In a very excellent book, written some years ago, given
the Impressive title Food—that and no more—the counties are arranged in order of merit as judged by an admirer of intensive or semi-intensive cultivation. The author put Somerset at the very bottom. She produced less to the cultivated acre, so it was alleged, than any other county in England. She was scolded for her backwardness, for her poor contribution to the national wealth. The other day I asked the head of one of our greatest agricultural stations whether he thought this charge justified. His answer was much more whole- hearted than I had expected, though I knew he would not endorse the accusation. He alleged that among the counties Somerset came either first or second in almost every depart- ment of agricultural production. He meant that she could quote from among her farmers an example or two of supreme skill in production, of stock, of dairy products, of poultry and of crops. Such a conflict of evidence is surprising, for both views are expressed by men who have especially studied such subjects. Those who preach the glories of Somerset at Bath might do worse than spend some time in resolving such a conflict. We all know—or ought to know—how beautiful is Somerset, how full of health (even if we do not heed the radium in its waters !). We should like also to know how useful it is ; for the crying need of the nation at the moment is greater production of native food.
Previous page
