BRITISH FARMING
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
Sri,—In your interesting articles on " A Better England," I note remarks on Agriculture, which I hope you will forgive me for saying seem largely to echo the meaningless stuff which newspaper and other theorists so frequently hand out to us of the countryside. I am not personally a farmer, but the plough, harrow, reaper and all else come in their seasons day after day under my bedroom and study windows, and I did " indulge " in farming in my younger years, in Canada and California, and would do it for pleasure again if I had the time.
On one side of me is a small, but extremely industrious, farmer ; on the other are the farms of a very large estate, whose owner is a Member of Parliament. You say we must "work harder:3 This is not possible ; farmer and men work as hard as mortal man can. But perhaps " office-chair farmers " will show the way ! Yon say_farming is " no longer a rule of thumb business but an exact science." I am myself
a scientist, and I should love to know what this frequent piece of wisdom really means ! Science is useful, necessary in some aspects of land working, but farming is a thing of sheer experience, personal aptitude—and the weather ! None of my fanning neighbours, little or big, would deny it.
You say "-the farmer must not work in water-tight com- partments and must get rid of his prejudices and co-operate with his neighbour." Now, in practice and away from mere words. what does this really mean Y Farming is a self- contained industry, except that some co-operation in " that blessed word marketing " is sometimes possible. The fact is that farming does not pay on account of low prices, and no amount of " science " or co-operation will prevail against this. Say my small farmer neighbours, " How can you make wheat pay with German wheat being dumped on us ? " and " You fats a pig ; you takes him to market ; and what does you get for it ? "
What is " scientifically " required is a paying market ; a local market wherever possible, but that will not be forth- coming until we will recreate the life of the countryside, village, parish and country town, increasing their population and wealth and demand for agricultural products locally by establishing real local industries, on the widest possible range (not mere little pettifogging " Rural Industries "), from textiles onwards, in fact the creation of " economic neighbour- hoods," as far as possible self-supplying in staple commodities. That will be the true co-operation, when it comes, and not for farming alone. There are, of course, local markets, but they do not embody any really scientific co-operative methods. Far less so than in the despised Middle Ages, when the country towns were self-supplying with almost everything necessary, of the primary things of life. Our local industries decayed with the " Industrial Age," but they must be re-established, in modern form, before there will be any real prosperity in the countryside. It could be done.—I am, Sir, &c., [The writer of this letter is indignant with the Spectator because of some remarks we made on farming in our " Better World " issue last week. We have as little sympathy with arm-chair critics as anyone. Our remarks were based on a study—that is, as far as a layman who has mixed with farmers from his earliest childhood can say he has studied—of farming in most parts of the world. We see no reason to withdraw anything we wrote, " M a nation we must work harder." That is not to say that there are not many hard-working farmers, but we remain of the opinion that the farming com- munities in, say, Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Holland work harder than the corresponding farmers in this country, use more brains and show a greater readiness to co-operate. We entirely share our correspondent's views on the need for better local markets.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
