agriculture and all that is involved in the destruction of our
great land industry, he says —
" I know it has been said, and is said, that an English farmer
owning his land cannot compete with foreign dealers ; but I think
that is doubtful, and I am sure that if the land were owned by the
State, and farmed systematically by the best methods, we might
grow our own corn more cheaply than we could buy it," t
Cheap Wheat means Loss of Health and Life
Kef erring to Cobden's hackneyed phrase about Free Trade
" giving to mankind the means of enjoying the fullest abundance
of earth's goods," he said —
" Bat it means much more than that. However, let us reduce
these fine phrases to figures. Suppose America can sell us wheat at
30s. a quarter, and suppose ours costs 82.S-. a quarter. That is a gain
of one-fifteenth in the cost of wheat. We get a loaf of bread for M.
instead of having to 'pag 'Z\d. That is alt the fine phrases mean.
" What do we lose ? TVe lose the beauty and health of our
factory towns ; we lose annually some twenty thousand lives in
Lancashire alone ; we arc in constant danger of great strikes, like that
which recently so crushed our operatives ; we are reduced to the
meanest shifts and the most violent acts of piracy and slaughter
to ' open up markets ' for our goods ; we lose the stamina of our
people ; and — ire lose our agricidture. Did you ever consider what
it involves, this ruin of British agriculture ? " f
Mr. COLLINGS ON THE NEED FOR AGRICULTURE
Mr. Collings, in his able work, " Land Eeform," deals with
this question from many points of view. He argues in a most
convincing manner that, even under the present system of land,
tenures which, in comparison with the agricultural system in
operation in most countries in the Western world, is not the one
best calculated to produce the maximum yield from the land,
we could nevertheless grow practically the whole of the wheat
required for home consumption,
" Taking the supplies of 11)03 as a basis for the calculation, it would
* " Merrie England," p. 30. Robert Blatcbford.
+ Ibid., p. 33. t ^id-
180 BRITAIN FOR THE BRITON
require the yield (afc 30 bushels the acre) of about seven million
acres, in addition to the imports from India and the Colonies, to
provide bread for all the population of the United Kingdom for a
whole year, and if from any cause all over-sea supplies were stopped,
this home produce would be enough for more than nine months'
supply.
" Seven million acres out of nearly 48 millions under crops of
some kind in the United Kingdom is not an undue proportion,
seeing that before 1860, without bounties or protection, we had
more than 4 million acres so cultivated." *
As these calculations are based on an average of 30 bushels
per acre, he adds —
" In short it is difficult to find any writer on husbandry who
reckoned less than 5 qrs. per acre as the average yield of best-
cultivated land before the decay of agriculture set in. It is
therefore not unreasonable to expect that under a system of
occupying ownerships, with a sufficient bounty on wheat-growing,
and the consequent good cultivation, the average yield would be
at least -10 bushels per acre." t
But in corroboration of this, and in order to bring the
matter more up-to-date, we supplement his text with a personal
reminiscence.
" The present writer was visiting a farmer in the south of
England a few years ago at harvest time. He remarked on the
poorness of the wheat crop, and pointed to a large field in the
neighbourhood, the yield of which, in the opinion of competent
judges, was at least fifty bushels an acre. The reply was, ' Tiiat
field is the property of a butcher in the village, who spares neither
labour nor manure ; he cultivates in a manner that I cannot afford to
do.' This farmer, about two years afterwards, having lost what
capital he had, was obliged to leave the farm." J
How Agricultuee Eamifies among the People
Mr. CoUiugs then points out how widespread are the effects
of agriculture and how its influence ramifies through all sections
of the community.
" Every man, woman, and child in the country is affected by the
prosperity or depression of agriculture. In the proposed land
reform the yeoman farmer is regarded as the nation's instrument
to secure national gains, comforts, and safety ; the fact that he
* " Land Reform," p. 295. The Right Hon. Jesse Ceilings,
t Ibid., p. 301 t Ibid.
