FREE IMPORTS AND FARMING FOR SAFETY [To the Editor of
the SPECTATOR.] Sia,—Referring to emigration from rural districts " Tantum," in your issue of April 10th, deplores the loss to the countryside aAd says : " Here are some figures to think about. In 1918 there were 12,309,000 acres of land under cultivation of cereals in England and Wales. By 1925 the total had dwindled to 10,680,000. In 1918 we had 2,557,000 acres of land growing wheat. In 1925 the total had dropped to
1,499,000: Till we come to grips with the problem of `back to the land ' we cannot pretend to have profited by our War-time experience."
As a grower, in either Suffolk, Cambridgeshire or Yorkshire
of pretty nearly every kind of agricultural produce, I suggest that the only way of " coming to grips " with this problem is to live on, and if possible, by the land, when it will be found that the real solution consists mainly in leaving things alone. The question is very largely, if not entirely, one of price, and since the last two General Elections have shown conclusively -that while the people rather like the idea of protecting trivial industries and luxury trades they are wholly and bitterly opposed to the safeguarding of agriculture, there is nothing for it but to farm for safety and not for population. This does not mean that we are to turn men off recklessly and go in for prairie farming, but it does mean that with very low prices
on the one side and comparatively high wages—enforced for political reasonsL–on the other, all the poorest land in the country must be laid away to either temporary or permanent pasture. By teaching us the use of basic slag and wild white clover science has enormously increased the agricultural value Of grass land, and if prices rise—as I think they are bound to do—in three or four years' time, all this extra pasture can be ploughed out, and with the added fertility due to this " rest cure," can be relied on to grow two good corn crops without manure.
As a man bred as a Free Trader I quite appreciate the desire to put the interests of the consumer first every time ; but all good things have to be paid for, and the price payable for huge imports and very cheap food on the one hand, and comparatively high wages on the other, is a system of farming for safety and a reduction of employment in the countryside.
No policy of Nationalization, nor of State Control, nor of Cottage Holdings will be of any avail unless accompanied by some form of Protection, and therefore the only thing for sensible men to do is to cease interfering and leave things alone. The Conservative policy of Cottage Holdings is the merest tinkering at the problem and is more likely than not to result in more land going down to grass, and lessened employment in consequence. For the Cottage Holder cannot, from the nature of things, be a full-time worker, and part-timers can only be employed on grass farms. On an arable farm with corn to sow and to reap, and with roots and sugar beet to drill and to hoe, it is essential that your staff should all be there when wanted, since even one day missed with our fickle clinnite may
spell disaster.—I am, Sir, &c., C. F. RYDER. Thurlow, Suffolk.
Previous page
