1801.) 
refpondent in his opinion, ‘* that there is 
no clafs of men who feel the prefent evil 
more than the farmers themfelves.” . G. 
A’s affertion, I dare fay, is very correét, 
that there is not any bufinefs in the king- 
dom which, in proportion to the capital 
employed, pays more to the fupport of 
the poor (and he might have added the 
parfon) than farming: but as this large 
and undue proportion of poor’s rate to the 
capital employed (a proportion, however, 
I believe, by no means fo large as G. A. 
itates) is a burden of every year, and re- 
_ Tatively bears no heavier this year on farm- 
ing than! on other trades and occupations, 
the faét does not appear to have much ‘con- 
nection with the argument. 
G. A. is of opinion that there are few 
parifhes where it will coft lefs this year 
than two-fifths of the rack-rent for the 
poor’s rates, or about feven and a half per 
cént. on the capital employed on ‘arable 
Jandss Suppofe the rack-rent of a farm 
to be 2001. two-fifths will be 80. and if this 
fourfcore pounds be equivalent, as accord- 
ing to G. A.it is, to about feven and a 
half per cent. on the éapital employed, that 
capital muft confequently be fomewhat lefs 
than one thoufand guineas. Now, Mri 
Editor, I think I rifk but little in afferting, 
that there are very few arable farms in this 
country of 2ool. a year, on which a 
much larger capital is not employed than 
one thoufand guineas: farming is carried 
on at a much greater expence now than it 
was twenty, nay ten, perhaps we may even 
fay five, years ago; and on this account, 
more titan any other that I can conceive, 
may the profits of the farmer at the prefent 
period be perhaps over-rated. ; 
If, however, it be neceffary, as I hav 
firong reafons to believe it is, to employ 
at the leaf fifteen hundred on an arable 
farm of 20ol. ayear ; then, infteadof feven 
and a half per cent. as your Correfpondent 
calculates, fomewhat lefs than five and a 
half per cent. on the capital will pay a 
rate of eighty pounds*. . 
But furely that cannot be called a very 
oppreflive poor’s rate on a farm of zo0ol.a 
year, which the fale of ten quarters of 
good wheat, or twenty quarters of bright 
barley, will enable the tenant to dif 
charge ! 
G. A’s calculation does not appear to 
me to bea fair one: ia the firft place, the 
* This ftatement, however, it will be ob- 
feryed, militates againft the average high 
profits of farming ; for the larger the capital 
which is neceflary to be rifked in obtaining a 
certain income, the more danger and the lefs 
‘profit obyionfy accrue to the indiyidyal, 
Farming Remarks on G. A’s Letter. 
107 
Committee of the Houle of Commons have 
given it as their opinion, after a minute 
and laborious inveftigation of the fubject, 
that the average deficiency of the laft 
year’s crop was fomewhat lefs (if I rightly 
remember) than one-fourth. Inftead of 
taking this average deficiency as the 
ground-work of his eflimate, your Cor. 
refpondent, becaufe he is unfortunate 
enough to be acyuainted with fome parti. 
cular lands where the deficiency was 
greater, has Jaid down as the bafis of a cal- 
culation, ‘¢ which (fays he) will apply to 
all arable farms of 300]. a year or under,” 
that the deficiency of laft year’s crop was 
one half! This is indeed a very fummary 
way of reducing the profits of the farmer. 
G. A. moreover, is not quite correct, I 
think, in ftating as generally applicable to 
the bufinefs of tarming, that labour is at 
an advanced price, azd that the poor’s-rate 
is very highly increafed. The poor’s-rate, 
by a fort of tacit agreement throughout the 
kingdom, has increafed for the purpofe of 
keeping down the wages of lebour ; whe- 
ther the plan is an equitable and good one 
or not, I do not prefume to fay, but it cer- 
tainly has fucceeded: the advance of the 
price of labour in my own and the adjoin- 
ing parifhes is fo little as to be hardly 
felt: in fome few places it has advanced 
two-pence a day, in others a penny, and 
in fome not at all. If the increafe of the 
price of labour were proportioned to the 
increafe of the price of provifions, &c. it 
would obvioufly be unneceflary to advance 
the poor’s-rate. On the other hand, 
where parochial relief is adminiftered pro- 
portionally to the increafed price of pro- 
vifions, &c. it is equally fuperfluous to 
raife the price of labour: unlefs neither of 
thefe remedies, therefore, is fufficient to 
counteract the evil, there cannot be occa- 
fion to have recourfe to both. 
Hetherfet, lam, Sir, your’s, &c. 
Feb. 10, 1807. Ji SN, 
ey ae 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, ; 
HE prefent high price of bread, 
that prime article of human. fufte- 
nance, renders an inquiry into the diffe» 
rent fpecies of wheat, and their refpective 
modes of cultivation, peculiarly intereit- 
ing. Speculative fctences muft yield in 
importance to agriculture, which now ad- 
dreffes itfelf to the hopes and fears of a 
fuffering nation. 
On a formes o¢cafion you favoured me 
with the infertion of fome obfervations 
and experiments on Spring-wheat. Little 
notice is taken by writers.on agriculture 
Pz of 
