" COUNTRY RELICS "
Snt,—The only defence I have to make against Mr. Bates's remarks about the expression of a point of view in my Country Relics is that he gives an impression of it as an irritating " digression " or series of digressions off the main theme. As this definitely misleads the reader, I have the right to correct him. It is more • than misleading, in fact, to say that the best I can do is to attack bureaucratic expenditure on roads. I was dealing with the question of the starving out of the craftsman, and used the road argument as an example of the misuse of money by the County Councils, and as a means of showing that it was not lack of money which was responsible for the pauperising of country life.
In my preface I stated quite clearly that the book was purposive, and that purpose was integral with the theme throughout. Mr. Bates may disagree with the purpose, but he has no right to suggest that it is extraneous, nor from that angle to compare Country Relics with my friend Mr. Hennell's Change in the Farm, which is not in the same category.
I am glad that he has corrected me over Bedfordshire lace- making. I took what I said about it from a book which seemed reliable—one of the very few statements I did take from books. I rejoice to learn that. I was .wrong., Lastly, B if I did not mention the " Rural Industries ureau," it was not because I had not heard of it, as Mr. Bates suggests. My general argument was the rehabilitation of husbandry and the countryside, and the references I made to specific bodies were general, not particular.—I am, Sir, your faithfully,
H. J. MASSINGHAM.
Previous page
