Keep of 1 riding horse, do., | 22 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Wages of farm overseer, per annum, | 30 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Do. 8 ploughmen, at £25 per do., | 200 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Do. 2 labourers, at 9s. each, and 1 boy 5s. per week, | 59 | 16 | 0 |
| | | Outdoor women workers, per annum, | 165 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Reaping 160 acres corn crop, at 10s. 6d. per acre, | 84 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Wages of extra men securing crop, | 12 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Cutting 30 acres hay, at 3s. per acre, | 4 | 10 | 0 |
| | | Cutting hedges, and keeping fences, gates, and houses in repair, | 10 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Smith work, per annum, | 35 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Carpenter's work, do., | 22 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Veterinary surgeon, do., | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Saddler work, do., | 17 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Millwright, engineer, mason, and slater's accounts, | 10 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Coals for steam engine, and steaming and bruising horses' food, | 10 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Annual loss on live and dead stock, from death and tear and wear, | 90 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Tolls, custom, and marketing expenses, | 25 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Insurance, | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Poor rates and statute labour under New Poor Law, | 54 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Assessed taxes and income tax, | 19 18 | 0 |
| | | Interest on £1500 capital, sunk in permanent improvements, at 10 per cent, | 150 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Interest on floating capital of £2000, at 5 per cent, | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Rent of 320 acres, at £4, 10s. per acre, | 1,440 | 0 | 0 |
| | | Expenses of Management, | £3,786 | 14 | 0 |
JOHN GIBSON,
Woolmet, 18th December 1849.
{John Finnie, Swanston.
Attested by {George Watson, Libberton Mains.
{Alexander Scott, Craiglockhart.
Let those who believe that, by high
farming, the soil can be stimulated so
as to produce enormously augmented
crops, at a large additional profit,
consider the above statistics well.
They are the statistics of the
very highest farming in Scotland.
The English agriculturist has
been taunted for his backwardness
in not adopting the improvements of
his northern neighbour, who, with a
worse climate, has made the most of
the soil. Such has been the language
used by some of the advocates and
apologists of free trade, who are now
urging the farmer to lay out more
capital in draining and manures—assuring
him that, by doing so, the returns
will far exceed the interest of
the outlay. With a fine disregard for
the elements of arithmetic, they insist
that low prices can in no way interfere
with his success, and that only
exertion and enterprise are wanting
to raise him above the reach of foreign
competition. The above tables exhibit
the experiment, worked out to its
highest point. In these cases capital
has been liberally expended, energy
tasked to the utmost, and every means,
which science can devise or experience
suggest, called into active operation.
The farmers of Mid-Lothian,
Berwickshire and Forfarshire may
fairly challenge the world in point of
professional attainments. They have
done all that man can do, and here is
the reward of their toil.
Supposing, then, that hereafter the
permanent price of wheat were to be
40s. a quarter; that other cereal produce
remained at corresponding rates;
and that the value of live stock did
not diminish—points, upon all of
which we are truly more than sceptical—it
will follow that high farming,
such as is at present practised in the
best agricultural districts of Scotland,
cannot by possibility be carried on.
No possible reduction of rent would
suffice to enable the farmer to continue
his competition. Such a fall must
necessarily have the effect of annihilating
one of the two classes; for the
landlord, burdened as he is, would
cease to draw the means of maintenance
from his estate, and it is
questionable whether the residue
would suffice to pay the interest of
the mortgages and preferable burdens.
To the people of Scotland this is the
most vital question that has engaged
their attention since the Union. Our
national prosperity does not depend
upon manufactures to the same degree
as that of England. By far the
greater portion of our wealth arises
directly from the soil: by far the
larger number of our population depend
upon that for their subsistence.
Even if Manchester statistics were
applicable to England, the case is
different here. If the prices of agricultural
produce should continue as
low as at present—and we cannot see
what chance exists of their rising, in
the face of such a tremendous import—the
effect upon this country must be
disastrous. Such prices would reduce
Scotland, at one fell swoop, to the
condition of Ireland: paralyse the
home market for manufactures; throw
hundreds of thousands out of employment;
lower the revenue; augment
the poor-rates; and utterly disorganise
society. And yet what help for
it? The farmer cannot be expected to
pay for the privilege of losing several
hundreds per annum by cultivation.
Let Mr Watson's statement be examined,
and it will appear that the enterprising
and skilful tenant of a farm
of five hundred acres, in the best corn
district of Forfar, cannot clear his expenses
unless the rent of the land is
reduced by one-half, and, even if that
were done, he could only realise a
profit of sixpence per acre! Such a
result, we fairly allow, would appear,
at first sight, to be incredible; yet there
it is—vouched for by men of name,
character, and high reputation. This
is the extreme case; but, if we pass to
Berwickshire, we shall find that a
reduction of half the rent would barely
place the tenant in the same position
which he occupied previous to the
withdrawal of protection. Look at
No. IV., and the result will appear
worse. Even were one half of the
rent remitted, the profits of the tenants,
at present prices, would be less
by £100 than they were at the former
rates of corn. Very nearly the same
results will be brought out, if we calculate
the necessary reductions on the
rents of the Mid-Lothian farms. Lord
Kinnaird may see in those tables the
fate which is in store for him; and he
cannot hope to escape it long, even by
inserting, in his new leases, the most
stringent stipulations as to money
payments which legal ingenuity can
devise. It is just possible that "men of
business habits," retired shopkeepers,
and others of that class, may be
coaxed and persuaded into trying their
hands at a trade of which they know
literally nothing. They may be incautious
enough to put their names to
covenants, not conceived according to
Mr Caird's liberal principle, and so
pledge their capital for the fulfilment
of a bargain which common sense declares,
and experience proves, to be
preposterous. The necessary consequence
will be, that the rent must be
paid out of capital, a process which
cannot last long; and the unhappy
speculator, as he finds his earnings
disappearing, will curse the hour when
he yielded to the delusion, that high
farming must be profitable in spite
of the variations of price. The poor
seamstress, who weekly turns out of
hand her augmented number of improved
shirts—and who lately, though
on exceedingly erroneous principles,
has found a warm advocate in the
kind-hearted Mr Sydney Herbert—has,
in her own way, tested the value
of the experiment. There is more cotton
to be shaped, and more work to be
done, but the prices continue to fall.
