THE CRISIS IN BRITISH AGRICULTURE.
IF you had asked the opinion of any observant Englishman two years ago about the future of British farming, he would probably have told you that the war had taught us our lesson, that the necessity of growing cereals was proved. and that the country would never relapse into its old methods. If you asked the same man his opinion to-day, he would tell you that the Govern- ment seem to have lost interest in their own policy, that agriculture is all at sixes and sevens, and that the farmer does not know what to do. This is unfortunately all too true. The Policy of the Plough seemed to have triumphed ; but it has again receded into the background, and nine farmers out of ten are once more saying that they place their hopes upon stock more than upon anything else. Of course in the breeding of pedigree stock England has shown the way to the world, and there is no reason why we should abandon our pride of place in this respect. Nor is the breeding of stock irreconcilable with the Policy. of the Plough. Enlightened farmers have shown over and over again that they can support a much larger head of stock upon the products of arable land than upon pasture. In our opinion, it is essential that the nation should not go back upon the policy of growing wheat. If we cannot support ourselves on our own corn—to use that word in its widest signification, which includes ce -tido root crops—it is at all events our duty to come as near as possible to the self-supporting level. This argument is not based only on the need for security against our enemies ; it is based on the need, which ought to be appreciated by a highly civilized people, of preserving the balance between the urban and the rural populations.
If the Government do not stop wobbling, and do not give the farmer such guarantees as will make him think it is worth his while to go on ploughing his land, we fear that our fields will once more be brought down to grass, and the desire of most ambitious boys and girls in the villages will be to fly to the better wages and the greater amenities of the towns. It is useless to blame the Corn Production Act. That Act was a good and necessary war measure, and fulfilled its purpose. But it was more than that—it was en agricultural creed. The trouble is that the Government have not overhauled the Act in the light of later events, or promised any continuance of its principles. The Corn Production Act guarantees 55s. a quarter for wheat this year and 45s. a quarter for next year, and the Act comes to an end in 1922. What the Government have now done in addition is to guarantee 75s. 6d. a quarter for this year's wheat—an increase of 203. ad. upon the terms of the Corn Production Act. What
is to happen next year nobody knows, nor can anybody guess what will happen in 1922.
One might dispute to infinity whether a minimum price for wheat requires minimum wages, or whether minimum wages involve a minimum price. The fact is that the minimum wage has come to stay in all industries ; but the farmer will tell you that he has little hope of being able to pay it and remain a regular corn-grower unless he can see his way for many years ahead in the matter of prices. The standard rate of wages is now 36s. 6d. a week, as compared with the 25s. a week provided for in the Corn Production Act. Some farmers with capital and others with a good stock of optimism may continue in the best kind of farming, which is arable farming. hoping that they will pull through. But the majority are more likely to be terrified by the risks of bankruptcy, and to bring their land down to grass, for then a bad season will not so greatly injure them. and their wages-bill will be small, for they will employ few hands. Farmers have never forgotten the bitter experience of some forty years ago, when a succession of bad harvests ruined many farmers. During the forty years before the war three and a half million acres passed from arable to grass. It has been estimated that this meant the loss to the countryside of a quarter of a million men. The farmer who has no sure prospect of security is inclined to day to try to upset, or to evade paying, the fixed minimum wage. But in this he is wrong. Wages on the land even now fall appreciably short of the wages paid in the towns, and if the marked disparity continues the flow of labour from the country to the towns will of course go on. An actual equality of wages there need not be, for he who lives in the country has many advantages, such as cheaper housing and a little land upon which he can grow a considerable part of his food. The farmer should rather concentrate his energy upon extracting from the Government a statement of what will be done for the farmer himself. A Royal Commission is about to inquire into British agriculture, and we trust that it will report as soon as possible. Though the Commission will have to answer most difficult questions, in some respects its labours will be comparatively easy, for the agricultural labourer is much more inclined than his town brother to trust to constitutional methods, and to reason the matter out to the end with his employer, with the Farmers' Union, or with the Wages Boards. Again, the agricultural labourer has no such hard-and-fast rules about the proper working hours of a week as are indulged in in the towns. He has been brought up to understand very well that his labour is necessarily controlled not only by the fickleness of our climate but by natural seasonal law. His hours may be short in wet wintry weather, but they are bound to be long when he is getting in the harvest, and very likely doing so in fine intervals between bad weather.
So far as we know, the Board of Agriculture at present proposes to help agriculture by giving the farmers access to all the resources of science and a greater command of expert advice ; by establishing more Agricultural Colleges and demonstration farms ; by reclaiming derelict areas ; by experimenting with new crops ; by creating a better system of market intelligence and organization ; and by inaugurating motor services and what are called trench railways. All these things are good ; but what the farmer wants to know first and foremost is the set-off he is to have to the minimum wage. He does not want to shirk his duty, but after all he is a free agent, and wants to do the best thing for himself and his family like all other men. Why should he take speculative risks that other men of business would not dream of taking ? That is what he asks himself, and unless he receives some form of assurance he will go back to grass farming. This is made all the more certain by the fact that the land has been greatly impover- ished by the war. In many places the usual rotations have been upset, and while much has been taken out of the land very little has been put into it. The cost to the farmer of fertilizing the land for more arable farming would be very great. What pledge should be given to the farmer, or what policy should be framed as the fixed object of the nation in order to increase the amount of food produced in Great Britain and to preserve the correct balance between urban and rural life, is a matter for the Royal Commission to report upon. We sincerely hope that strong and wise advice will come quickly, for the need is urgent.
Previous page