THE SACRIFICE OF AGRICULTURE 181
shares the general advantages of tliat reform is but an incident in
its operation." *
" In these pages the subject lias been treated, however im-
perfectly, as a national one, with the object of bringing home to
the minds of all members of the coinmunity, whatever their position
and whatever their occupation, the (act that they have a living
interest in agriculture, and that their happiness and well-being
depend upon it." t
" Agriculture (in its widest sense) is held up as the parent
industry of the world, of which trade and commerce are but
the offspring and handmaids. |
" Taken as a whole, therefore, if tlie agrarian policy here
advocated were vigorously carried out, and Mr. Chamberlain's
proposals were adopted in connection with it, the whole condition
of English rural life would soon be changed. Employment would
be eiiorniously increased, not only for those immediately connected
with the soil, but also for those engaged in subsidiary trades, such
as the blacksmith, carpenter, miller, instrument maker, saddler,
wheelwright, etc. Our villages and market towns, now in decay,
would again become peopled and prosperous." §
As this phase of the subject is intensely interesting, one
more example may be given of how it is viewed by men of all
shades of political thought, and although the -writer we will
quote is not a compatriot, and the vast majority of the British
people would not, perhaps, care to follow the fervid creed of
his politics, yet his economics may be unimpeachable.
What Prince Kropotkin says
Whatever Prince Kropotkin's politics may be, he is a warm
friend of the people of this country, and as the good of the
commonweal is what we are chiefly concerned with in this
work, his view of the situation will be the more acceptable and
valuable because it is untainted by that malign party influence
which is so inimical to the people's interests.
" Land is going out of culture at a perilous rate, while the latest
improvements in market-gardening, fruit-growing, and poultry-
keeping are but a mere trifle if we compare them with what has
been done in the same direction in France, Belgium, and America.
"The cause of this general downward movement is self-evident.
It is the desertion, the abandonment of the land. Each crop
requiring human labour has had its area reduced ; and one-third
of the agricultural labourers have been sent away since 1861 to
reinforce the ranks of the unemployed in the cities, so that, far
* " Land Reform," p. 309. The Right Hon. Jesse Colliugs.
t Ibid., p. 394. X Ibid. § Ibid., p. 303.
182 BRITAIN FOR THE BRITON
from being over-populated, the fields of Britain are starved of human
labour as James Caird used to say. The British nation does not
work on her soil ; she is pre\'ented from doing so, and the would-be
economists complain that the soil will not nourish its inhabitants ! " *
" The most striking fact is, however, that in some undoubtedly
fertile parts of the country things are even in a worse condition.
My heart simply ached when I saw the state in which the land is
kept in South Devon, and when I learned to know what ' permanent
pasture ' means. Field after field is covered with nothing but grass,
three inches high, and thistles in profusion." t
" The Frenchman cultivates much that is left here under
permanent pasture — and this is what is described as his ' inferiority '
in agriculture. . . .
" He imports, in an average year, but one-tenth only of what
the nation consumes, and he exports to this country considerable
quantities of food produce (£10,00C,000 worth), not only from the
South, but also and especially, from the shores of the Channel
(Brittany butter and vegetables ; fruit and vegetables from the
suburbs of Paris, and so on)." J
"As to the comparison with Belgium, it is even more striking —
the more so as the two systems of culture are similar in both
countries. . . . The area given to wheat is five times as big as
Great Britain." §
" The soil of Belgium supplies with home-grown food no less
than 490 inhabitants per square milp, and there remains something
for export — no less than £1,000,000 worth of agricultural produce
being exported every year to Great BritMin." ||
United Kingdom can Feed 80,000,000 of People
" If the soil of the United Kingdom were cultivated only as it
tvas thirty-five years ago, 24,000,000 people, instead of 17,000,000,
could live on home-grown food, and that culture, while giving
occupation to an additional 750,000 men, would give nearly
3,000,000 wealthy home customers to the British manufactures.
If the cultivable area of the United Kingdom were cultivated as
the soil is cultivated on the average in Belgium, the United
Kingdom would have food for at least ;)7,000,000 inhabitants ;
and it might export agricultural produce without ceasing to
manufacture so as freely to supply all the needs of a wealthy
population. And finally, if the population of this country came
to be doubled, all that would be recjuired for producing the food
for 80,000,000 inhabitants would be to cultivate the soil as it
is cultivated in the best farms of this country, in Lombardy, and
in Flanders, and to utilise some meadows, which at present lie
* " Fields, Factories and Workshops," pp. 40, 47. Prince Kropotkin.