She makes two additional shirts, but
she receives nothing for the additional
labour, because the remuneration for
each is beaten down. The free-trade
tariffs are the cause of her distress, but
the unfortunate creature is not learned
in statistics, and therefore does not
understand the source of her present
misery. No more, probably, do the
female population of the Orkney
islands, whom Sir Robert Peel reduced
to penury some years ago, by a single
stroke of his pen, through the article
of straw-plait. From Lerwick to the
Scilly Isles, the poor industrious
classes were made the earliest victims.
The tiller of the land is
liable to the operation of the same
rules. By the outlay of capital, he
forces an additional crop, but, the
value of produce having fallen, his
returns, estimated in money, are just
the same as before. If the maintenance
of rents throughout the United
Kingdom depends simply upon the
supply of dupes, we are afraid that
the Whig landlords will speedily find
themselves in a sorry case.
We by no means wish to treat this
question as if Scotland alone were
concerned. The English agriculturist,
who knows that strict economy is the
rule in northern farming, will readily
acknowledge that our observations
have even greater force when applied
to his own case. It would have been
presumption in us, had we passed
beyond the limits of our own field of
illustration, which, however, will bear
comparison with any other. On the
whole, we think it will hardly be questioned,
that, if high farming in the Lothians
or on the Border is a losing trade,
it cannot be made profitable elsewhere
within the boundaries of Britain.
We are told that this is a landlord's
question; and we find Messrs
Bright and Cobden, with more than
their usual malignity, chuckling over
the prospects of the downfall of a class
which they honour with their rancorous
hatred. They do not affect to
disguise the pleasure which they derive
from knowing that, at this moment,
the rents are being paid from
the farmer's capital; and, so far, they
bear important testimony to the truth
of the calculations we have submitted.
It is not our business at present to
diverge into ethics, else we might be
tempted to hazard a few observations
on the brutal and un-British spirit
which pervades the whole of their late
harangues. All that we shall do now
is to remark that they are trying, by
every means in their power, to persuade
the tenantry of Britain that this
is a mere landlords' question; and we
are bound to confess, that such writers
as Lord Kinnaird have materially
contributed towards fostering this
delusion. A very little consideration,
however, will show the utter fallacy
of such an opinion; and we feel convinced
that the good sense of the tenantry
of Scotland will interfere to
prevent them from being led astray
by the devices of their inveterate
enemies.
So far as we can gather from the
opinions enunciated by the leaders of
the Manchester school, at their late gatherings,
their view resolves itself into
this. Abolish the rents, and agriculture
will go on as before. Little argument
is necessary to show, that the
proposition, even were it admitted, is
by no means in favour of the farmer.
Our excellent contemporary, The
Standard, has already disposed of it
in a single sentence:—Wipe off the
rents, and you wipe away the class
which heretofore has paid the rents.
Mr Bright would fain attempt to persuade
the farmers that they are altogether
independent of the landlords,
and that no suffering can reach them.
Have then the landlords, in most
instances, expended nothing on the
soil? Their outlay does not appear
in balance sheets, however large may
be its amount; but, were that outlay
added to the farmer's expenditure of
capital, there can be no doubt that,
even without rent, at present prices,
farming would be otherwise than profitable.
But did it never strike Mr
Bright that, failing rents, the landlords
must necessarily take their
farms into their own hands, as indeed
has occurred already in several districts
of the country? We presume
he does not contemplate a quiet confiscation
of estates—if he does, confiscation
will not stop there. We
suppose the owner must still have the
option of keeping his property; and
if so, as he will derive no profit from
it in the shape of rent, he must either
farm it himself, or act as labourer on
wages under a farmer. We apprehend
there can be little doubt as to
the course he will take, when driven
to such an extremity. As a body,
tenant-farmers will cease to exist.
They may go to Poland if they please,
and employ their practical skill, and
such remnant of capital as they can
save from the wreck of their fortunes,
in the patriotic task of growing wheat
cheaper than before, for the British
manufacturing market; but in this
country there will be no longer any
room for them. We shall be thankful
to know if any course more feasible
can be suggested; but indeed ingenuity
seems to be at fault, and the
Free-traders hardly affect to conceal
their conviction that such must be the
result. The following extract from a
leading article in the Times of 6th December,
will show the views entertained
by that very influential journal.
