The estimated expenses of cultivation all over England have been taken by the Rev. Mr. Cox (no mean authority) at five pounds per acre. In the heavier soils they do not come short of eight pounds; and by some they are estimated at nine, and even at ten. But take the smaller sum as that which our farmer expends and add to it one pound more for rates, taxes, rent charge, or tithe, and other incidental expenses; what results will the balance-sheet show? We will not so much as reckon the value in the market of the produce of the acres devoted to the growth of inferior crops. They confessedly go for little, being applied chiefly to the rearing of stock and providing manure against the coming season. And the twenty-eight acres of fallow, even when clover, are a blank on both sides. But confining ourselves to wheat, and giving our farmer the large average return of four quarters per acre, we find that he receives back in exchange for his outlay of nine pounds, eight pounds exactly, over and above the straw which he is bound by the terms of his lease or agreement to expend upon the land. Will this do? Here is a cultivator losing one pound per acre on his wheat, supposing him to hold his land rent free.

Will Mr. Mechi or Sir Robert

Peel show us how the loss is to be made good and a profit assured out of peas, barley, roots, and grass ?

Or take the average of all England, and fix the expenses of cultivation at five pounds per acre. In this case we cannot expect more than an average return of two and a half, or, at the most, three quarters per acre; and the latter and larger sum will exactly square the account between the outlay necessary to bring the wheat to the market and the sum realized by it there at present prices.* Now these are facts; facts admitted by the best judges; facts not called in question by any practical man, whether he call himself a Free-trader or a Protectionist; and we ask again whether, in the face of these, it be possible to assert that the cry of agricultural distress is feigned? Nor do those who affect to disbelieve the assertions of the farmers get out of their difficulty by referring to other seasons of extraordinary cheapness; and especially to the year 1835, when the average price of wheat had fallen to thirty-five shillings. The cause of that decline was the abundance of the home produce, not the swamping of the market with grain brought from abroad. For there was a protecting duty then in force, which secured to the British farmer the monopoly of the home-market. And hence, though pinched a little in comparison with bygone years, he had not in reality any great right to complain; for if his quarter of wheat brought less than he expected, his acre gave him an increased number of quarters to dispose of. The excess of production was estimated that year to be little short of one-half over the production of ordinary years. So that the farmer, having a quarter and a half to sell instead of a quarter, went home with the same amount of money in his pocket as if he had sold his average crop at fifty-two shillings and sixpence per quarter.

It will be seen that in making these calculations we have not taken the rent into account at all. But some rent the landowner has surely

a right to expect; where is it to come from? Out of the farmer's capital as long as he has capital to go on with, and when the farmer breaks and goes to the workhouse, the rent ceases. We observe that Sir Robert Peel is not inclined so to look at the matter. He has an itch for letter-writing, and is not, it must be confessed, uniformly happy in the style and manner of his epistolary correspondence. For now, being unable to expound schemes of Church Reform through the newspapers, he makes use of their columns as a medium of communication with his next-door neighbours and tenants. The act is quite in keeping with the character of the man. He would

fain be the guide and director of public opinion still; and so he tells his tenants, that though he believes their complaints of distress to be wellfounded, it is not his purpose to grant any abatement in their rents, but that he will on certain conditions expend a per-centage of the rent, provided it be all paid up against a set day, in effecting improvements in the land, which will still be his though they should cease to occupy it. We mistake the matter if Sir Robert has gained anything in the estimation of any portion of the public from this move. Gentlemen of the Manchester school, who cry down rents, must give him up. The feelings of the tenantry are best explained in a letter which appeared in The Times of the 3d of January last:

SIR R. PEEL AND HIS TENANTRY.

To the Editor of the Times. Sir, Having some opportunities of knowing the feelings and views entertained here, and more especially by the tenant-farmers, of the manifesto issued by Sir R. Peel to his tenantry, and being aware of the importance attached to his opinions on all matters of a public nature, I hope you will allow me a small portion of your columns to enable others in the distance to know how farmers here-his neighbours and tenants estimate the principles and doctrines of that docu

ment.

They say that, though it was nominally addressed to them, it is obviously intended, from the way it was ushered into existence, more for the public, as a guide and standard for landlords in general in their relations and conduct to their tenantry; and, therefore, if acted on, that it must bring more and more ruin

on them; and that, moreover, it is a tissue of sophistry and selfishness under the appearance of generosity to them.

