INDEFENSIBLE WASTE.
[To THE Emote OP THE " SPECTATOR."] SIR,—Sir Alfred Mond's attention has been drawn to an article in your issue of the 6th inst., entitled " Indefensible Waste," in which you criticize his action in authorizing the ploughing up of portions of Richmond Park and Bushey Park last year. The writer of the article admits the general proposition that " in such a crisis as that through which the nation is passing, a Government Repartment is justified in spending money to set a good example 1st private individuals." Sir Alfred Mond wishes me to state that this was more justified at the time when these operations were commenced. It will be remembered that the Prime Minister's grave statement in the House of Commons on December 19th, 1916, that "every available square yard must be made to produce food" had only just been uttered. Strong representations were also made at-- the time to the Office of Works to comply with the appeal of the Prime Minister, and set an example. Sir Alfred Mond realized at once the importance of the need, and directed that the most eillaustive inquiries should be made into the possibility of util- ising the Royal Parks for the cultivation of crops.
The writer of the article states " that practically all the agri- culturists whose opinion was worth having condemned the plough- ing up both of Richmond Park and of Bushey Park as an unjustifiable experiment." Sir Alfred Mond directs me to point out that before any steps were taken in this direction the whole question of utilizing the Parks, and selecting the plots, the nature of the crops to be cultivated, and the manures to be used, was sub- mitted to one of the most eminent agriculturists in the country— 'tamely, Dr. E. J. Russell, F.R.S., Direct& of the Rothamsted experimental Station. Dr. Russell devoted a considerable amount et time to the question, and made a very careful examination of the soil properties of the various plots that he chose. His advice *Ten included the determination of whether the plots were suit- able for cereal culture and the selection of the necessary artificial manures to be employed. Dr. Russell selected portions of both Richmond Park and Bushey Park, which he definitely advised were suitable for cultivation, although he pointed out that there was totnsiderable risk in starting the operation so-late, and stated that the only hope of success was to put the ploughing in hand at race. With the exhaustive Report of Dr. Russell before him, Sir Mired Mond, as a further precaution, consulted the President of the- Board of Agriculture on the entire scheme, and obtained his hearty concurrence with all that was proposed. In the circum- stances, Sir Alfred Mond wishes me to state that he finds it difficult to understand what better means he could have employed to obtain expert advice on a matter of this character.
In regard to the financial aspect of the work, Sir Alfred Mond ttom the outset insisted that this must be of secondary import- ance, although there was very good reason at- the time for believing that the work could be done without any material loos of
money. He wishes me, however, to point out that the cultivation of these crops in both Richmond Park and Bushey Park was carried out under the most adverse conditions. In the first place, the ploughing was considerably delayed owing to the severe and late frost. Following this, the early spring was extremely trying, and interfered with the growth of the crop. Thirdly, the harvest period was extremely stormy and wet, reducing the yield to nearly' one-half. It is notorious that the oats crop of last year through- out the country was extremely bad. The financial result on a normal year's work on the ground that was ploughed up would have almost covered the expenses, in spite of the fact that the rate of wages for labour in the neighbourhood of London was much in excess of that usually paid in agricultural districts. It is also to be remembered that the operation was undertaken with the view that it would be necessary to continue for a series of years, and until the whole period has passed during which the ground would be under cultivation, and the final result ascer- tained, it is quite unfair to condemn the action, which was taken on the result of an abnormally bad first year. At a time when the food scarcity was so imminent in the country—when the problem was to produce all the food possible at home, at whatever sacrifice of ordinary agricultural conditions—the consideration of the financial result could not be reasonably applied. Sir Alfred Mond wishes me particularly to point out that the production of sufficient food to enable the population to live was even a more vital problem than the production of munitions of war : to cavil over the first not being an economic proposition and to spend hundreds of millions on the second augurs a curious want of per- spective of the national requirements.—I am, Sir, &c., D. Timms, Private Secretary. H.31. Office of Works, Storey's Gate, S.TV.1.
[We are bound to say that Sir Alfred Mond makes out a good case. No Minister can be blamed for acting on the advice of his experts. We regret, therefore, that we used the words about an unjustifiable experiment. If we still retain, any doubts about the justification of Sir Alfred Mond'e action, they refer to the delay in ploughing. In Dr. Russell's opinion, imme- diate ploughing was essoutial. If the delay "owing to the severe and late frost" occurred after Dr. Russell's advice had been taken, his sanction would seem to have been ipso facto withdrawn, and Sir Alfred Mond would not be entitled to plead it in his defence. We are assuming, of course, in the absence of all dates in Sir Alfred Mond's letter, that there was no delay after the advice of the two experts was given. If the frost came after Sir Alfred Mond had consulted them, the proper course would have been to postpone ploughing till the autumn.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