"If any landowners or tenants are
thoroughly persuaded that, under the
operation of free trade, land will yield no
rent to the owner, or no profit to the
farmer, let them dispose of their land or
their farms. The whole world lies before
them. The funds, the share-market,
trades and manufactures innumerable and
new ones every day, the colonies, the
United States, the Antipodes, Europe,
and literally the whole surface of the
globe, is open to the enterprise of wealthy
or ingenious men. Those who regard an
English landlord or yeoman as an animal
to be kept in a hothouse will think this
very cruel advice, but it is advice which
nine-tenths of our fellow-subjects have
to follow, at least once in their lives.
The law of change is impressed on the
whole face of society. Man improves by
being transplanted to new soils, and
grafted on new stocks. Why should not
the heroic qualities of our gentry be employed
in the improvement of the world,
and in the spread of civilisation, religion,
and manners? Why should not the skill
of our farmers be turned to account in
making the whole earth bring forth its
full produce? As it happens, there are no
classes actually concerned in the material
and operations of industry who can change
their place with so little difficulty or cost
as the owners and cultivators of the soil.
The landowner can sell his estate, and
buy another, or invest the money in the
funds, any day he pleases. The tenant
can dispose of his lease and his stock
without much sacrifice. Can an attorney,
a physician or surgeon, a beneficed clergyman,
a merchant, a retail shopkeeper, or,
indeed, any commercial or professional
person, change his locality ten miles without
sacrificing at least 30 or 50 per cent
of his present income? Yet many such
are obliged to migrate, and resign present
income, besides all the other losses
involved in a move, in the mere hope of
ultimately improving their condition. As
for our agricultural labourers, who, we
are often told, are the staple of our population,
for many years the whole force
and pressure of our social institutions has
been applied to compel their migration.
Landlord, tenant, parson, overseer, and
even a man's own fellow-labourers, are
all in a conspiracy to elbow him out of
the crowd, and the sooner he yields to
that pressure the better. Why, then,
should it be thought a hard thing to give
the same advice to the landowner and the
farmer?"
So write the Free-traders, and we
wish them joy of their argument.
Henceforth, then, we ought to abandon
all foolish scruples connected
with home, and kindred, and country—all
national considerations, all
the ties and common feelings that
hitherto have held Englishmen together!
Truly, the cause which
requires such advocacy as this must
be in a desperate condition. Such
language however, extravagant and
puerile as it is, has some extrinsic
value; for it shows us the utter selfishness
and entire disregard of the
Free-traders for every other interest
in Britain except their own.
We shall probably be told that we
are alarmists. It is no new charge
against us. The same thing was
said when we denounced the policy of
government towards the West Indian
interest, and also when we foreshadowed
the commercial crisis which
overtook us in 1847. One exception
may be taken to our agricultural
views, on the ground that farms have
been let in Scotland without any
diminution of rent. We allow that
such is the case. We admit that, even
during the bygone year, there has been
considerable competition for farms;
and we know very well that this circumstance
has tended to allay the fears of
many. But, after all, what does it
prove? Nothing more, we apprehend,
than that the farmer is most reluctant
to abandon the profession to which he
has been bred, and in which his capital
is invested; and that, in times of
notoriously unsettled and vacillating
legislation, he may be, perhaps, too
sanguine as to the possibility of another
change. The fact that some farms, in
various parts of the country, have, of
late, brought full and even higher
rents, is not enough to warrant the
idea that present engagements can be
met. It does not follow that these
will continue to be paid; nor do the
parties themselves, we presume, expect
to be able to fulfil their engagements,
if future prices are such as we
have felt constrained to reckon them.
We have seen of late, in other matters,
how easily people are deceived
by sanguine anticipations; and it has
recently been lamentably proved, that
it is often long before disastrous events
produce their due effect in indicating
true value. If, in the less intricate
matter of railway speculations, we
have seen men who boasted of their
superior information, involving themselves
in the downward course of these
unfortunate concerns, under the idea
that the turning-point of depression
had been attained, and that golden
profits might be realised, is it marvellous
if the farmer should be deceived
in a matter which has been so much
mystified, and which his predilections
and peculiar position, in most instances,
will not admit of his viewing
calmly and dispassionately, even if he
possessed the means of correct information?
His education and habits
compel him to endeavour to continue
his occupation at all hazards. If
once he abandon his calling, he is out
of a situation as well as a home. It
often happens, besides, and now it
is peculiarly the case, that, to dispose
of his stocking—a necessity incumbent
upon the loss of his farm—is to make a
sacrifice of his property. At present,
live stock is from 15 to 20 per cent
under what he has been in the habit
of receiving for the last few years.
Hence, upon such a vexed question
as the effects of the corn laws, modified
and free, have become, it is only
natural that, in his doubt, and darkness,
and perplexity, he should stretch
a point to keep possession of his occupation;
trusting that, if matters continue
to be adverse, his landlord will
have the like commiseration for him
which it is his duty to testify for his
neighbour, who, under other circumstances,
is also writhing beneath the
pressure. In such a case, rent becomes
altogether a question of chance, left to
be modified and controlled by after
circumstances.
In this view it is not difficult to
understand why farms falling out of
lease have been taken at rates absurdly
disproportioned to the present prices
of agricultural produce. Ask any
intelligent farmer, who has placed
himself in this position, and he will
frankly confess that he does not expect
to be able to pay his rent, unless
some very material change in the
value of produce shall take place.
