36 



CONCLUSIONS TO FIRST SECTION OF ACCOUNTS. 



The farm luidcr the circumstances related and explained in the first 

 section of accounts by high farming, with a capital of £3,500, was held 

 profitably from Michaelmas, 1850, to Michaelmas, 1873, and yielded 

 £11 2s. IM. per cent, on the capital employed. The range of prices 

 realised for cereals being, viz.: Wheat, 7s. O^d. per bushel; barley. 

 Is. 7ld. ; oats or dredge, 3s. 3|d. ; beans or pulse, 5s. 6M. The pro- 

 ducts for meat being : INIutton, 8|d. per lb. ; beef, 7|d. ; swine, 5|d. ; 

 and poultry (nominall}^), 8d. 



The rent of the farm was fixed at £300 per annum (and it is con- 

 tended to be a fair one, inasmuch as it is the amount remaining from the 

 sale of the products after deducting every other expense). It was con- 

 verted into produce on a scale of prices equal to those obtained in 1835,. 

 viz. : Wheat, 7s. ; barley, 4s. ; oats, 2s. 9d. ; meat, 6d. per lb. ; and 

 wool, Is. Nevertheless, the rent was to vary with the prices for produce 

 as adopted in the Earl of Pembroke's scheme for letting his estate. The 

 quantities chosen were, two-fifths meat, one-fifth barley, and two-fifths 

 wheat. The respective quantities being calculated at 6d. per lb. for 

 meat, 3s. 6d. per bushel for barley, and Gs. for wheat, being the estimate 

 formed by Lord Herbert and Sir Robert Peel as prices for agricultural 

 products in the future, mutton, lamb, veal, beef, and pork, to be taken 

 from the average prices published weekly in the Marl- Lane Express, and 

 the cereals being determined by those which regulate the tithe com- 

 mutation rent-charges for England and Wales. At the end of the twenty- 

 three years — iSoO to 1873 — the balance was 10s. per cent, in favour of 

 the tenantry on the Pembroke estates, the j^rices then being 6id. per lb, 

 for meat, 4s. 4d. per bushel for barley, and 6s. 6|d. per bushel for wheat. 

 As regards rent it will be evident that putting* the fixed rent at the 

 old standard prices into quantities of produce at a lower ratio, an apparent 

 advantage is afforded to the landlord, but this difference was cancelled by 

 an annual allowance of 10 per cent, for manures purchased (provided the 

 tenant spent three times as much), the same not ai'isiug from the produce 

 of the holding. This incentive operated in promoting an increased pro- 

 duction, as exemplified by the result on the farm in question. An 

 allowance of say £3,500 per annum by the landlord at this rate on an 

 estate under such circumstances, would occasion £10,500 to be spent by 

 the tenantry in manures, thus affording a guarantee for increased pro- 



