SIR,—May I congratulate The Spectator on the clear statement of
the ills of farming contained in Dr. Orwin's articles in recent issues? The British farmer has not been beaten by want of skill. The soil and climate are far from unfavourable. The landlord in many cases has been the victim of circumstances. The British farmer has been defeated by science. Science, as Dr. Orwin has shown, has outmoded the agricultural structure.
In some parts of the country, as Dr. Orwin would agree', there are farmers with sufficient capital, and large and suitable areas of land. who can make science a partner, and compete with most world prices But over most of the country farmers are in the position of the hand-loom weavers and village cobblers at the beginning of the industrial revolution, and can truthfully contend that they cannot lire without protection and subsidies. They are not to blame. Only in rare cases can they escape from the uneconomic structure in which they have to farm.
The Government have promised to protect agriculture for two years after the war—after that the deluge, for, unless the many millions in subsidies now received are greatly increased, farmers will be ruined and the countryside will become derelict.
The question will then arise, is agriculture to be artificially main- tained under an out-of-date system at great public expense, or is it to be reconstructed and replanned, as the landlords replanned it al areas so far apart as the Orkney Islands and Norfolk a hundred and fifty years ago? Dr. Orwin in his articles, and Viscount Astor and Mr. Seebohm Rowntree in British Agriculture provide the answer.–
Previous page