How should he think otherwise? In
the better districts of Scotland, farming
has been carried so high that
there is hardly any margin left for
improvement. Up to a certain point,
the soil may be artificially stimulated;
but, that point once reached, any
further appliances become positively
hurtful, and defeat the intentions of
the grower. The flower of our tenantry—the
men whose exertions have
made the land what it is—can go but
a little way further. Nor can the
severest moralist tax them with a
breach of probity if they should enter
into bargains which, under the operation
of the present laws, they cannot
possibly fulfil. The legislature took no
account of them when it abolished
protection. Parliament dealt with
them more tyrannically than any
irresponsible monarch would have
dared to deal with a people far less
intelligent and far less cognisant of
their rights. The laws have ceased
to be, in the estimation of the multitude,
final. We now consider them,
and most justly, as mere make-shifts
which cannot stand against the pressure
of a well-organised agitation;
and men speculate on the probability
of their changes, just as gamblers
make adventures on the probable
fluctuations of the funds. No man
can deny that such is the case. Free
trade is in the ascendant to-day:
to-morrow, protection may be uppermost.
A sad state of things truly;
but such as must necessarily occur,
when statesmen, whose heads have
grown hoary in office, desert principle
to adopt expediency, and repudiate
the professions of a whole lifetime, for
the sake of outwitting their political
opponents. Our steadfast conviction
is, that unsettled legislation has tended
more than anything else to prevent
an immediate depreciation in the rents.
Foster gambling, and you create
gamblers. Farms are now taken on
speculation, with the view, not to
increased production of the land, but
to further changes in the experimental
policy of the nation.
But in reality we apprehend that
such cases are the exception, and not
the rule. We have heard it trumpeted
abroad that certain farms in East
Lothian were let during the course of
last year at an advance. We have
taken pains to investigate this matter;
and we find on inquiry that, in
some cases, such farms have been
taken by new men of little agricultural
experience. Lord Kinnaird
may be glad to hear this, but we cannot
view it in the light of an encouraging
symptom. Others, no
doubt, have been retaken, probably
under the influence of such considerations
as we have just stated. Again,
we find that some farms in the south
of Scotland are very differently situated
now, than they were before.
The extension of the railway system
has given to such of them as are near
stations, advantages which were enjoyed
heretofore by such farms only
as were in the immediate vicinity of
large towns; and in this way their
value has been increased. But it is
quite evident, that, unless some extraordinary
fallacy lurks in the tables
which we have given above—unless
the leading practical agriculturists of
Scotland are either possessed by some
monstrous arithmetical delusion, or
banded in some organised conspiracy
to mislead the public mind—no exceptional
case can be admitted as of
any weight whatever in determining
the general question. On the part of
ourselves, and of our correspondents,
we not only invite, but we broadly
challenge investigation. We desire
that the truth may be made known,
because any delusion on either side
must tend to the public detriment.
If our statistics should be admitted
as correct, we think it must be clear
to demonstration that British agriculture
cannot maintain itself longer
against the competition of the foreign
grower. We believe it impossible for
any man who has attended to the
minute statements given above, to
arrive at an opposite conclusion. No
appliances, no energy, no high farming,
can avail in this ruinous struggle.
To expect that more capital will be
embarked in so losing a trade, is perfectly
idle. Even if tenants had the
wish to do so, they would fail for the
want of means. It will be seen from
the preceding tables what amount of
capital is usually perilled on Scottish
farms, and what amount of loss, at
present prices, the farmer must necessarily
sustain. Even in better times,
few men could afford to do as much as
has already been done by the agriculturists
of the Lothians and Berwickshire;
and, under existing circumstances,
the great body of the tenantry
cannot find the means to continue
their ordinary operations. With capital
exhausted and credit denied to
him, what is the farmer to do? The
question is one which we would fain
see answered, and that immediately,
by those who have brought us to the
present pass. It cannot remain long
unanswered, without such an augmentation
of distress as must render
all remedy ineffectual.
So far we have spoken for the
tenant, who, as an old contracting
party, has been utterly sacrificed by
free-trade legislation. As a new
contractor, we have shown that he
is placed under circumstances of
peculiar disadvantage, arising from
ignorance as to his real position, his
past exertions, and his future prospects.
Had we spoken rashly on
this matter, we should have been
liable to the utmost blame; but we
have not put forward any one position
which is not based upon facts,
laboriously ascertained, and closely
scrutinised; and all these are open to
challenge, if any assailant has the
mind, or the power, to refute us.
We state nothing which is not
founded on evidence of the clearest
kind, and we shall be glad if our
statements can be met in a precisely
similar manner.
We observe that Mr William
Ewart Gladstone, in an address delivered
at the late meeting of the
Fettercairn Farmers' Club, has taken
a different line of argument; and if
his views should prove to be correct,
we must necessarily admit that the
British agriculturist has no ground
for complaint at all. We are, it
seems, making a vast deal of noise
without anything to justify it. We
are clamouring about an imaginary
evil, when we ought to be deeply
grateful for natural benefits vouchsafed
to us. So thinks Mr Gladstone,
or at least so he speaks; and
as his undeniable talents, and the
high official position which he formerly
occupied, entitle him to an
attentive hearing, we shall briefly
recapitulate his views. These are
not new, for, if we recollect right,
they were enunciated so early as
last spring by the Hon. Sydney
Herbert, a gentleman belonging to
the same political section as Mr
Gladstone, and they were then triumphantly
refuted by Mr John Ellman, in
his letter addressed to the Duke of
Bedford. Since that time, however,
another harvest has intervened, and
Mr Gladstone now takes up the
argument of his friend under better
auspices, and with a greater show of
plausibility.
