CAN THE FARMER SAVE HIMSELF?
[To the -Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sin,—Perhaps I may now be allowed to reply to one of the -letters appearing in the Spectator of October 27th, to which I laid no space to refer last week ? Your correspondent, Mr. Edward Coward, takes exception to the title of my recent articles. The real issue in his judgment is not whether farmers can save themselves, but how they can save the nation. As regards themselves, he finds no difficulty. Treat them fairly, he says, in the matter of rates and taxes, protect them from cattle disease and from exorbitant railway charges, and the thing is done. You have only to leave them alone ; they will certainly save themselves. But what of the nation ? If farmers are to save the nation, they must be paid extra for the job. "heavy subsidies," he says, "appear to be the only remedy."
Now, Sir, as regards the title of my articles, I am rather inclined to agree with him. It was not entirely, as you know, of my own choosing, and though I have now got pretty well used to it, I should never go far in its defence. But I am not sure that I care for his suggestion any better. In fact, all this talk of saving and salvation -seenis to give too hectic a tone to what is after all a very practical discussion, and to call up a vision of drums and cymbals more than of the harrow and the plough. The question I think at the head of the articles should rather have been something like this :—" Can English agriculture be built up on a purely economic basis, so as to become again, as it once was, a centre of health and stability of the nation ? " My only doubt is whether anyone would
have taken the trouble to read any articles under sc portentous a heading.
But to return to Mr. Coward's remedy. Heavy subsidies, no doubt, are an attractive policy, to those who hope to receive them ; but what of the people who have to pay ? Is the Income Tax not already high enough ? And if you subsidize agriculture, what about other industries—coal-mining, for example, which is continually in a state of crisis ? And if the farmer obtains subsidies to-day, can he be at all sure about to-morrow, when a new Government may be in power ? All these are urgent questions for discussion—if space allowed.
Even Mr. Coward, however, has his doubts. For after telling us that heavy subsidies are the only remedy, he proceeds in the next sentence to describe an alternative. "The alternative is," he says, "to let farmers save themselves in the way they think best, and build national granaries." I would suggest to him that there is still a third alternative. He must remember that even at present farmers are not left, as he seems to think, entirely alone. A great deal of advice is given them. A great deal of powerful influence is continually brought to bear. The Ministry of Agriculture, the National Farmers' Union, the Royal Agricultural Society and many other similar bodies all have their say. At the great Agricul- tural Shows—so useful for keeping up our pedigree stock— and at the ordinary markets and fairs, many voices of influence and advice are poured into the farmer's ear. But how rarely does the true voice of reason, advocating an improvement in his marketing system, as the remedy for his present troubles, make itself heard. And yet no one will studies the subject can doubt that such an improvement would do more than anything else to revive English agriculture. The third alternative, therefore, would appear to be to do our best, by systematic instruction and advice and by making known all the facts of the case to make the voice of reason prevail, and so get this much-needed improvement gradually carried into effect.—I am, Sir, &c., Garsington Manor, Oxford. PHILIP MORRELL.
P.S.—May I add that I am hoping as soon as possible to adopt " X.'s " suggestion that the articles should be republished as a pamphlet ?
Previous page