+ Ihid., pp. 48, 49. J lUd., p. 54.
§ Ibid., p. 55. II Ibid., pp. 57, 58.
THE SACRIFICE OF AGRICULTURE 183
almost unproductive, in the sanie way as the neighI)Ourhood.s of the
big cities in France are utilised for market-gardening."*
ScATiiiNCr Comparisons
" It is obvious that if we are satisfied with merely stating that it
is cheaper to bring wheat from Riga than to grow it in Lincolnshire,
the whole question is settled in a moment. But is it so in reality ?
Is it really cheaper to have food from abroad ? And, supposing it
is, are we not yet bound to analyse that compound result which we
call price, rather than to accept it as a supreme and blind ruler of
our actions ?
"We know, for instance, how French agriculture is burdened by
taxation. And yet, if we compare the prices of articles of food in
France, which herself grows most of them, with the prices in this
country, which imports them, we find no dillerence in favour of
the importing country. On the contrary, the balance is rather in
favour of France, and it decidedly was so for wheat until the new
protective tariff was introduced. As soon as one goes out of Paris
(where the prices are swollen by a heavy octroi), one finds that every
home â– prodws is cheaper in France than it is in England, and that
the prices decrease further when we go farther East on the
Continent." t
Justifiable Contempt
Summing up his conclusions the writer of " Fields, Factories
and Workshops " speaks with justifiable contempt of that
attitude of profound ignorance and apathy which modern society
assumes towards the food supply of their own country, a
question of such tremendous import, even to the highly
cultured and well-placed ones of the earth, as to demand their
earnest consideration rather than their supreme indifference.
*' We civilised men and women know everything, we have settled
opinions upon everything, we take an interest in everything. We
only know nothing about whence the bread comes which we eat —
even though we pretend to know something about that subject as
well — we do not know how it is grown, what pains it costs to those
who grow it, what is being done to reduce their pains, what sort of
men those feeders of our grand selves are, ... we are more
ignorant than savages in this respect, and we prevent our children
from obtaining this sort of knowledge — even those of our children
who would prefer it to the heaps of useless stufi' with which they
are crammed at school." X
Both Eobert Blatchford and Prince Kropotkin have dis-
covered " the rift in the lute," while ]\[r. CoUings has thrust
* " Field<?, Factories and Workshops," pp. 59, GO. Prince Kropotkin.
t lUd., pp. 71, 72. + Ibid., p. 125.
184 BRITAIN FOR THE BRITON
liis point between the weak plates of the armour that should
guard British agriculture. The apathy of the masses, born of
the grossest ignorance of the A B C of the momentous
agricultural question ; the bewilderment of the middle-classes in
respect to even the simplest problem which rotates round this
great subject; the supreme indifference of "cultured society,"
the vested interest of the landed-classes, the insiucerity of
political parties, and the timidity of governments, render the
explanation of this matter — which is really of the simplest
nature — and the hringing of it home to the realisation of the
people, as difficult as the task of Sisyphus. Then the com-
mercial organisations, the Free Traders, the Manchester School,
and all who have something to lose, or fancy they have, by
the establishment of a universal system of agriculture in Great
Britain, increase the difficulties by the dissemination of their
particularly interested views, while the general confusion is
added to by " economists," " scientists," and a host of others
who rush in to trot out their particular hobbies.
Haeji Done by Well-Meaning Enthuslvsts
These well-meaning enthusiasts call to their aid all the
theorems of economics and masses of figures in proof of the
contention that it is cheaper for Great Britain to import her
corn from foreign countries than to grow it herself by the
labour of her own people, but this is dealing in deductive logic
rather than with hard practical facts. They entirely overlook
the cardinal fact that, in not cultivating our fields we are, in
the first place, disobeying one of Nature's fundamental laws,
and that those who disobey Nature cannot escape with impunity,
and in the second, that in leaving our fields waste we are
acting contrary to tlie recognised custom of every country in
the world. It is nattiral for man to cultivate his land to its
utmost productiveness, and unnatural to allow this greatest of
all wealth-producers to remain idle and unproductive, or, to
devote his genius and enterprise solely to the development of
numufacturing industries. If this were not so those economists
who favour the present wasteful system would be able to point
to many nations, right down the long vista of the ages, which
had become great and abidingly prosperous by sacrificing their
agriculture to other pursuits. Is there a single instance of this
on record ? History supplies the answer.