Foreign competition, according to
Mr Gladstone, is not the cause of low
prices. "This is not," says he, "the
first time that we have had difficulties.
We have had many periods
when low prices prevailed. Certainly,
at present, prices are extremely low;
but, in many parts of the country,
there is a sort of compensation for
these low prices arising from great
abundance—the result of improved
processes of growing the crop, and, of
consequence, an improved yield. With
regard to the cause of declining prices,
I cannot adopt the line of argument
of those who look only to importations
as the chief cause. I do not pretend
to speak so accurately of Scotland,
but, as to England, the wheat crop
this year was the largest ever known.
Upon one single acre of land, of
average quality, no less than sixty-eight
bushels of wheat have been
taken from the crop of this year. I
must also point out the fact to
you, that, although the crop is the
largest, the prices are by no means
the lowest we have seen—for instance,
in the year 1835, when the sliding-scale
was in full operation, we had
wheat at 35s. per quarter, and this not
only for a short time, but for the whole
year. If it be true, therefore, that, at
the present time, we have prices 5s.
per quarter higher than they were in
1835, with a corn-law prohibitory till
wheat rose to 70s. per quarter, then I
cannot see that we have any such
great cause for alarm as many imagine."
The first remark that we shall make
with reference to this statement, is,
that it is utterly incorrect. We do not
know from what source Mr Gladstone
ordinarily draws his figures, but if any
one will consult the official tables of
returns for the year 1835, he will find
that the average of wheat was 39s. 4d.,
and not 35s., as Mr Gladstone has
unwarrantably asserted. We have
gone over the weekly averages for the
whole of that year, and we find that
wheat was never once quoted so low as
35s. In a matter of this kind, accuracy
is a cardinal virtue, and we cannot
allow such a statement as this to
pass unnoticed. The following are
the lowest weekly and aggregate
averages for the whole year, taken
from the official tables, and we have
purposely selected these in order that
Mr Gladstone may have the full benefit
of the nearest approximation to his
figures.
LOWEST WEEKLY AND AGGREGATE AVERAGES
THROUGHOUT THE YEAR 1835.
| 1835. | Weekly | Aggregate |
| | average. | average. |
| | s. | d. | s. | d. |
| January, | 40 | 1 | 40 | 7 |
| February, | 40 | 4 | 40 | 10 |
| March, | 39 | 8 | 40 | 0 |
| April, | 39 | 3 | 39 | 1 |
| May, | 38 | 6 | 38 | 11 |
| June, | 39 | 8 | 39 | 5 |
| July, | 40 | 5 | 40 | 1 |
| August, | 40 | 4 | 42 | 5 |
| September, | 37 | 7 | 39 | 2 |
| October, | 36 | 11 | 37 | 3 |
| November, | 36 | 7 | 36 | 9 |
| December, | 36 | 0 | 36 | 8 |
What, then, are we to think of Mr
Gladstone's averment, that, in 1835,
we had wheat at 35s., "and this not
only for a short time, but for the
whole year?" Not even for the
week have we a vestige of any such
quotation! This is blunder the first,
and it is so serious a one, that, on
his own showing, it is enough to
invalidate the whole of his argument.
It is not a fact "that, at
the present time, we have prices 5s.
per quarter higher than they were in
1835." The difference is a fractional
part of a shilling; and if Mr. Gladstone
wishes to find a time when the prices
were five shillings lower than at present,
he must go back to the year
1779; and, in travelling towards that
period, he will meet with some startling
facts in the financial history of
the country, which are well worthy of
observation. In 1779, he will find
wheat at 33s. 8d., the produce of such
a harvest that the export of grain
exceeded the import by 217,222
quarters. But he will also find that
the national debt, at that period, was
just one-fourth of what it now is;
and that the poor-rates of England,
instead of touching eight millions,
were considerably short of two.
Secondly, it is not true that the last
wheat crop was the largest ever known
in England. This is a wild and utterly
extravagant assertion. The bygone
crop was a good one, less on account
of quality than of gift; but every
agriculturist knows that, within the
experience of the present generation,
we have had far finer crops. That of
1815 was enormous in its yield—so
great that we did not import a single
quarter of grain, and the average price
of wheat for that year was 63s. 8d.
The crop of 1822 was not very much
inferior. These are notorious instances;
but in order to ascertain,
with as much precision as possible,
the relative quality of the bygone
crop, we submitted the statement of
Mr. Gladstone to one of the most extensive
corn-dealers in Leith, and the
following is his reply. "Mr. Gladstone's
statement is certainly very unlike
that of a person of his high
authority; though I conceive it as
calculated to do much mischief in the
present depressed state of the corn-trade,
as many people will judge of it
from Mr. Gladstone's high standing.
