I N the current number of the Nineteenth Century there is,
as I mentioned last week, an article by Lord Bledisloe and Mr. Christopher Tumor—those two redoubtable champions of the English countryside—on the subject of Danish farming. The article is the outcome of their recent visit to Denmark, and contains a picture of such remarkable vividness, based on a sound and thorough observation, that every intelligent reader of the Spectator—I mean, of course, every reader —who ever talks or thinks about farming, most of all if he practises the art, should make a point of reading it. And as he reads let him ask himself a few simple questions. How is it, let him say, that between two peoples who are so alike in race and character as the Danes and ourselves, whose soil and climate are about the same, except that ours are the better, there has been this wide divergence in the matter of agricultural success ; how comes it that a small and scattered country, which fifty years ago had no place at all in the agricultural class list and was not in any way com- parable with Great Britain, should now be the leading country in the world's competition, with an output of food that is described as " truly amazing," while our own, alas ! is falling back; how comes it that Danish farmers, without either subsidies or Protection, and in spite of the world depression, are confident and cheerful, while our own are anxious and depressed ?. What is the secret of the difference ? To these questions, urgent and important as they are, the authors of this article hardly attempt an answer. Perhaps they had not space. Perhaps they preferred to leave it ,to us. But it cannot be said that the few perfunctory sentences, in which this matter is referred to on the last page of the article, give anything like a just or adequate explana- tion. This is what we read :- "There is nothing mysterious about these results (in Denmark). They merely demonstrate the effect of enterprise, efficiency, com- mercial aganization and well-informed State - encouragement. Given a sympathetic Government that can inspire confidence in the mind of the cultivator and instil the certainty that he will not be' let down by changes due to political expediency. British farmers might achieve similar results to those which the. Danes , have achieved in their brilliant period of agricultural progress since 1861."
Are we really, then, to believe' that the absence of a skmpathetic Government, with the diffidence to which this w'ant :or sympathy has led, is all that has' held British larmerS back from- achieving a no less brilliant success ? 'We had heard, 'of eourSe," of the power' of syrapathy,, but nes'er before had we realited how much the want Of it on the' part of successive Governments has /parently implied. " - . . -Bu -das: !'"'{{he -article .riinthweS). "our GOverarnents" for ears 'past have been- Governmenta' -by townspeople'- for towns- people, and our townspeople far -have ,,slumn. themselves 7
Incapable of understanding the national importance of a flourishing agriculture."
Blind and wicked townspeople, it would be foolish to attempt your defence ; Mr. Turnor's views about you are already too well knosin. The towns, to him, are " the real enemy," and when things go badly in them, as they are sometimes bound to do, the townspeople " strive desperately to make them better at the expense of the countryside." But is there not, perhaps, just a tinge, well, of rural prejudice, in this simple view of the matter ? Is it quite fair to load these unhappy townspeople with the whole black responsibility for the farmer's " desperate plight " ? I quote the average description of the state of our agriculture in the average farming paper. Is there any place outside the columns of such a paper, or a local branch meeting, say, of the Farmers' Union, where such a view of the matter would be accepted ?
With great respect I would suggest a very different explanation, which might be expressed somehow like this :— There is nothing mysterious about the success of Danish agri- culture. While it demonstrates in a general way the enterprise and efficiency of Danish- farmers, it can be traced to a . perfectly definite cause, namely, the development by farmers and land- owners:—with well-informed 'State encouragement, but Mainly by their own effortsof a well-organized system of marketing. It was with the gradual establishment in the 'eighties of farmers' creameries and farmers' bacon factories that the brilliant period of Danish agricultural progress began: Given a similar attention to economic organization, with an equally well-informed State encouragement, British farmers might achieve similar results. But, alas I for years past our farmers have devoted their attention and their great powers of organization to the task of obtaining by means of political pressure some direct financial assistance from the State, and have so far shown' themselves incapable of under- standing' the importance of building up their industry on a sound economic basis. . • • If I have carried our authors with me so far, I trust that in their next edition they will not disdain the use of this revised version ; and I would suggest that they should round it off by a quotation that will be familiar indeed to readers of the Spectator, but is none the less relevant to this question :— • In the words of a well-known agricultural authority, " there is probably no worse consequence of the lack of cohesion, organiza- tion and- leadership in British agriculture than the extent- and power of the middleman interest—unparalleled elsewhere in the civilized world—whose parasitic tentacles have slowly yet surely fasfened theinselves upon the industry and arc sucking out its lifeblood to the detriment of producer and consumer alike."
But what exactly, you may ask, has all this to do with the problem of the State and the farm ? Everything in the'world; because until *we get our minds clear as to the malady that affects our agriculture, it is the merest waste of breath to try to formulate a Government policy. How absurd, for instance, if the diagnosis here given is at all correct, that the State should spend large sums, as it now does, in instructing the farmer in pure farming—that is to say, in cultivation of the land and raising of stock—which he already does fairly well, and yet reftise to spend a single sixpence upon instruction in farming business, in .which he is notoriously deficient. How foolish that in devising a policy the Government should merely consult, after the manner of the present moribund Government, a farmers' organization which has always neglected to carry out its own express object —of promoting co-operation amongst its members. How necessary that the Government should frame and adhere to some well-thought-out and constructive plan, and not merely display its " sympathy " by the devising of continually new methods of outdoor relief.
In the very brief space that remains let me indicate in bare outline the sort of policy that is required.
Land Tenure.—The present system of landlord and tenant is never really satisfactory. It is always in need of .patching. . It .is often too favourable . to .the bad farmer: It is-almost always discouraging to the good.
•
Why should not the Government introduce a compre. pensive system of land purchase, enabling suitable tenants to .become the owners of their holdings, with the help of State credit on reasonable terms ?
Small Holdings.—A further extension of small holdings --but not small farms—in suitable localities, making proper provision for the introduction of co-operative trading—which has never hitherto been attempted—is still necessary.
Credit.—A better provision of State credit, especially in connexion with co-operative trading, is also desirable ; and if it is considered that the present condition of the industry is so bad that some temporary relief is necessary, this should only take the form of co-operative credit provided for a limited time at less than the current rate.
Education.—It is by a well-considered system of instruction, of which should be included the " pro- motion of co-operative marketing of produce, that State assistance can best be given. This instruction hitherto has been too vague and unpractical. Farmers have been told in a general way that they ought to co-operate, and then left to find out for themselves what to do. Systematic and detailed instruction by men who know the business from the farmer's point of view is urgently required.
To develop these bare proposals, which in outline arc already pretty well known, into a living and working policy would probably take at least two more articles, and a hard-hearted Editor, whom Mr. Tumor might suspect of being a townsman, is unable for the present to allow us poor farmers any more of his space. But let us not complain. He has been very patient. And if I am reproached for having wasted space at the beginning, instead of getting down at once to a practical scheme, my defence is that it was inevitable. For a paper programme alone is useless. There must be also a right spirit within us.
Previous page