I can assure you that here and in the surrounding district there is not a tenantfarmer who does not regret it, and anticipate from it much mischief, if other landlords adopt, as they probably will, Sir Robert's example. They say he ought to be the last man to act so, as he ruined them by his free-trade measures, and, above all men, ought not to attempt to bolster rents up by such manoeuvres, when the burdens on lands have increased, or at least continue the same, though the price of its products has fallen nearly one-third; as he knows, they say, as well as any man, that the tenant-farmers cannot make a living at present out of their farms, and are in too many instances paying rent out of capital; and therefore that it is a mockery, and even an insult, on his part, under the circumstances, to exact from his tenants the same rents as they paid when the price of wheat was from 56s. to 60s. a quarter; though he himself often stated that 55s. was the lowest average price per quarter that would allow a remunerating return to the farmer. Yet now, when it is down to about 428., he requires the same rent from his tenantry, and tells others by his example to do the same. This, they say, is too bad-arrant and wanton mockery of their sufferings and position.

I am not stating my own opinions. I wish merely to convey the impressions of Sir Robert's neighbours, and thus to let others know the feelings entertained here in reference to his new scheme of

pointing out to landowners a way to keep up their rents notwithstanding the altered state of things. They say he intends this as a sop to console them for the loss of protection, to keep them quiet, and to lull the present agitation for its recovery; and thus to squeeze out of the tenantry the last farthing for their joint benefit, without any regard to their interest, and all this with an affected air of kindness and disinterestedness for them. They say, We know Sir Robert well: he is always plausible; such is always his way when he has some grand scheme in view: he wishes to appear in the eyes of the world as only studying the common good when he has his own most at heartthat others are everything, himself nothing, in his efforts for the public weal, though the reverse, as they say, is always the case.

They ask, What are those measures he proposes? Are they anything new or wholesome, by which the interests of landlords and tenants are fairly consulted and identified, as they ought to be in every case, and particularly in the present

altered state of things? No such thing: the benefit, they say, is all on one sideon that of Sir Robert. He says he will relieve his tenants of their farms if they wish, but will make no reduction of rent. Surely, they say, there is neither kindness nor concession in this, as every tenant here can, if he wishes, give up his farm after the usual notice, few, if any, having leases. So that when Sir Robert makes a show of generosity by this parade, in saying he will take their farms off their hands if they consider them too high, he is only doing what any landlord here would do, what is, and has been, always the general practice between landlord and tenants; and affecting the same display of generosity and public good as when he some time ago told them, with similar pomp and verbosity, in a speech at an agricultural meeting, that he would buy for them the very best bull, without costing them one farthing, in order to improve the breed of their cattle, though he never did so; and that in all this, as well as in his present manifesto, he is only at his old game-cant and doubledealing, and affecting a generosity where there is none.

In another part of his address he promises to lay out in permanent improvements one-fourth of the rents of their farms, provided all arrears are paid up within one month after the next rent-day. They say their farms are too dear by onefourth; and why not give us back, they say, the money, and make as much permanent reduction of rent as many other landlords are doing elsewhere? or even, they say, why not at least allow them to lay it out in manure? No such thing: it must be laid out, not as they please, but as he pleases-in making permanent improvements in draining, &c., they finding the labour and he the materials; or, in other words, they must lay out 3s. for every 1s. he does, and all in permanent improvements, from which he derives the chief, if not the exclusive, benefit. For be it observed, they say, that he only finds the tiles and raw materials, and we the labour. But it is always the custom here to allow the expense of such improvements as Sir Robert proposes, without the landlord making, as he attempts to do, any pretensions to generosity or extra disinterestedness for their tenantry. But, they say, he tells us that by increased skill and industry we shall be able to meet the present rents, though the burdens are increased on land and the prices fallen about one-third. One would suppose, they say, if such were to be the case, that the tenants ought to have the benefit of this extra skill and exertion, and not Sir Robert or the landlords.