In my opinion, however, nothing can
be more absurd than estimating a
crop by a yard in any field, or by a
single acre. We hear now a great
deal of the land being more productive,
by draining and other improvements;
and it was to be expected that, when
a good wheat season occurred, we
should have more wheat than in previous
years; but, from all the confirmation
we have yet obtained, I am
by no means disposed to believe that
the last crop is a great one, far less
that it is greater than ever known. The
present generation, I have no doubt,
have seen larger crops of wheat than
our forefathers; but I think 1814,
1815, 1822, 1825, 1831, 1832, 1833,
1834, 1835, 1841, and 1842, were
better seasons than the last. Essex,
and several other English counties
which had bad crops in 1848, have
much greater crops in 1849; but Lincolnshire,
and several other very important
counties, have very deficient
crops on certain varieties of soil. All
that can be said of the present crop
is, that it is a full one, generally
speaking. More of it, I am sure,
will yield under 40 bushels an acre
than over 40; and very little, indeed,
60 or 68, as Mr. Gladstone says a
single acre has produced." So much
for the general yield; let us now revert
to the seasons which Mr. Gladstone
has selected for comparison.
The crop of 1835 was not only
larger than that of 1849, but it came
to us under circumstances which
entirely preclude a comparison of the
years, if prices are to be taken as a
criterion. The crop of 1835 was
the last of a series of fine ones.
We subjoin the statistics from 1830,
which was a bad season, to 1836,
when the harvest was again unfavourable:—
| Year. | Quarters imported. | Average price. |
| | | s. | d. |
| 1830, | 1,701,889, | 64 | 3 |
| 1831, | 1,491,631, | 66 | 4 |
| 1832, | 325,435, | 58 | 8 |
| 1833, | 82,346, | 52 | 11 |
| 1834, | 64,653, | 46 | 2 |
| 1835, | 28,483, | 39 | 4 |
| 1836, | 24,826, | 48 | 6 |
It will thus be seen that it was a
succession of good harvests which
brought down the prices gradually
from 66s. 4d. in 1831, to 39s. 4d. in
1835. Last year we had one good
harvest following a remarkably bad
one, and yet Mr Gladstone would attempt
to persuade us that the present
reduction of price arises solely
from excessive plenty, as in 1835!
If it were so, where would be the
room for that importation, which,
during the first eight months of the
bygone year, has more than doubled
that of 1848, for the corresponding
period? For his own sake, we are
sorry to find Mr Gladstone resorting
to fallacies so exceedingly flimsy and
transparent. Surely he must be
aware that the extreme depreciation
of price, which is the cause of agricultural
distress, could not by any possibility
be the result of the late harvest—for
this unanswerable reason, that, in
the earlier parts of the year, before
the corn had shot in the fields, prices
were rapidly dwindling. The deficient
crop of 1848 could not have put prices
down—we presume that even Mr
Gladstone will not maintain that—and
yet, for the week ending April 7, 1849
we find the averages of England as
follows:—
AVERAGE PRICES OF GRAIN FOR WEEK ENDING APRIL 7, 1849.
| Wheat. | Barley. | Oats. | Rye. | Beans. | Pease |
| 44s. 5d. | 28s. 9d. | 16s. 9d. | 26s. 5d. | 28s. 1d. | 29s. 6d. |
So then, after a poor crop in 1848, we
find prices lower than they were in
1834, after a series of fine crops, and
we are calmly asked to adopt the conclusion
that a single good crop in
1849 has done all the mischief! Mr
Gladstone might just as well tell us
that our present prices are affected by
the crop of 1850, which is now lying
in embryo in the seed.
But we have not yet done with Mr
Gladstone, who goes on to assert that
low prices have nothing to do with
importations from abroad. This position
he tries to fortify by rather an ingenious
process, as will be seen from the
following extract from his speech:—
"Let me point out also that I had the
curiosity to obtain an account of the last
month's importations into this country,
and, on comparing the same with those of
1848, the decrease this year is very remarkable;
and, besides, with diminished
importations this year, must be taken into
account the fact, that from the condition
of the crop this year, as compared with
the last, the value of our grain is at least
5s. superior to the mere nominal price.
In October, last year, you had good prices
for wheat; in this year, bad. I ask, was
this owing to importations from abroad,
or was it not? I give you the result in
figures, which I think will convince you
what is the reason of the low prices. In
October 1848, the importation of wheat to
this country was no less than 506,000
quarters; in 1849, it is only 154,000 quarters.
How are we to account for this,
but simply from the great abundance of
wheat at home this year, while in 1848
the supply was somewhat short; and, so
far as regards the English farmer, I consider
he is better off this year, with his
large crop and low prices, than he was
last, with his small crop and high prices."
If anything could make us lose our
patience, while dealing with so momentous
a subject, it would be the sight
of such statements as these. Observe
how the matter stands. Mr Gladstone
is arguing that importations from
abroad do not affect prices here, and,
by way of proof, he gives us the statistics
of a single month. He says—Last
October you had good prices and
large importations: this October you
have bad prices and diminished importation.
Ergo, importations have
nothing to do with prices! Is Mr
Gladstone ignorant of the fact,
that, for the first eight months of
the year 1849, the quantity of grain
imported was more than double
that of the preceding season, and
that almost every warehouse in our
ports is filled almost to bursting with
foreign grain? Is he aware that this
diminished import for October, if
extended over the year, would give
an amount greater than was brought
in during any famine year previous to
1839? Let us see how this matter
stands, adopting his very favourable
calculations.
