THE WHEAT CROPS IN ENGLAND.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume XXVII, Issue 60, 19 May 1868, Page 4

THE WHEAT CROPS IN ENGLAND.

[From tho Adelaide Olsener."] The Marl- Lane Express has published its usual estimates of the crops of the yenr 1567, based upon correspondents' letters furnished up to February 17, and tho result ia far from favourable iv relation to tho wheat yield. Returns arc supplied for forty counties, and the conclusion deduciblo from them is irresistible that the averago will be lower than has been experienced for years pnst. We purpose giving a brief analysis of this document, as the information it affords is by no means wanting in interest to tho people of South Australia. For Bedfordshire, thoro are eleven reports, and thcro is not a single exception to the cheerless reiteration "under average," " much under average," "very much under average." In ono instance thirty bushels to the aero is mentioned, but that is stamped as being of bad quality. Berkshire has eighteen agricultural districts, and out of these a round dozen are returned under average. The remarks as to the others are — " Barley three quarters per acre, quality bad ;" " thrco quarters per acre, fair quality ;" four quarters per aero, thin sample ;" " from ono to three quarters per acre j" " three to four quarters per aero ;" and " two and a half quarters per acre." Bucks gives thirteen returns, but ouly in one insttinco is tho uvcrugo said to be maintained, although in two others thrco to three and a half quarters aro spoken of. From Cambridgeshire fourteen correspondent a have sent in their estimates, and almost invariably with tho same results, although the condition of (ho grain ia represented as good. Cheshire presents a somewhat more hopeful aspect, for out of niuo reports there arc thrco of a promising character. Cornwall likewise must be classed among tho favoured countries, seven out of fifteen districts yielding average crops. In Cumberland there arc twelve returns, and tho majority tell tho oft-repeated tale " under average." Devonshire is credited with a score of returns, and only eight of I heso exhibit unmistakably a falling off. Of tho rest several speak dubiously, but eight declare decidedly that tho average has been preserved. Dorsetshire forms a terribly defectivo link in the cereal chain. Thirteen correspondents have sont in estimates, and there is a painful concurrence in their testimony. " Under averago, quality bad ;" " two aacks under average;" "not half a crop," avo expressions full of meaning, and their depressing elfects are not counterbalanced by such notes as these: — "Two and a half quarters per acre, bad samplo j" " live sacks per acre, bad sample." Durham helps to clovato tho beam slightly in favour of the average, but it is very slightly, for in eeven localities out of twelve the standard has not been reached. Tho quality of tho grain, however, iv general is good. Essex must inevitably bo added to Iho list of deficients, for out of her twenty returns less than half a dozen can be considered as in any way propitious. For the rest tho changes are rung with gloomy monotony — "Under average;" "eight bushels under;" "average, but much blighted s" " very bad crop. Gloucestershire has only an occasional addendum of "good condition" to vary tho dreary "under average" which, with qualifying adjectives of differing import, is made to apply to the sixteen districts within its limits. Huuipsllil'O, "With its nineteen different divisions, is no exception to the general rule. The yields small, the quality by no means uniform. In only one instance is Ihero a cheering return, which is thus recorded: — "Fire quarters per aero ; good condition." The farmers of Herefordshire hiivo likewise experienced bad luck. "Tho worst cvop ever known," observes tho correspondent tit Baysham. " Bad yield, bad siimple," says the epigrammatic correspondent of Settonj "Two-thirds ot a crop," remarks he of Wcston Beggard; and tho othev ten estimators tell nearly the same tale. Hertfordshire and Huntingdonshire furnish respectively ten and fourteen reports ; but they aro almost a ditto of each other, the ono burden being " under average," with now and then tho additions of " good condition," " condition various," and " blighted sample." Kent interposes a momentary protest against tho prevailing deficiency. Seven out of her fourteen districts havo produced good crops, and some of the others aro moderately large. Lancashire follows up tho good example, and Middle Ilulton gives the unusual return of " over average." Tho quality is for tho most part good, and tho falling off r.ot very extensive. Leicestershire and Lincolnshire jointly contribute thirty-threo additional districts, and nearly everyone of these indulges in tho prevailing complaint of short averages. Middlesex— tho metropolitan county — has but nino wheat-growiug localities, and four of theso havo maintained thoiv averago. Norfolk opens thus — " Burnham, full average, well harvested ;" but beforo tho fifteen returns aro gone through the conclusion is inevitable — in yield, Norfolk must be classed with the majority, although in quality her grain ranks high. Northamptonshire has scarcely a sprinkling of " good conditions" to redeem her character. Eighteen correspondents havo had their computations published, and Peterborough alone has kept up to average ; but there, even, comes the damaging addition "much laid." Northumberland is partitioned into twelve areas, and threo or four of these are singled out for commendation. Notts, with its fifteen districts, has scarcely a word said in its favour, and in Hexgravo " tho worst yield ever remembered" is noted. Oxfordshire semis in a dozen returns, and in ono only is tho produce represented as high as four quarters an acre. Rutlandshire opens fairly, with a return of " live quarters per aero " for Bisbrooke, but tho remaining seven districts coinpcnsato for this by giving low averages. Shropshire's lmlf a score of reports abound with the usual complaints. Market Dray ton yields an average crop, in good condition ; Beckbury nearly an average, but the rest are nowhere. Somersetshire continues tho record of misfortune. Dunster boasts of " four quarters per acre, good quality," hut fifteen oilier localities full considerably below that. Staffordshire forms another of tho rare instances in which the good returns pretty well equalize the bad. Eighteen localities have been reported on, and the result is on the whole satisfactory. Tho yields of Suffolk, Surrey, and Sussex havo fallen oil 1 materially, a very occasional "full average" being noted to break the continuity of the opposing records. Warwickshire's Jlfleen divisions are distinguished by tho general good quality of the grain, but there is still tho grievance of diminished product. Westmoreland supplies only five returns as yet, bill gives token of n marked improvement on some of its neighbour count ioe. Wiltshire has been visited by blight, Avhieh has in several places impoverished the samples, and, out of twenty, there is not an isolated exam pie of a good average. Worcester figures among tho least promising counties ; for besides a depreciation iv average so far as quantity is concerned, the qunlity iv soveval eases is characterized as inferior. Last of all conies Yorkshire, and its seventeen districts havo for the most part to succumb to the nll-prt'vailing inlluence of impaired averages, although there is a gleam of hope to bo gathered from the fiu't that a good deal of tho wheat is of a superior quality. The general deduction to be drawn from the reports is as before stated, that tho harvest has been a very indifferent ono in point of quantity, although a great, dual of (ho wheat has boon garnered in good condition.