impossible to treat as a first-hand authority. Until the original Portuguese manuscript of Manucci, which Catrou preserved, is accurately published, every serious historian is bound to use the 'Histoire de l'Empire du Mogol' with extreme caution. There is moreover much about Manucci's biography, as slightly indicated by Catrou, to arouse suspicion. It is at least strange that so trusted a personage at the Mogul Court should never be mentioned by Bernier or Tavernier, and that a man who was employed in responsible posts in the Deccan towards the close of the century should not have been heard of by another Italian, Gemelli Careri. The statement that his work was founded on the official histories is open to serious doubt, at least for the later periods; for it is well known that Aurangzib peremptorily forbade any writing of chronicles after the year 1669. The internal evidence is also against Manucci's veracity. His tone is that of the servants' hall; his genius lies in scandal; and it is difficult to believe that many of his stories had any better foundation than the malice of a disappointed adventurer. It appears almost incredible that a man living in a position of trust for half a century could commit the numerous blunders in chronology and errors in fact with which his history abounds. Nor does it appear probable that a man who could deliberately warn the Portuguese Viceroy against the duplicity of his own employer the Emperor would have been trusted for so many years by a sovereign of Aurangzib's penetration. Much of this criticism may be successfully combated if the Portuguese text can be produced and the blame for the numerous errors of the published work thrown upon the editor. But until this is done, Catrou-Manucci cannot safely be relied upon as an authority for Mogul history. Enough has been said to show that the task of editing and annotating the records of Indian travellers during the seventeenth century is one well worthy of the industry of scholars. Manucci, Mandelslo, Roe, Fryer, Thevenot, and others still await an editor equipped with all the apparatus of modern research. Mr. Constable, Dr. Ball, and Mr. Grey have set an excellent example, thanks largely to the encouragement of the ever-to-belamented Sir Henry Yule, who in this department of learned work stood absolutely unapproached. Much remains to be done, however, before the important mass of materials collected by European travellers shall become accessible, and the most remarkable of all Mohammedan Empires shall be set before English readers in all its singular details. ART. ART. IX.-1. Reports of the National Agricultural Conference. 'Times,' Dec. 8 and Dec. 9, 1892. 2. Parliamentary Debates for the Session 1893. 3. Silver up to Date. By Moreton Frewen. 'Fortnightly Review,' January 1893. SAD AD as was the condition of British Agriculture when five years ago we called attention in this Review to the state of our greatest industry,* we have gone, as we ventured to prophesy we should do, unless something unforeseen happened to help us, from bad to worse. We rarely take up a paper without reading a harrowing description of the losses and trials of our unfortunate landowners and farmers. We have, in fact, gone down the hill at such an alarming rate that the representatives of our Agriculture, who are perhaps slower to move than the representatives of other industries, have at last come to the conclusion that, if they would escape ruin, they must do something. Concerning that something they appear by no means unanimous; and the best friends of British Agriculture regret that the representative conference, which assembled in St. James's Hall in December last, should have been so divided in opinion, and should have spent so much time in discussions which, under existing circumstances, tend to drive those who should work together into opposite camps. It is said that more than 240 clubs, associations, and unions, consisting of both farmers and labourers, in all parts of the United Kingdom, sent delegates to the conference, while many of the leading landowners and their agents attended in person. All branches of the Landed Interest were present; and no one, however small his information, can doubt that the subject which they came together to discuss was one of the greatest importance and urgency. All must in deepest sympathy believe the account of loss that British farmers have sustained during the last fifteen years; a loss which culminated last year in one of the worst seasons ever experienced, and in the lowest prices ever recorded. The agricultural community stand in a position that deserves the commiseration of all their fellow-subjects. Through no fault or error of their own, on the contrary in the face of much selfdenial and industry, they find themselves in grievous trouble; and they are confronted by an economic crisis brought about to a great extent by causes quite beyond their own control. 6 * See Quarterly Review,' No. 331, January 1888: "Landed Interests and Landed Estates." Indeed it is doubtful whether, until recently, the British farmer has understood what has been passing around him. Cheerful, honest, and slow, he has seen his capital gradually melt away, hoping each year that matters would take a turn, and that he should once more see the good old times. He has not, like the Irish, insisted that an economic revolution which has affected the whole world was entirely due to the conduct of the landlords. He has never attempted to add to the burdens of an economic crisis by creating a political crisis, but has always acknowledged the rights of others; and, while accepting his own misfortunes, he has never called his creditors criminals. Up to the present day he can feel that, though he may be pitied, he has done nothing of which he need be ashamed. While the farmer has to a great extent stood helplessly by, unable, and perhaps unwilling, to understand the operation of economic principles which have been steadily driving him to ruin, the labourer, though equally unable, has still less cared to understand them. Although by no means contented with his lot-probably less contented than he was twenty years ago-the labourer has during the last few years been by far the best off of the three classes connected with land. True, his wages are slightly less than they were fifteen years ago, but he is better housed, better fed, better clothed, and has had more money to spend than he ever had before. Moreover, his hours of labour are shorter; and he does not work so hard as his fathers. He is better off than before the depression began, while the other classes are much worse off. Fifty years ago the weekly wages of an agricultural labourer in the South, East, and