Chapter X: Part VII (3)

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 7-1/2 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
[21] It will be seen, by referring to the statement in question,
that Mr Stephens' calculation is more favourable to the tenant than
the other. According to him, the excess of produce over expenditure
would be £931. The county Down farmer estimates it at £888.

"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,) of
£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, 33 1980. Off seed, 180
40 Barley, 40 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]

[22] Since the above statement was drawn up and submitted by us to
the consideration of various farmers throughout the country, Mr
Dudgeon has requested us to state, that after consultation with
several of these gentlemen in his own neighbourhood, (who, he was
gratified to find, entirely concurred in the essential particulars
of the statement,) he is of opinion that he had deducted rather
too small a quantity of oats and barley for seed, according to the
average usual in the district. Any alteration which this involves
would be a deduction from the tenant's original profit, and an
addition to the amount of loss already brought out.

Mr Dudgeon also says--"I omit at present adding to this deficit
the depreciation which it may be further estimated will result
permanently from the open trade in live stock and cured provisions.
But it may be stated that the recent depression in the value of
stock from that of late seasons, amounting to _at least_ 15 per
cent, shows a farther present loss on the calculated profits of this
farm to the extent of £112, 10s."

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.

[23] The statistics of Mid-Lothian appear in another page. They are
attested by several of the first farmers in the county.

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.)