But such are not his views or feelings of humanity. They look upon this manifesto as nothing more than an exhortation to landowners not to lower rents, in order to comfort them with a shadow of hope, to lull their agitation, and to facilitate his return to office when the time is come for it, and as a very bad example, and as the precursor of some political scheme hatching in his thoughts, but not yet ripe for action, and, on the whole, as an act very criminal in a man of his princely fortune to set this example. As they say, what can tenants expect from poor needy landlords who have no political pretensions to philanthropy or character if the ex- (and probably the future) Prime Minister refuses to meet the wants of his tenantry by a reduction of rent suited to the present scale of agricultural produce? They say, It must be done in the end, but we shall be ruined first by his efforts and example to prevent this. Upon us and at our expense he will make the experiment of keeping up rents on our ruin, though he hates that people should think so, as he always wishes to get credit for other feelings without acting on them. Such, I assure you, is the general tone in reference to Sir R. Peel here among all classes, except the landlord class, with a few honourable exceptions. They are indignant; though, from local and dependent circumstances, they cannot speak out as they feel, except in the private and confidential intercourse of life. But, feeling that this communication has extended beyond its original design, and fearing, if longer, it may be shut out altogether from insertion in The Times, I must reserve for another letter a few more observations on this subject, if this should get a place in its columns. I am, sir, &c.

Lichfield, Jan. 1.

M. D.

It appears from these documents, that whatever Sir Robert Peel's opinions may be on the subject of free trade as applied to agriculture, his tenants and neighbours, over whom it might be expected that he should exert a strong moral influence, are decidedly opposed to it. They blame him, among other things, for not lowering his rents at once; and so do we. But we are bound at the same time to observe that, according to the calculations given above, which we believe to be substantially correct, he would not be able to set them fairly into the arena, were he to What remit his rents altogether. things may come to after the soil of England has undergone the meta

morphosis which Dr. Buckland and other equally eminent authorities prognosticate to be in store for it, we cannot tell. But of this much we are satisfied, that unless the legislature step in and relieve the agriculturists, by some process or another, from the intolerable disadvantages by which they are beset, the whole race of existing tenant-farmers, with very many of the landlords, must come to ruin, and then it will be seen whether or not the prosperity of a few great towns (supposing that they continue to prosper amid the downfall of the agricultural community) can compensate for the widespread misery that prevails elsewhere.

And here another question arises. Is it quite certain that the manufac turing interests, as they are called, are indeed in the healthy state which the Board of Trade and The Times describe? Can we altogether depend upon statements which speak only of large exports of cottons and woollens, without informing us what becomes of the goods so exported, or describing the condition of the millowners or the operatives consequent on the proceeding? We think not. In the annual circular of Messrs. Musgrove, Vance, and Worthington, the great cotton-brokers of Liverpool, revelations are made which go some way to shake our confidence in the generally accepted version of unmitigated prosperity. For example, our imports of raw cotton fell off materially during the year 1849, as compared with the imports of France, and the manufacturing countries of the Continent.

We have received (say they) about the same proportion of the crop of the United States as in previous years; the average import from America during the preceding ten years being fifty-two per cent of the growth, whilst during the present year we have received fifty-six per cent. France and the Continent have taken nearly one-third more than last year; and the United States, although they have not taken more for home use than in 1848, seem to have established a consumption of fully 500,000 bales, which is not less than forty-five per cent over the last ten years.

Again, with respect to exports they state:

That in the early part of the year the continued political excitement on the

Continent checked direct shipments thither, and consequently increased the export demand from this market, and throughout most part of the year the fact of this being the cheapest market in Europe has brought a continuance of orders; we were, therefore, prepared to anticipate an increase much larger than the tables show. The total export amounts to 256,300 bales, against 189,500 in 1848, and 221,850 in 1847; of this 184,056 bales, consisting of 145,000 Americans, 16,800 Brazil, 500 Egyptian, and 21,750 Surats, have been shipped from Liverpool; 65,650 bales, consisting of 3,000 American, and 62.650 East India, from London; with 2,300 American, and 1,500 East India, from Hull: showing the total increase to be 66,800 bales.

