The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-28 00:00:00

MORNING SUN.

LETTER FROM EARL RA.DNOR
TO THE EDITOR OF THE WILTSHIRE INDEPENDENT.
Grosvenor-street, June 20, 1841.
SIR,-I wish to address, through you, to my neigh-
bours and friends, and others connected with agriculture,
a few words on the present outcry about what is-called.
Protection to agriculture, and. the expediency of up-
holding the present Corn-laws for the purpose of g,iving
that protection. I would then inquire,
1. Whether protection is afforded by the present lax
--and L-

2. Whether any protection at all is necessary ?
With respect to the first inquiry—lf by protection
is meant exclusion of wheat of foreign growth, it is
clear that that sort of protection is not afforded by the
present law. By: Parliamentaryeaper - (House of
Lords, 1841, No. 164) it appears that in the last ten
years there have been entered for home consumption
a far greater quantity of wheat than in any former
period of the same length. The annual average for ten
years ending 1820, being 429,076 quarters ; for ten
years ending 1830, 534,762 quarters ; and for the last
ten years, 908,118 quarters. indeed, in this respect the
protection afforded by the present law is less than that
afforded by the Act of 1815, for by Parliamentary
paper (House of Lords, 1841, No. 151) it appears that
the annual average quantity of wheat entered for home
consumption from 1815 to 1828 •(both inclusive), was
389,442 quarters, whereas the annual average of the
twelve years from 1829 to 1840 (both inclusive), during
which the present law has been in operation, has been
1,025,250. quarters.

If by protection is meant high price, in this respect
also the present Act is less efficacious than that of 1815,
inasmuch as the aver:fp price for the whole of the first
period was 645. Id., and for the latter, 58s. 4d.
Does any one then propose to revive'the Act of 1815?
I trow not ; for the suffering it occasioned to all classes
of the community was so great, that the necessity of its
alteration was admitted by all parties.
Now, as to the second inquiry—whether any protec-
tion at all is necessary ? or in other words, has agricul-
ture, when it has not been protected, languished or fallen
into decay ?

tp to 1815 it was in that predicament. In 1793 in-
deed, and again in 1804, Acts were passed to give it pro-
tection ; but during the whole period from 1793 up to
1815, during which these Acts were in force, wheat kept
above• the prices at which they would take effect ; so
that they never came into operation. Did agriculture
languish or fall into decay from 1793 to 1815 ? I be-
lieve There never was a period in which landlords' rents
rose and tenants' profits increased more, or so much, as
during that period ; and I repeat, that during the whole
of that time agriculture had no protection whatever. But
it may be said, that the greater part of this time was time
of war. True ; and it is also true that at. the same time
a debt of many hundred millions was contracted, and
most heavy taxes were imposed. Will it be contended
that war and taxation (the income tax and the increased
malt tax for instance) are advantageous to agriculture ;
and that war produceS plenty and prosperity ?
Again, since 1815, agriculture has had protection.
Has it flourished since that period ? Have rents risen ?
Have farmers made great profiits and realised large for-
tunes, as heretofore ? Directly the reverse. In some
cases, indeed, where they have been affected by the vi-
cinity of mineral or manufacturing districts or townsi
rents may have risen, but in purely agricultural dis-
tricts, in which alone lam personally interested, ac-
cording to my experience, they have fallen. The result
of a reference to books, which exhibit the amount of
rents—received on account of eight farms in different
parts of the country, now in my possession, at or about
the years 1780,1815, and 1538, is, that at the first period
they yielded 1,7661., at the second, 3,7771., and at the
third, 2,891/. ; being increased without protection in the
first period nearly 150 per cent., and having fallen with
protection, in the, second, more than 34 per cent. I happen
also to hate been able to ascertain the rent of an estate
belonging to'n charity. This estate, in 1639, was let, at
rack rent, at 30/. ;in 1769, at 63/. ;in 1813, at 180/. It
is now let at 1201., the present tenant having been in-
duced to give that rent by the permission to break up
from 20 to 30 acres of pasture land. During this period
of protection, too, have we not often heard of agricultural
distress—of farmers ruined—of rents paid out of capital,
and of abatements claimed ? &c.

But it will perhaps be said, that the chi `of the
currency, the withdrawing of the 11. notes of the court;
try, and cash payments, have caused this. If so, all
property would have been affected alike, houses us well
as agricultural lands. Ilas this been the case ? I have
some property in London, about the centre of the town,
not liable to be affected by fashion, or any other acci-
dental or local circumstance, and I find that this pro-
perty has increased in value in an uniform progression
from 1790 to the present day. Taking the amount of the
rents in 1790. at 1,000 I find them to have been in
1795 as 1083 I 1815 as 1458 1835 as 2125
1800 ... 1125 1820 ... 1541 1840 ... 2008
1805'... 1208 I
I
1825 1791
1810 ... 1333 1830 1875 ,
Houses have had no protection; land has; the rent of
land has fallen; that of houses has risen. Where is the
good of protection ?
Again, I am informed that the value of land ascertained
in another way, had fallen since 1815. Eminent sur-
veyors have told me that whereas before 1815, land
would sell in the market at thirty years' purchase, since
that period it has not generally fetched more than twenty-
eight years, except, indeed, good pasture land (i. e. laud
not specially protected by the Corn-law.)
And if it be said, that bad as the case of agriculture
has beenf_ this has net !pen_ myi,mr_l9
raneous with distress, and has not prevented it, or
effected its purpose ; and secondly—that the trade of
agriculture, or manufacture of bread, cannot be supposed
not to be subject to the same law as any other trade,
that it is demonstrable in theory, and proved by uni-
versal experience, that all protection of trade acts as
restriction ; and that trade only flourishes, or to say
the least, most flourishes, when left to its own resources,
unfettered and unprotected.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
RADNOR.