AGRICULTURE AS A RUINED INDUSTRY. [To THE EDITOR OF THE
"SPECTATOR."] Foljambe (Spectator, August 22nd) says that I have adopted a fallacy. He is welcome to the word, as, fallacy or no fallacy, in the circumstances I described in my former letter thousands of farmers in this district are making a good living by growing the crops I named and others of a like nature on land formerly sacred to wheat. It is not a case cf "a few enterprising individuals," but the whole countryside is smiling and prosperous ; and certainly hereabouts agriculture gives as good a return for capital invested as the majority of trades. Mr. Foljambe says, what about farms of "inferior quality" F All I can say is that I have not seen or heard of any out of cultivation in this division, and I do not believe there is a farm in th'e district—let at a fair rent—off which an energetic and capable tenant with adequate capital could not get a decent living. Rents for purely agricultural land Vary from 25s. to 60s. per acre, the average probably being between 35s. and 40s. Farmers have discovered that in many instances supply creates demand. Take, for instance, daffodils and narcissus. Railway-truck loads of these leave Spalding and other stations daily in the bulb season. Since Lincoln- shire began to grow them on the great scale the consumption (if you will allow the word) in the- large towns has doubled and trebled. Ladies, finding the supply constant and cheap, decorate their rooms with these beautiful flowers to an extent our mothers never dreamed of. And so both they and agriculture benefit. I could tell you many more things of a like nature, but your over-burdened columns are ever in my mind. I do not see that being an old reader of the Spectator has much to do with this question, but if it has, I can give most people points. I was a regular subscriber and constant reader years before you, on August 6th, 1870, alone amongst English journals, foretold the German march on Paris. Needless to say, I have not missed a week of the Spectator [We cannot discuss this point further.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