On the subject of consumption their observations are as follow:

The trade have taken out of the ports for consumption during the past year 1,586,599 bales, against 1,505,323 in 1848, and 1,105,998 in 1847. The average deliveries during the preceding ten years were 1,330,366 bales; we have consequently had an apparent increase this year over that average of 256,233 bales. This is the largest amount of cotton ever delivered for consumption in Great Britain. At no time, perhaps, was the anticipation of general prosperity in the cotton districts more universal than at the commencement of the present year; nearly every branch of the trade was then profitably employed, and we had, consequently, a great stimulus given to consumption, increasing it at one time This possibly to its greatest extent. continued for the first six or seven months of the year, at which time the consumption was estimed at fully 33,000 bales per week. About this time the disproportionate price of cotton as compared with many kinds of manufactures, particularly the coarser fabrics, and the lower numbers of yarns (in which the great weight of consumption consists), induced some parties to resort to the working of short time, and a great many to change from coarse to finer numbers. We believe that the consumption from this time to within the past fortnight has gradually diminished, for not only did no material improvement take place in prices, but it was almost impossible to sell many of the coarser descriptions of goods in Manchester for some months past, and all those parties who have not changed their production have, consequently, been put in a worse condition by every advance in the raw material.

As regards stock, the writers of this

circular make the following observations :-

The stock in Liverpool proves to be about 100,000 bales more than had been assumed according to the business weekly reported. This appears to be generally ascribed to resales made by consumers out of their heavy purchases early in the year, in consequence of the much more rapid advance which took place in cotton than in yarns and manufactures.

It would appear from these statements that our staple manufactures are not only not in progress of commanding the markets of the world, but that for every step which we take in advance, with all the advantages of free trade to help us, France and the United States, restrained as they are by rigid protection, take three. To be sure, corn is cheap and money abundant with us, and though some mills are changing their articles of produce and others working at short time, the operatives generally are well off; but how long is this to last? If France and America take three steps to our one, and the rest of the manufacturing nations of the Continent take even two, we must look elsewhere than to them for our customers; and how we are to find customers out of Europe and America, among whom our liberal doctrines of commerce are to work like a charm, it puzzles us to guess.

There is yet another medium through which the great question now under discussion must be looked at, but to which, in the present paper, we have time only to allude. The British empire consists of more than the kingdom of England, or the kingdoms of England and Scotland united. We have Ireland to think of, the Canadas, the West India islands, the Cape of Good Hope, our important colonies in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, and the great continent of India itself. How are these portions of her Majesty's dominions affected by the course which imperial legislation has taken? Of Ireland it were idle to say more than that it has become, even more than ever, a spectacle and a warning to all the rest of Europe. Far be it from us to lay the blame of this on the acts of the Irish Government. Though little given to praise a Whig, we are bound to say of the present Lord-lieutenant that, as far as the

shackles which bind him will permit, he is labouring to improve the condition of his province. But the condition of the province goes on continually from bad to worse. The famine ruined the peasantry and small farmers. Free trade and the New Poor-law are between them ruining the landlords and larger occupants. Even the north, in spite of its linen trade, perceives this, and has taken the lead in the movement which bids fair in most districts to replace Repeal members by Protectionists. Canada, in like manner, threatens to cast off the dominion of the mother-country, because the measures of 1842 and 46 have proved ruinous to her. As to the West Indies, they in some measure deserve the fate which has overtaken them. Furious at the Slave Emancipation Act, and willing to take vengeance on the mother-country, they demanded the right of unrestricted trade with the United States, and they obtained it. They expected to increase largely the amount of their exports by these means; they reduced them in the most remarkable degree. For Jonathan, who under the old law was glad to force a market for his pork, and corn, and timber, by taking sugar in exchange, no sooner found himself enabled to bring his goods duty free into the West Indian markets, than he declined any longer to purchase abroad what he could get in abundance, and at a cheaper rate, at home. Still, though the blame of the result rests in some degree with the West Indians themselves, free trade has unquestionably failed in the West Indies. But we cannot plead the same excuse for our neglect of Ceylon, Mauritius, the Cape, and British India. What a market for our manufactures might we not have established in all, had we known how to deal wisely by ourselves and honestly by our colonies! Look at India alone. If we imported the raw material from Bombay, even at a much enhanced price, we might command the whole of the Indian market for our calicos. And the market of British India, rightly used, would be worth to the manufacturers of Manchester and Glasgow more than those of all the world besides.

But surely it will not be said,