The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1891-12-06
The Depreciation Of Land in England.

It Is we'll understood that the incomes de-
rivable from agricultural land have for q
considerable period been falling or In Eng
land rs we'll as in Ireland. What has
hitherto been lacking was a sufficient
quantity Of data respecting the extent aud
distribution Of the decline. Some statistics
bearing on the subject. brought forward a
few weeks ago at q meeting OF surveyors In
London. have now been printed In the Lon
don Times.
+ 1t appears from the facts and figures col
lected that not only during the last four
teen years has tho soil OF England and
Wales. viewed collectively. undergone depre-
citation. but that In many counties. or parts
Of counties. tho shrinkage Of land values
has been even greater than Ia generally sup
posed. We should premise that the in
formation was supplied by some eight hum
dred provincial committees. who were in
structed to furnish only averages and even
to strike out Of their estimates any ex-
treme and startling examples Of reduction
In market price. From the tables founded
on these returns we learn that the Chiltern
Hills district Of Oxfordshire holds tho I'M
onviable position OF head Of the list with an
average decline Of rs per cent. Southeast
Essex being not for behind with 70 per cent.
East and West Cambridgeshire follow with
the grave depreciation percentage OF 90.
while In North Essex IS per cent. appears to
represent the average decline. and at tho
same time 60 per cent. Of the farms are un-
let. A 30 per cent. depreciation in North
east, South. and Mid Essex. and In North
and Southwest Berks. a Az per cent. In East
yUllto md n var nnpf in North poptc q m
averages based on q large number Of re-
turns. but take no account Of extreme
figures. Abnormal examples Of decline con-
fined to relatively small tracts are exhibited
In Southeast Warwick and in the Bristol
districts Of Gloucester and Somerset. where
the loss In value Is GO per cent. and In South
Kent. West Sussex. and even remote parts
of metropolitan county like Surrey. where
the falling of Is 30 per cent. On the other
hand. there Is an agreement among the
estimators that In many and large
sections Of England tho decline In
the market price Of land does not exceed 20
por cent. and that 1t has at last been
checked. farmers now seeming In such dis
tricts able to hold their own. II these sta
tistics be looked at as whole. two deduc-
lions become obvious-hrst. that the depre-
ciation OF heavy wheat lands has not been
overrated by report: and. secondly. that
the falling OF In values Of pasture and
dairy tracts Is somewhat less than has been
Imagined. Another interesting inference
may DO drawn from the figures. viz. that
the decline has been far less In compare
lively small holdings. ranging from fifty
acres to two hundred acres. than In the
larger farms. This fact should strengthen
Mr.. BALFOUR and the Conservatives In
their :l.n O: lending public money for the
purpose OF creating peasant proprietary.
The depreciation OF land values In Eng
land Is attributed by the surveyors, who
are compelled In the practice OF their pro-
fession to make u careful study OF the sub
Jest. to It's true causes. namely. bad sea-
sons. and. above all, cheap imports Of food
staples. From au advanced copy OF an alb
stract compiled for the Board OF Trade. the
distribution of English Imports of bread
stufTs for the year 1890 was exhibited. The
amount Of grain taken from Russia was. In
cwts., I9.8s9.O24. and In meal and flour.
1855 49. From Roumania the imports OF
grain and meal had risen from 300. 900 cwts.
in 1885 to 4.GS3.O 900 In $780, From Australia
sia there were imported last year a.lSs.Ooo
cwts. Of grain and meal. as against $1,000
cwts. In 1885. From British India the
amount Of grain And meal received last