IMPORTS OF WHEAT AND WHEAT FLOUR
IN BAD SEASONS.
| | Quarters. |
| 1810, | 1,491,341 |
| 1817, | 1,020,949 |
| 1818, | 1,593,518 |
| 1829, | 1,364,200 |
| 1830, | 1,701,889 |
| 1838, | 1,834,452 |
The October imports, which Mr
Gladstone considers as being reduced
in consequence of the good harvest at
home, would, if spread over the year,
amount to 1,848,000 quarters—being
very little less than the average
amount imported from 1836 to 1840,
when we had five bad or indifferent
seasons in succession. Mr Gladstone,
however, we apprehend, leaps too
rapidly at his conclusions. He should
have waited until the frost set in, and
then, perhaps, he might have been
able to point to a materially diminished
importation. We should like to know
how he will dispose of the ascertained
statistics for November. They are as
follows:—
IMPORTS OF FOREIGN GRAIN INTO UNITED
KINGDOM, FOR NOVEMBER 1849.
| | Quarters. |
| Wheat and wheat flour, | 215,134 |
| Barley and barley meal, | 90,304 |
| Oats and oat meal, | 114,311 |
| Rye and rye meal, | 6,201 |
| Beans, | 19,061 |
| Pease, | 22,269 |
| Indian corn, | 46,306 |
| Buckwheat, | 30 |
being equal to 513,615 quarters of
all kinds of grain for the month!
These are the diminished importations!
But we shall come down even
later, and inquire what sort of proportion
the arrivals of foreign grain bear
to those of British growth in the
London market, according to the last
accounts. We copy from the Times
of December 11:—
"Corn Exchange, Monday, Dec. 10.—Throughout
the past week, there have
been good arrivals of wheat, barley, and
oats into this market from abroad, although
of wheat the quantity reported
has been less than of other grain. Of
English corn of any kind, (if we except
barley,) the total reports are insignificant,
and but a few cargoes of oats from Ireland.
The state of the trade, on the
several market days, was languid, and
even at lower prices for barley and oats,
buyers were indisposed to get into
stock."
The following is a statement of the
arrivals of grain at London from the
3d to the 8th of December, which
may serve to indicate the sources
from which the population of our vast
metropolis is fed; and we leave Mr
Gladstone to reconcile it, as he best
can, with his new theory of importations:—
| | British | Foreign |
| | Qrs. | Qrs. |
| Wheat, | 4601 | 19,617 |
| Barley, | 6144 | 19,842 |
| Oats, | 7370 | 21,718 |
| Rye, | | 514 |
| Beans, | 962 | 337 |
| Pease, | 1077 | 6,713 |
| blah | 20,154 | 68,741 |
So then, after the harvesting of
"the largest wheat crop ever known
in England," and at the dead season
of the year, when the navigation of
the Elbe is closed, the importation of
foreign wheat into the London market
exceeds the arrival of English wheat
by a ratio of nearly five to one! And,
with such facts before us, we are forbidden
to believe that imports affect
prices! We hope, when we next meet
Mr Gladstone, to find him in a more
logical humour, and better prepared
with his facts.
It is not surprising if, in a controversy
of this kind, we should find the
Free-traders openly contradicting each
other, and very often themselves, in
the advice which they gratuitously
offer to the agriculturist. One section
recommends further outlay on
the land, more extended and elaborate
tillage, and prophesies in return
an augmented cereal crop. Another
totally repudiates this view, but
advises that the loss should be made
good by green crops, wider pastures,
and an infinite multiplication of cattle.
The former philanthropists want
more grain; the latter insist upon an
extended consumption of butcher
meat. The tendency of late legislation
has been in favour of the latter
view, and the consequence has been a
depreciation in the value of cattle
throughout the kingdom, of at least
from 15 to 20 per cent. The consumer
has not yet got the full benefit
of it, but the farmer has incurred the
loss; and we know instances of pasturings
on which, for the last two
years, not a single shilling of profit
has been realised. The cattle when
sent to market, after being fattened,
have brought the same price which
was given for them in their lean and
hungry condition. The Free-traders
are very bold about cattle, alleging
that, in this respect, there is nothing
to fear from the effects of foreign
competition. And undoubtedly, to a
casual observer, this would appear to
be one of the least objectionable
parts of their scheme. Still there is
something mysterious in the fact of
the great depreciation. The prices of
cattle have fallen, until profit has
been nearly extinguished; and if we
exclude altogether the idea of foreign
competition, the necessary conclusion
will be, that the supply has vastly
exceeded the demand. This is but
poor comfort to those who are told to
look to green crops for their remuneration.
But we think that the subject
requires a closer examination than it
has yet received. We are convinced
that the depreciation of live stock is
intimately connected with importation,
and the result of our inquiries
will show whether we are right or
wrong. But first let us glance at the
ascertained effects of importation under
the relaxed tariff.
The first fruit of the unrestricted
trade in live stock—which exhibited
a number that mounted up, for the
first five years, at a rate increasing
annually fourfold, until the number
of "oxen and bulls" reached from
1385 in 1843, to 27,831 in 1848—was
no doubt sufficiently alarming.
