AGRICULTURE AND PROTECTION.
THE contrast between the two letters, one from "An Old Farmer," the other from Mr. W. M. Cooper, which we print in another column, is really the contrast between the man who looks back to a state of things that has passed away, and the man who leaves the past to mourn over itself and fixes his attention on the facts with which he has himself to deal. But "An Old Farmer " has misapprehended our meaning if he intends to charge us with denying the allegation that British agriculture is less remunerative -to the owner of the soil now than it was in the days of Protective duties. We have never denied that monopolies are good for monopolists, that a purely artificial state of things may minister to the prosperity of the class in whose interest it is created. In this respect Protection is like a stringent Patent-law. If no cycles or motor-cars were allowed to be sold except of a particular pattern, the makers of that pattern would do an extraordinarily good business. If after a time the law were repealed and cycles and motor-cars of all patterns and all makers were put on the same footing, the protected makers might say quite truly that they were ruined or crippled by competi- tion. Whether the cycle and motor-car industry—not to speak of the public which uses these machines—would be either ruined or crippled is another matter. Obviously the prohibition of all machines not of a particular type would check invention and make energy useless. The owners of the permitted pattern would have no motive for im- proving it, because they would be in no fear of seeing it improved by others. If when " An Old Farmer " speaks of " the crippling of British agriculture by foreign com- petition " he only means that the exclusion of foreign competition gave the British farmer, or rather the British landowner, certain specific advantages, we should never dream of challenging his statement. What we do challenge is the assumption that this fact is of itself enough to show that the advantages in question ought to be restored to him. We say, on the contrary, first, that the interests of other industries, and still more those of the consumers, have a claim on our consideration ; and next, that the due recognition of these interests need not be fatal to the farmer. In other words, Free-trade has not ruined British agriculture, though it has cut away the purely artificial and ° monopolist value conferred on the land by Protection.
Upon this latter point Mr. Cooper is a competent wit- ness. He has lived for forty years " in the midst of one of the largest and most important farming districts in England," and in this district he declares that " agricul- ture is in a good and thriving way." Of course, like other industries, agriculture can only thrive under modern condi- tions by the practice of the utmost possible watchfulness and energy. The farmer who folds his hands and says, " What was good enough for father is good enough for me," will not prosper. But the reason of his not prosper- ing is that ho does not deserve to prosper. He ignores the universal conditions of success in all businesses,— conditions which may indeed be disregarded for a time with seeming impunity, but which will inevitably assert themselves in the long run. There have been farmers who held that to grow wheat was a matter of divine ordinance. It was associated in their minds with the admonition, " In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,"—bread for the purpose of this particular exegesis standing for wheaten bread. We do not deny that the farmer who reads the Old Testament in this sense has been " crippled by foreign competition." But we do deny that he had a right to look for anything different. So long as the price of wheat was artificially maintained, so long as wheat from outside was turned away from our markets in order to secure a remunerative price to the British wheat-grower, so long as (to quote Mrs. Browning) "the poor died mute with starving gaze on corn-ships in the offing," the old-fashioned farmer prospered. But at whose cost did he prosper ? At the cost, first, of the whole community, who had to put up with dear bread in order to make it profitable to grow wheat —" often," as Mr. Cooper says, "on land altogether un- suitable for it "—and next, at the cost of the farmer him- self, who was tempted by " artificially heightened prices " into growing only one crop under unfavourable conditions instead of being left to learn by experiment that the function of English agriculture is to give English con- sumers the crops which can be better grown at home than abroad. The farmers of whom Mr. Cooper speaks have learnt this lesion. "They are largely growing, and making a satisfactory profit out of, a dozen 'things they never used to dream of cultivating, at least on the great scale, such as early potatoes, celery, cabbage, mustard, boiling peas, flowers, and fruit."