West of England were equal to one bushel of wheat; they are now equal to a sack. So, taking their wages as paid in kind and by the article representing the working man's prime necessity, they have risen 300 per cent. In addition, there is the great decrease in the cost of clothing, which cannot be less than 35 per cent.; while, though his cottage has been greatly improved, its rent has not been raised. Moreover, he has benefited to some extent by the Allotments Act of 1887, and hopes to benefit still more by the Small Holdings Act of last year. There is also now free education for his children. The losses which Agriculture has sustained within the last few years are appalling in their magnitude. These losses have been variously estimated by different persons, well qualified to judge; but probably the most trustworthy estimate is that given in the evidence of the late Sir James Caird before the late Lord Iddesleigh's Commission, appointed in 1886 to inquire into the great depression in trade. Sir James Caird showed the loss sustained sustained in recent years, from agricultural depression, in the spendable income of landlords, tenant-farmers, and agricultural labourers. He defined spendable income as what was left after the usual outgoings had been met. This information was collected for Sir James Caird by inspectors under him for the Land Commission, now merged in the Board of Agriculture. All these inspectors were men of great knowledge and experience; and, still more important, all of them were resident in the district and localities with regard to which they gave their evidence. Mr. Chaplin, in his speech at the National Agricultural Conference, quoted the above evidence as follows: 'Sir James Caird went through the counties of England seriatim. Beginning with Northumberland, he estimated that on arable farms landlords had lost in recent years 40 per cent. of their spendable income, and that the tenants had lost the same. In Yorkshire and Durham the landlords had lost 30 per cent. of the spendable income, and tenants 50 per cent. In Lincolnshire, Bedfordshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, and Northamptonshire, the landlords had lost 30 per cent. and the tenants from 20 to 60 per cent. of the spendable income. In Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, and Huntingdonshire, in the fen districts, the landlords had lost 40 per cent., and in the highlands 33 per cent. of the spendable income, and the tenants had received no profits of any kind at all. This evidence with respect to the last-mentioned counties came from an inspector who had recently sat for four days as chairman of the Income Tax Commissioners in a division of 100,000 acres, and who had heard numerous appeals against assessments under Schedule B. He said that he knew of several farms of 2,000 acres let at a reduction of 47 per cent., and of one farm of 1,000 acres, let formerly at a rent of 7501., which did not now pay even rates and taxes, and which was in the landlord's hands with other farms in the same district which produced neither rent nor interest of any kind. In the same way he goes on through the other English counties, all of them showing similar losses more or less. Then, referring to Scotland, he speaks of Perthshire, Forfarshire, and Fife as follows:-"The landlords have lost from 25 to 30 per cent., which is increased to 50 or 60 per cent. by the larger demands for outlay on improvements; their power of spending is therefore reduced by from 50 to 60 per cent., and the tenants have lost the whole of their spendable income." He sums up as follows:-"On a rental of 65,000,000l. the landlords have lost 20,000,000l., or 30 per cent. of their income; the tenants have lost 20,000,000l., or 60 per cent. of their income; the labourers 2,800,000l., or 10 per cent. of their spendable income, making a total loss to the landed interest of spendable income amounting to no less than 42,800,000Z." " Sir James Caird was the highest authority on the subject, and he would not exaggerate. His evidence was given six years years ago, and agricultural depression has been steadily increasing from that time until now. A recognized agricultural leader has recently shown that in 1891, as compared with twenty years ago, there was a loss of upwards of seventyseven millions in the annual value of our agricultural produce. He also shows a very large loss in the capital stock of the occupiers. The Report of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Inland Revenue for the year ended 31st March, 1892, also shows that the rents of the landowners have been seriously diminished. The gross annual value of lands assessed under Schedule A were at their highest in 1879-80. They then amounted to 69,548,7967. In the year 1890-91 this gross assessment has declined to 57,694,8201.; a decrease of 11,853,9767. To this should be added the capital value of the tax ultimately discharged from the assessment on the ground of agricultural distress, or actually repaid in money in respect of the year 1890-91, amounting to 371,000l.; making a total decline in the assessments of 12,224,9767., and the above loss has fallen almost entirely on the rural districts. This loss, it must be remarked, comes out of the spendable income solely of the landowner, i.e. what was left after paying all outgoings, providing for the repairs and new works on the estates (which now fall almost entirely on the landlord, the occupier in most cases being unable to contribute towards these as he did in former times), and after meeting all fixed charges, annuities, and interest on mortgages, created when agriculture was a flourishing industry, and often now absurdly out of proportion to the income of the property on which they are charged. When we capitalize these losses, they become appalling. If we take the loss on the returns of the gross annual value of lands assessed under Schedule A, viz. 12,224,9761., and calculate this at thirty years' purchase, which it was worth a few years ago, we have 366,749,280l. And rents have not only fallen largely, but instead of being capitalized as formerly at thirty years' purchase, they now certainly cannot be capitalized in England and Scotland at more than twenty-five years' purchase, or in Ireland at considerably less. Taking a loss of five years' purchase in the capital value of the net assessments for the year 1890-91, which amounted to 57,694,820., a sum certainly under the mark, there is a loss of 288,474,100, which, added to the capitalized value of the ascertained loss of rental, makes the total capital loss of the landowners 655,223,3801. out of a sum Sir James Caird estimated less than twenty years ago at 2,000 millions. |