4.0 
puted as rent. This average might then be adopted 
as the supposed average of future years, or at least 
it would afford data from which the future average 
natural rent might be formed. ‘The sum, then, to 
be fixed as the constant part of the rent, represent- 
ing that dependant on stock, ought to bear the same 
proportion to the supposed entire future average 
natural rent as the value of the stock-feeding crops 
bears to the value of the whole produce of the farm. 
The portion of the rent thus payable for stock must, 
of course, be much less where bare fallowing is prac- 
tised than where the whole fallow division bears a 
crop. 
«* We have now to inquire— What is the species of 
grain by whose acreable quantity or price, or both, 
the fluctuating portion of rent is likely in future to 
be chiefly regulated? All the grain and also pulse 
crops (which in this case may be classed together) 
ought properly to enter into this calculation in the 
proportion in which they are intended to be grown 
on the farm in question; yet, as the prices of all 
sorts of grain fluctuate pretty much in unison, fluc- 
tuating rents are sometimes regulated by the most 
valuable grain alone, provided it is the chief product 
of the farm, since it is at the same time the product 
whose price most influences that of other commodi- 
ties, as also the rate of wages, &c. We do not mean 
to recommend this practice, yet, in justification of it, 
we may state that by the average imperial prices of 
wheat, barley, and oats, from 1771 to 1842 inclusive, 
as given in M‘Culloch’s Commercial Dictionary from 
parliamentary returns, we find that the fluctuation 
in the relative prices of these is very small when 
compared with the immense fluctuations in the abso- 
lute price of each. Within the period above men- 
tioned, the price of wheat fluctuated about 364 per 
cent., that of barley 391 per cent., and that of oats 
314 per cent. The fluctuations, on the other hand, 
in the relative prices of these grains within the same 
period scarcely amounts to 100 per cent. Compar- 
ing the price of barley with that of wheat, we find 
that the former was always more than one-third, and 
only once reached two-thirds of the latter; and 
comparing oats with wheat, we find that the former 
was always more than one-fourth, and never reached 
one-half, the price of the latter. The fluctuations 
in the relative prices of these grains, though very 
considerable, being thus much less important than 
the absolute fluctuations of each, the assumption 
of the species chiefly grown as the representa- 
tive of the whole, in annually regulating the rent, 
ought to be a smaller source of error than in follow. 
ing the price of any, or all of them, in past years, in 
fixing the rent during a long series of future years. 
This latter course is followed in fixing a constant 
money-rent. It need not, therefore, appear objec- 
tionable if, for simplicity and other reasons, one spe- 
cies of grain should be taken as the sole basis of 
calculation of a fluctuating rent, where such species 
greatly predominates as a marketable product of the 
farm. At all events, it cannot be out of place to 
inquire here what ought to be regarded as the most 
important grain product of the country, whether 
with a view of its being the sole or (on a more ac- 
curate system) the chief regulator of the fluctuating 
portion of the rent of good arable land. Wheat has 
hitherto held this place. Let us therefore examine 
whether there is any likelihood of a change in this 
respect. A very common conclusion in the com- 
plaints of farmers of late years of a fall in the value 
of agricultural produce, has been the expression of 
the opinion that they cannot afford to grow wheat 
below a certain price, usually the lowest they have 
experienced up to that time. Nor is this merely a 
vague mode of talking; for such an opinion has been 
maintained on oath by many of the most eminént 
agriculturists of the country. Thus, before the par- 
RENT. 
liamentary committee on agricultural distress in 1836, 
when prices were much the same as they were in the 
early part of this season, almost every witness stated 
that a price of wheat varying from 40s. to 65s. per 
quarter according to locality, rent, skill, and other 
circumstances, was that below which he considered 
he could not afford to cultivate it; and many dis-. 
tinetly stated that, should it fall below that price, 
its cultivation must be abandoned for other grains. 
Now, though we deprecate any measure tending, by 
great and sudden reduction in the price of grain, to 
throw part of the land now so employed into pas- 
turage, and thus diminish the quantity of farinaceous 
human food, yet we cannot enter into those views 
which would deter us from the cultivation of wheat 
only. We see no reason, from the experience on the 
subject alluded to, or on any other ground, to expect 
wheat to fall in price without a somewhat propor- 
tionate fall in the prices of other grains. Now sup- 
posing our three chief kinds of grain to continue to 
bear the same ratio in price which they bore on an 
average during the period above spoken of, the re- 
turn from the cultivation of them on land well suited 
for each would be as follows:— 
Wheat. 
63s. per quarter. 
4 quarters per acre. 
252s. per acre. 
Barley. 
33s. per quarter. 
5 quarters per acre. 
165s. per acre. 
Oats. 
23s. per quarter. 
6 quarters per acre. 
138s. per acre. 
These prices may be considerably more than can be 
calculated on for the future, but their proportion to 
each other cannot be greatly altered; wheat ought 
always to yield the greatest return. But it may be 
objected that wheat is the most exhausting crop, 
We answer that it is at the same time the most re- 
storative crop; because, while the quantity of grain, 
the only part not returned to the land, is less bulky 
from wheat than from barley and oats, in the propor- 
tion of four to five and six, its straw is more bulky 
in nearly the same ratio. If the argument against 
wheat be put in another shape, and it be said that it 
incurs more expense both in work and manure than 
any other crop, we ask what does this objection 
amount to? Merely to this—That wheat (except 
after grass) must be preceded by a highly manured 
fallow—either a bare fallow, which pays nothing, 
or turnips, potatoes, or other drilled crops, which 
often scarcely pay. Admitted. But are not fal- 
lowing and manuring necessary to keep the land 
clean and in proper condition, whatever sort of crop 
may follow—necessary for good grass, which, again, 
must carry good stock, that the following oat-crop 
may also be good—not to speak of the direct benefit 
which the succeeding crops may derive from the fal- 
low-applied manure still inert in the soil? This 
reasoning, with some alteration of terms, applies as 
well to every course of cropping as to the five years 
course which we have had in view. If, then, such 
a system of cultivation is necessary for other crops 
as well as wheat, it is surely absurd to say that the 
crop which gives the greatest return for the outlay 
is the one which only cannot be afforded to be grown. 
It would be as reasonable for a fisherman who had 
to keep up his full establishment of men, boats, and 
nets, to say that he could not afford to catch the 
most valuable sort of fish. Thus we believe, in 