No doubt there are many districts in the South of England of which no such favourable account could be given. But the explanation is not that similar successes are out of the farmer's reach, but that he does not take the means which alone can bring them within his grasp. It may not be his fault that he does not do this. He may not have the capital necessary for the purchase of the best machines, or the knowledge which would tell him what are the best methods of treating the soil. But in these respects agriculture is exactly like manufactures. If we know that the owner of a factory is too poor to buy the newest machinery, or is not aware of what foreign manufacturers are doing, we do not think it strange if he gets into the Bankruptcy Court. We have learnt, that is to say, that for a man to be a successful manufacturer he must have capital and knowledge. If he has neither, we are sorry for him, but we do not propose to pass laws to enable him to prosper without those quali- fications. But if we listen to "An Old Farmer," we shall be told that it is our duty to do for agriculture what we do not do for other industries. We may feel sure that if the English farmer were all that he should be, he would be in no need of artificial protection. We may discover, when we come to go into particulars, that want of capital prevents him from paying his labourers proper wages, or that the restraints imposed by an old-fashioned lease do not allow him to put his land into the best condition or to cultivate it in the best fashion; but according to the Protectionists, we must not assign any of these reasons in explanation of his want of success. The facts are there, but we must shut our eyes to them, and go on proclaiming that the farmer is ruined by foreign competition. He is ruined, if he be ruined, by nothing of the sort. What stands in his way are the very same things that would stand in the way of a manu- facturer,—want of pence and want of sense. We may rightly feel sorry for him, sorry for the poverty which has brought about the first want, sorry for the bad educa- tion which is the cause of the second ; but we cannot alter the laws which ordinarily regulate human activity. To attempt to do so would be to stereotype elementary forms of industry, and to set up barriers against human im- provement. The old-fashioned farmer who ploughs and reaps and threshes with the instruments used by his grandfather might with equal reason ask to be protected against the crippling competition of steam ploughs and other kinds of agricultural machinery. It would have been very much better for him if all these disturbing in- ventions had been forbidden by law. Perhaps when Mr. Chamberlain has re-established the Corn-duty they will be. "An Old Farmer " further asks us whether we " call 5s. to 10s. an acre for good corn land a fair level." That depends on its capacities for growing more profitable crops. If, as is probably the case, it would grow the crops Mr. Cooper speaks of, it would very soon answer the tenant's purpose to pay a higher rent. If it does not answer his purpose, it is probably because he goes on growing corn for which there is no real demand at any price which can pay him. It does not follow that it might not pay some one else with more energy, more skill, and more capital ; and if the land- lord were to look out for such a tenant, the level of rent would soon rise above the 5s. to 10s. an acre on which "An Old Farmer" founds his inquiry. But to the present tenant it may be worth no more, and so this may be a fair level even for " good corn land."
Happily, there is food for encouragement even in the letter of " An Old Farmer." " Lazy and easygoing farmers " have, he tells us, " been starved off the land the existing farmers are more capable, energetic, and well informed than their predecessors." We are very glad to hear it; and if it be true, we are sure that it is not from them that the cry for a return to Protection will come. They will know full well that an artificial stimulus given to one form of farming only hinders its development in other and more natural directions. We are not, however, quite so sanguine as our correspondent as to the universal truth of this statement. Certainly Mr. Rider Haggard's account of the farmer of to-day is less encouraging. He says, indeed, that if English farmers generally would but follow the example of some of their number, farming would pay "even at present prices," and England would be enabled " to grow nearly all the food that it requires." What stands in the way is the " appalling obstinacy " of the British farmer, and his unwillingness to avail himself of "the fruits of the experience, energy, and wisdom of men who have solved one of the problems and indicated some new road to success." One great agriculturist has shown how year
by year excellent crops of cereals can be produced upon the heaviest land at low cost, " yet no one avails himself of this discovery." Another has shown how the hungriest soils can be turned to profit with little labour and small expense, " yet no one follows his example." Piotection may indeed be needed by men of whom this can be said, bit we cannot admit that it is deserved by them.
Previous page