But, judging from the trade of the
year ending 1848, and of the present
season, this influx would appear to
have reached its full. Assuming this
to be the case—as the entire number
would not, on a rough calculation,
furnish more than a week or ten days'
supply of beef to the whole country—perhaps
there is not much reason to
apprehend any great depression in
home prices from the influence of
the importation of foreign live stock.
Besides, from the tendency of recent
improvements in agriculture—should
these fortunately continue in operation—to
increase materially the supplies
of beef and mutton, it is possible
that these necessaries could, in
future, be afforded at such a price as
to exclude the probability of any
great accession to our importations
for many years.
We believe that the only considerable
harm which has resulted from
the importation of live stock, has
been the importation of two very
fatal diseases, which have, since then,
carried off numbers of cattle and
sheep, and which, like most epidemics,
will in all human probability become
permanent. The mortality was so
serious, that Parliament has already
passed an act establishing a sort of
conditional quarantine; and it has
been calculated by those who are
skilled in such matters, that the number
of animals that have died in consequence,
is considerably greater than
the whole amount of the importation.
In this way it is easy to reckon the
amount of our losses and our gains.
But there is a farther importation
of butchers' meat in another shape,
which is far more difficult to contend
against—namely, that of "cured beef,
bacon, and pork." The importation
of these articles has increased so
rapidly and enormously, since the introduction
of free trade—the two
latter to upwards of sixfold since
1847—that the whole together, it
may be reckoned, now afford a quantity
of food exceeding in weight four
times that of the "oxen and bulls"
imported during the last year. This
is a mere beginning, but already the
effects of it have been widely and
calamitously felt. It is not only
affecting the graziers, but it is displacing
a large and hitherto flourishing
trade, both in Britain and in Ireland;
and, if carried out further, as it clearly
will be, not one single rallying point
or chance of escape will be left to the
British agriculturist.
The following is the statement of a
Liverpool correspondent, dated 6th
December last:—
"I enclose you a price-current,
with the latest quotations of American
provisions, which are the prices
to the wholesale dealers. In the
best qualities of beef and pork, the
trade generally get 5s. to 10s. a package
profit, and on an ordinary article
a much larger margin is allowed.
"American beef is far superior to
Irish, and brings more money. The
import of the latter is about 1000
tierces—of the former, 20,000 tierces.
Irish pork stands higher than American,
and the finest quality eastern
will sell within 5s. per barrel of Irish.
The import of Irish is about 3000
barrels—of American, 35,000 barrels."
The following table will show the
comparative prices of Irish and American
produce:—
Comparative Table of Prices of Irish and
American Provisions at Liverpool, in December
1849.
| | Irish. | American. |
| | s.s. | s. d. s. |
| Prime mess beef, per tierce, 304 lbs., | 80 to 85 | 67 6 to 81 |
| Prime mess pork, per barrel, 200 lbs., | 62 to 66 | 34 0 to 60 |
| Mess do., per do., | 54 to 60 | 45 0 to 50 |
| Bacon, per cwt., | 45 to 48 | 30 0 to 32 |
| Lard, per do., | 38 to — | 33 6 to 34 |
These are figures which may well
astound the boldest Free-trader; for
they show that the provision trade is
altogether passing from our hands.
To those who regard the welfare of
Great Britain, they furnish additional
proof of the headlong rate of our
decline. But we have yet other
statements to make, for which, we
are certain, no one was prepared,
though the facts they disclose are the
necessary consequence of such comparative
prices as we have just given.
We believe that the British navy, which
is victualled by contract, is at this
moment supplied from foreign, and not
British produce!
We crave the special attention of
the reader to the following letter
from a gentleman residing in Dundee,
who stands nearly at the head of the
meat-curing business in Scotland.
We have authority to give his name,
if that should be considered necessary.
His letter bears date 12th November
1849:—
"In reply to the queries put to me
by you, as to the value, &c. of foreign
provisions, I beg leave to hand you a
statement of the difference of price
of Scotch and American beef, calculating
the Scotch beef at the present
low price of 40s. per cwt., and the
present price of my American prime
mess beef at 87s. 6d. per tierce of
304 lbs., the quality of which is not
inferior to the best Scotch beef.
| Present price of Scotch beef, from butcher, 40s. per cwt., or for 304 lbs., | £5 | 8 | 6 |
| Price of tierce, 5s. 6d.—expense of curing, 4s., | 0 | 9 | 6 |
| In leakage of weight. | 0 | 7 | 6 |
| Allowance of value between necks, shanks, and prime beef, | 0 | 2 | 6 |
| Present price of one tierce Scotch beef, | £6 | 8 | 0 |
| Present price of my prime mess American beef, | 4 | 7 | 6 |
| Difference, | £2 | 0 | 6 |
"By this statement you will see that
there is a difference of £2, Os. 6d. per
tierce, or 14s. 9d. per cwt., in favour
of the American; besides, I allow 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.
The transcriber has inserted missing anchors for the following:
Footnote 5: AMERICAN ADVENTURE.[5]
Footnote 9: HOWARD.[9]
Footnote 17: Cospatrick's stronghold of Dunbar[17]
Minor typographical errors have been corrected without note.
Irregularities and inconsistencies in the text have been retained as
printed.
Mismatched quotes are not fixed if it's not sufficiently clear where
the missing quote should be placed.