Xor can they cite the British Empire as a case in point,
because there is too much evidence on every side in proof of
our prosperity not being abiding; that other nations have
wrested and are wresting much of our trade from us in the
r^
THE SACEIFICE OF AGRICULTURE 185
world's markets, and notably so in our own country ; and that,
although we are likely to continue for an indefinite period
— which no living man may presume to predetermine — to be
a great factor in tlie world's trade, our sv,premacy as the
dictator of commerce and the supreme ruler of manufactures
is already a thing of tlie past. A brief half century of
industrial glory and then — the Dies irse and the Nunc d'uiiittis.
Fundamental Simplicity of Agriculture
There has, indeed, one way and another, been cast around
agriculture — which is, per se, fundamental in its simplicity —
such a net-work of professional platitudes, scientific quips, and
party polemics, that it is now enmeshed in an absolutely
unnatural environment. The resultant bewilderment and
general confusion is such that tliere is no wonder " the man in
the street " fails to understand the question.
Instead of regarding agriculture as a rara avis requiring an
especial environment and exceptional treatment, it should be
regarded as a perfectly natural condition requiring but natural
manipulation. If we admit the errors of past treatment, give
agriculture natural scope for development, and help it onwards
with our sympathy and support, all difficulties will disappear,
the intricate knot will be unravelled, and matters will naturally
adjust themselves. To the people will come the time of the
Dies fesii, and the Nunc dimittis will give place to the
Magnificat.
The point that here claims our earnest consideration is
this — have we a sufficiently broad and solid basis upon which
to build up our great national agricultural industry ? The
answer is unequivocally and unreservedly — Yes, In this
splendid inheritance of 48 million acres of the most productive
land in the world — to which 16 million acres more could easily
be added — together with several million acres which might be
gradually reclaimed from mountain slopes and remote wastes,
we have an unrivalled possession pregnant with tremendous
possibilities. Therefore, let us now have done with possibilities
and deal with everyday practicalities.
Any country that s(|uanders its agricultural wealth by
allowing the greater part of its best soil to be converted into
sheep-runs, and " sporting " estates, cultivates the other part for
sheep-feed, and then allows all the rest of the land to run to
waste, fails to turn potential energy into an active living force.
In other words, no country in the world can afford to allow
48 million acres of the finest land on earth to he used with so
complete a disregard of all the laws of domestic economy, and
186 BRITAIN FOR THE BRITON
allow another 16 million acres to run waste, without suffering
terribly for its folly. Let us see how it has affected us.
How Neglected Agkicultuee affects the People
If we look at the questic^rt^irst from the point of view of
the people, i.e. how it affects our workers in the matter of
employment, we find that the land industry of the United
Kingdom employs and supports to-day only about 5,000,000
persons, or less than one-eighth of the population.
Eational Method
France employs and supports about three-fifths of its popu-
lation, Germany about one-third, and Hungary about three-
fourths in the laud industry ; and if we choose to follow their
example by introducing a common-sense, rational system of
agriculture, a universal system of small and large holdings by
occupying owners and reasonable land tenures all round, we
should be able to employ and support at least one-third of
our population, or, say, about 14 millions of our people on the
land, or even more by a higher system of cultivation.
But there is really no necessity to push the matter to
extremes, and this is only intended to show what our land is
really capable of.
There is, however, every necessity for the people of this
country to be awakened from that deadly, lethargic sleep into
which they were plunged by the preaching of a false prophet.
Cobden and his disciples were fervid reformers, strenuous in
their efforts, sincere in their convictions, and completely suc-
cessful in their campaign. They fought long and well for what
they considered to be a good cause, and they carried a large
section of their countrymen with them.
They won the battle, but in winning it they destroyed
agriculture, and in killing the land industry they murdered
the people's best friend and greatest ally.
