CAN THE FARMER SAVE HIMSELF?—V.
CONCLUSION.
HOW comes it, then, that in England, almost alone of all the countries of the world, the system of farmers' trading, in spite of occasional successes, has made on the whole so little way ? The importance and the need of it—more especially as regards the preparation and sale of produce—are not seriously denied. It is clear that the English farmer, through his lack of proper organization and his old-fashioned and wasteful methods of marketing, suffers at present a heavy disadvantage ; and that this not only affects his immediate profits, through the great disparity between the price he receives and the price paid by the consumer, but injures our whole agricultural system. For marketing, as the economists say, is but the other half of production. There is nothing that would in the long run do more to improve English farming and the general productivity of the land than to have this matter put right. If scientific methods of production arc necessary to the modern farmer, a well-organized system of marketing is hardly less important.
But if co-operative trading is desirable, is it really practicable ? In the modern conditions of England, so different, as we are reminded, from those of Denmark that the critics arc apt to assume that if they can show a difference between England and Denmark the whole case for co-operation breaks down—can we ever hope to bring this system to permanent success ?
Two main instances of this difference arc ordinarily brought forward. First, that the English farmer, unlike the Dane, has a good market in his own country ; and, secondly, that he is not, as a rule, the owner of the free- hold of his land. Of the first of these two instances, though mentioned in the Report of the Agricultural Tribunal, it is hardly necessary to say much. If it were really a satisfactory explanation, how should we account for the success of co-operation in Germany and in Italy, and other countries from which there is no large export of food, or for the various successful experiments here ? Would the factory at Elmswell have been easier to establish, would it have been likely to have had more frequent imita- I ors, if it had been a factory for exporting bacon to some distant shore ? Would the Harpenden Dairies have been more successful if they had been engaged in making butter to send abroad ? In Oxfordshire for nearly a year past a small committee of landowners and farmers has been engaged in promoting a co-operative bacon factory.
After holding a series of farmers' meetings, we have succeeded in enrolling some five hundred members, .who have subscribed between them over £22,000 share capital, and entered into contracts for the supply of more than 13,000 pigs a year. We are, on the whole, well satisfied with the progress that has been made, and in a spirit of sober optimism we are hoping within a few weeks from now to start our business. But we have never concealed from those whom we have invited to join us the surprising fact that we are proposing to sell our bacon to English distributing firms for con- sumption in English homes. It is suggested that we should have done better if we had been in a position to assure them that, while we did not contemplate making any attempt to enter the great home market, we had an excellent opening, let us say, in Timbuctoo !
It must be confessed, however, that as regards the other objection—that English farmers are not as a rule the owners of their land and that this has prevented, and is likely always to prevent, them from combining effectively together—a much stronger case may be made. Great as have been the benefits which the old system of landlord and tenant has brought to our agriculture in the past, and may in some cases still continue to bring, there is reason to think that it is getting, so to speak, worn out, that it has a tendency to check pro- gress, and that a fair system of land purchase enabling tenants to " enfranchize " their holdings on equitable terms, with the assistance of an agricultural bank, would probably be of great advantage to our agriculture. It may be doubted indeed whether co-operative enterprise will ever reach its full development until the proportion of occupying owners is far greater than it is. And yet we are told that in Sweden, where farming with the help of co-operative methods has recently shown great progress, the system of land tenure is not unlike our own. Moreover, even here the increase in freeholds has recently been considerable, and there is probably already a sufficient number of occupying owners—who are generally amongst the most energetic and successful of farmers--to provide a fair nucleus for co-operative work. Without making a full inquiry into this question, which would be far beyond the scope of this article, it may, I think, be assumed that our present old-fashioned land system, although in some ways a disadvantage, is not at all a decisive factor. The true explanation of the comparative failure hitherto of the farmers' co-operative movement in England is indeed far simpler. Co-operation has made so little way not because of our land system, nor from the absence of an export trade, nor from the natural inability of farmers to combine together, but because the leaders of opinion in the farming world have not taken the matter seriously, and farmers themselves have not, as a rule, thought it worth their while to do so either. There has not been that "united body of informed and convinced opinion" without which it is impossible, as Lord Ernie has said, for co-operation to succeed.
The very success of the Farmers' Union—the only big effort at combination that English farmers have yet made —has been in some ways a drawback to the co-operative movement. Of the undoubted benefits which the Union has brought to the industry I have already spoken. It has taught farmers the art of organization. It has given them a sense of solidarity which will in time bear fruit. Some of its great county branches are already giving active support to the promotion of trading societies. But its activities hitherto have been mainly, though not entirely, political ; and it has also had a tendency to concentrate the farmer's mind on politics—on the hope" of subsidies or Protection as the only remedy for the present troubles—with the result that the subject of economic combination has never yet had the attention it deserves. At headquarters especially there has been until recently a certain attitude of cold aloofness from the co-operative movement, and in the N.F.U. Record, the official organ of the Union, which is sent every month to thousands of farmers, the subject is rarely or never mentioned. "In the hands of the National Farmers' Union," wrote Lord Ernie, "there is no reason why co- operation should not triumph here as it has done in Denmark." That is, I believe, perfectly true ; but the leaders of the Union are at present a little slow in taking hold.
Nor has the attitude of the present Government, or of any recent Administration, been more helpful. In the case of the present Government the apparent indifference is especially remarkable, because in the course of the last election the late Prime Minister stated in his letter to the N.F.U. that the promotion of co-operation would be one of the four principal items of the Government's agricultural policy. First there would be an inquiry into agricultural rating, and secondly there was to be "the promotion of co-operation in the transport and sale of agricultural produce." Since then we have had the Interim Report of the Agricultural Tribunal, in which are set out the "serious disadvantages" to which farmers are exposed in their present unorganized state, and a definite recommendation is made for assistance to the movement (paragraphs 10-15) ; and also the three Reports from Lord Linlithgow's Committee in which the same theme is illustrated. But the Government them- selves have done nothing. Of all the proposals of their agricultural policy this is, so far as I know, the only one that they have yet made no attempt to carry out. In this matter I do not go so far as Lord Bledisloe, who in his most interesting letter of last week appears to take the view that without some such Government support as is given to farmers' co-operation by the Governments of other countries it is impossible for the movement to have any considerable success, but I entirely agree with him in thinking that if the Government had some definite plan, based as he says upon knowledge and sympathy, for supporting and encouraging it, this would be of almost incalculable value. By carrying out such a policy, especially if it were combined with a scheme of land purchase, the Government would do more to put English agriculture on a permanent basis of prosperity than by any other means that could be devised. For my own part, I have no doubt that whether with or without such help, the English farmer by better organization can save himself and will in time do so. The movement that was started forty-one years ago in West Jutland has been gradually spreading through the agricultural world, and in spite of unusual obstacles is steadily making way even in this country. The question seems to me to be whether we shall still be left to work out our salvation slowly, wastefully and with difficulty, or whether by effective guidance and leadership, which it has hitherto lacked, we shall bring the farmers' co-operative movement to a speedier and more certain success.
PHILIP MORRELL.
Previous page
