THE AGRICULTURAL GAZETT1 



[Dec. 29 





the comrry 'which, within my limited if. 



capital and far severer difficulties than ave now suffered 

 r. How did these interests triumph over 

 fat! Did they trust in I •> 



Legislature for protection ? No : they sought relief as 



the manufacturers of food should seek i'. 



:i of greater s-kill and greater 



economy, and, by cheapening their prodi. 



i\. 



cnlties ? Why should he waste his energies, as he is in- 

 clusive efforts to throw on others those 

 local buithens which justice and policy am 

 he charged on realised property, and to fetter and em- 

 l.-.: ■■. in order that the landowner 



may possibly borrow 1 per cent, cheaper 



honest course. It must be evident to him that such 



Let us for illustration sake suppose t 

 conferred, and sketch the probable court 



fare we cannot much complain of. Well, h< 

 2000/. in his pocket, and being solely convei 

 farming business, looks out about him for th: 

 ratuni ■ a farm at a fair rent." He determir 

 go abroad, from natural distrust, and from leai 



oney value of a good 1 



again in old Ei 



lurprise perhaps, that the d 



would probably determine to Bee if he could arrange 

 with the landowner for retaking the old farm at a "fair 



ita down to calculate the free competition 

 value of the expected produce, and sighs at the idea of 

 40s. for Wheat and M. per lb. for meat ; he then pro- 

 cheap seed, that ; ^raio, that his 

 horses and all the live stock will eat cheap provender, 

 that if money wages be not reduced, his labourers being 



I be abler workmen, more zealous, and less 



pauper, and that all shop goods will be unusually low 



production and less to the price of produce, and that 



heing a matter of no concern to him one way or the 

 other, he may, under free competition pi 



living out of the farm, and have more 

 surplus than he had imagined to hand over to the 

 owner for the use of it. This surplus is legitimate rent, 

 the return which the farmer can afford to make for the 

 use of the landowner's capital (the farm and its im- 

 provements), and which he will be under the necessity 

 long as engagements are regulated on the 

 common principles of competition. 



Our friend will now have arrived at that question so 



>wner of a farm is entitled to re- 



■;.'■ 

 :. ■ 



*nd determine, to get rid of both ; seed cor n p'ut doTn 



',;_;, . ., 



rms that with good farming larger crops may 





n the use of one-half that quantity of seed, 





















o ferment exposed to air and water. Proceeding to 





tions of crop, he would find perhaps Wheat 



and pulse 



-ij- 















I manure, and more perfect 



n the soil 





one-fourth 



and that without any increased command of 



estigation concluded, would not the landowner 





•: ■ing with the proper cultivation of the 



farm, but 





T OI *g r, ™ra produce. Foreign butter * 

 cheese are , st, 1 subjected to a duty of nbonMO 2 

 cent.; and if instead of indulging in unm«J!! 



igncultural produce not exceeding in amo»»t " 

 cent. I believe they might accomplish 'S 



;perience must have taught them.Tnhey^untS 

 prosperity depends on any concession fromtE 

 slature ; or on anything save only their own wtf 

 :ted industry, and the brineine to V, M i. „„ u. 





itioned farms must inevitably bring d 

 my tenant farmers who, perfectly ai 



»fitable, feel excessively angry that they should be 

 npelled, in self-protection, to improve their system, 

 len, by excluding foreign produce, or highly taxing 



:;:.:;; 



doubt political expediency may sometimes justify i 

 :inciple in the allocatioi 

 introducing, or of foster 



your Pr tect *t i 



distinguished place in the list of 





i clothing, and in othe 



it be said the producers of food may throw 



CAN FARMING CONTINUE PROFITABLF 

 WITH FREE TRADE PRia-.S 



rorld in the supply of food to this country. At fit* 

 fc will appear to admit of ready reply, and to be one of 

 ery simple calculation on data which every practical 

 nan can afford ; for nothing seems plainer than If 



e contented to step, 



arms. Nor am I going to build up the future profitaWi 

 ultivation of land, as if it were dependant on the 



neet the future lower prices by showing that a redoctka 

 >f wages, and therefore a diminished cost of production 



the labourers, although tl 



a cheaper supply of food to 



there can be no doubt that in both these ways they wfll 

 be largely benefited ; but I hope to lessen the alarm as 

 to the future profitable cultivation of the land so 

 manv are feeling, bv showins that fanning has formerly 



bafsJjS 



pect. At 



a the scale of their charges, for the rate of 

 were paying tlieir labourers appears to hire 

 what they are now settling down to>u» 



50 per cent,, or 15s. or 16s. an acre of what are w 

 being paid. From this will be seen that whilst faisK" 

 in future may expect at least to ■realise the ¥**?* 

 80 years ago for their produce, their charges to* 

 increased only to the extent of the additions that b*» 

 since been made to their rent, rates, and t, he, art 

 which amounts to only about a tenth of the whole cojtf 

 corn at present prices. Were the farmers at this nw 



proved ? Had they received' no aid to enable theo* 

 cultivate their land cheaper -no advantage from tM *~ 





r farms at^jtdg 

 im etbytbe»MjJ 



naterial of the plough., and in the better «*»« > > 

 A their waggons and -carts. By the creation ofn^J 

 ,ard roads, and the greater facilities of «2* * 

 ;o the market towns, two horses are now n»«c \m 

 .he work that formerly ^^£™'£££&b r*»* 

 L h r^7byX r u^ 



hTtiluTge of the soil, the labour on ^J^, 

 leen very considerably reduced. At the saw 



r.,1-1 th"' br't- r '.Munition ot their farms, tne 



of live stock kept, the introduce of ** 