The deadly effects of the campaign were not felt at once ; the
great land industry was Imrd to kill, and it survived for a time.
Here is what Mr. Ernest E. Williams, author of "The
Imperial Heritage," "Made in Germany," "The Foreigner in
the Farm- Yard," etc., has to say on the subject in " Our National
Peril "—
Agricultuke Dies Slowly
" It was not all at once that agriculture bogau to die. Just as
a man may, by some foolish course of living, sow in his system the
THE SACRIFICE OF AGRICULTURE 187
seeds of death, and yet continue for some years afterwards in fair
and appai'cnt health, so it was with Enoflish agriculture. The
' aaturul protection ' of distance, which Cobden promised to the
I'^nglish farmer, did shield agriculture for a time. The prairies of
Nortli and South America were as yet sparsely employed in arable
cultivation, and apart from tiie comparative smallness of the foreign
wheat supply available, a lack of faciliiies for transportation, and
the high charges for freight, did give the farmer protection against
foreign competitors, even after the duties were removed. ]iut all
through the intervening years the foreign wheat lands have been
developing, railways have made a mesh over them, and the seas are
now so crowded with ships that they are carrying grain across the
Atlantic for a penny a bushel, and in some cases actually as
ballast."
Emigration to avoid Starvation
It was tlicii that the country commenced to feel the loss
of its great staple industry. Labour difficulties became acute
and employment hard to obtain, and it soon became apparent
that despite the lavish optimism of the Cobdenites, our much-
vaunted manufactures and world commerce were not capable
of giving employment to the whole of the workers of the
kingdom, and that vast numbers would either have to starve
or emigrate. They chose the latter course, and a tide of emi-
gration set in which has deprived the kingdom of millions of
its best and strongest, for we must always bear in mind it is
the hardy, strong, and vigorous w^ho emigrate, and not the
timorous, weak, and shrinking.
The figures given in Chapter XII., terrible as they are in
their significance, only tell one story, and it is this : The
people's greatest industry, having been killed by a cruel but
mistaken policy, millions of England's sons and daughters have
found the necessity of leaving the country which gave them
birth, to — Avoid Starvation !
And we are further alarmed by the startling fact that in
spite of the enormous expansion of national trade wliich has
been experienced during the last few years, this appalling
drain on the manhood of the coimtry is still found to be a
pressing necessity, the aggregate for the five years ending 1907
having amounted to 1,514,279, wliile in the latter year the
enormous total of 395,680 was reached ; in other words —
"The Heaviest Emigration Drain synchronises with
Phenomenal Trade Expansion."
Now, if great expansion of national trade means anything at
all, it certainly should include, among other things, full work
and prosperous times for the people; and without being
188 BRITAIN FOR THE BRITON
over-sanguine we should certainly safely calculate on that. But
as a matter of fact it means nothing of the kind ; it only means,
in this connection, that fuller work may he found for a time
for those who are already engaged ; but for that vast throng of
tliose unfortunates who are not engaged — and these are in
their hundreds of thousands and their millions, as the emigra-
tion returns prove — there is No Work and No Hope.
In plain, terse English, those who are responsible for the
present state of affairs, have, between tliem, killed the National
Industry, the chief source of the people's support and employ-
ment, and liave given them nothing in return save a lot of
vapid promises and an international trade policy of so Utopian
a nature as to result in nothing but poverty to millions of our
countrymen.
And it is just here that we should do well to bear in mind
that most of these millions who have been driven from their
country by inept fiscal laws were of the body electorate, and
had an inalienable right to participate in, and benefit by, the
wise and well-considered legislation of those whom they sent
to Parliament to govern in the interests of the body politic.
Every one of these unfortunates, and every one of those who
are being exiled to-day, has a well-defined grievance, nay, a
just cause for deep-rooted, bitter animosity against any Govern-
ment and its followers who, solely for political motives, bolster
up a system which long experience has proved to be as faulty
as it is fatal.
And what of tliose who stay at liome to share with their
wives and families in the evils which a misguided fiscal policy
must necessarily produce ?
Have they no grievance against their rulers ? Can they
look around and say, " We are content " ? Is work so plentiful
with them, so stable, so remunerative as to cause them to say,