The Iola register., 1890-05-16
ENGLISH LAND VALUES.

How Free Trade Has Affected the inter-
ests of British Farmers.
Protection is. today quoted -by eysry.
free trade paper as the kfrst, chief and
only reason for the losses Sustained by !
farmers in this country, the depression
in the price of their lands aad the d.
cfease il tue selling svalnsof the pro3-
ucts Of hrInins Ia
England has all the advantages OF
free trade. 1t has had them for
half century. As its population is
steadily increasing and half of it is in
great cities, each acre has more and
more to do in supporting the population
and should increase in value. In this
country, also, in 1880, A per cent of
those at work were on the land raising
something to sell. In England only IA
per cent. are thus occupied, and the
labor of each inevitably has closer and
larger demand. Yet one of the best
authorities in England Mr.. Francis
Fuller, one Of the most capable land
agents and auctioneers in the United
Kingdom, put the depreciation from 1875
to 1885 in rents in England ana Wales
alone at $3.50, 0O0, 900 q year on $4,000 0Oc
acres, the total agricultural area of En-
gland and Wales, an area twice the
acreage of the farms in Pennsylvania at
the last census. This was loss of one
third of the rental value, and it repre-
sented loss of 81, 500, 600, 900 on the
selling value of this land. In addition,
the farmers cultivating this soil had
Host inten years $500, O0O. .OeO in working
capital. ~ a8 s AEEsHE EVA
The land of England and Wales,
therefore, in area fifth smaller than
the combined farms Of New York and
Pennsylvania, lost in value and capital
in ten years by this expert estimate,
made by man handling land all his
life, $4,000, 100000. All this was under
the freest kind of free trade. which in
the gates of London, had, as the speech
of one of it's members, Mr.. Brookfield,
said February 0, 1888, left upward OF
%, 900 acres of arabic farm land abso-
lutely uncultivated."
We wonder if there is any fool in or
out of any free trade newspaper Office
who thinks the farms of this State and
New York have lost S., 600, 600, 900 in the
last fifteen years. or 100000, 900, or
even $50, 100000. Yet this is the loss
in England and Wales. 1t is the esti-
mate accepted in all discussions; it is
quoted with approval by the London
Field and it has never been contro-
verted. This decrease in rent has gone
on since 1855 1t is to-day nearer $780,
900, 900 than $3.50, coo, 900. and the depre-
citation in value is nearer So, 900, ,0OO,-
OOO
Year by year sees it worse. 1t affects
product as well as rent and value. i rom
1880 to 1856 the total farm produce Of
the United Kingdom fell from 81, ,l22,-
$50, 600 in value to s491, a 1000, q de-
crease of one-sixth, the figures being
published in April. 1889, in the London
Times, by Mr.. A. ii. Lee. In the United
States, from 1880 to 1886, the value of
cereal crops, cotton, hay, tobacco, pota-
toes and farm animals rose in their
farm value from So, 696, 900, 600 to 81, 321,-
600, 900, an advance of one-sixth.
Yet in the face of facts like these
which show loss in the value of farm
lands in England in ten years under
4ree-t IniCLy-loIu BrcdOeE luaH tno
entire revenue collected under pro-
tective tariff here in the same ten years,
and decrease in the value of farm
products of Is per cent. there and an in
crease here of Is per cent--theres are
fools who are actually writing and
printing articles about the harm done
to farmers by protection, and the ad-
vantage they would enjoy under free
Press.