Page images
PDF
EPUB

It will be agreed that these proposals were comprehensive, and that it was not possible to deal with all of them at once or in the same measure. In constructing their post-war agricultural policy the Government selected some and rejected others, notwithstanding the insistence of the Committee that all or none must be adopted. The situation has changed since 1917; and it is quite possible that if the same Committee, or one of equal authority, were to review the position of British agriculture in the light of present knowledge, they would modify some of their proposals. Nevertheless, the very able Report in which their recommendations are advanced and explained remains on record, and may very usefully be referred to for its lucid its lucid and forcible enunciation of principles which are applicable.

permanently

A defect in the Report was that it gave somewhat insufficient attention to the improvement of the conditions of life of the rural worker, but at least it made certain suggestions for his benefit. In particular the scheme of village reconstruction suggested by Lord Milner, Lord Ernle, and Sir Trustram Eve, which the Committee approved, would, if adopted, have gone far to ameliorate the lives of many agricultural labourers. The Committee, however, while emphasising the need for 'the increased prosperity and happiness of the rural population' and 'a better developed social life in our villages,' took a limited view in their recommendations, confining them to rural industries and to women. Their recommendation of a legal minimum wage was a direct advantage to the worker on the economic side; but the Report failed to suggest effective means of adding to the amenities of his life, or of stimulating his mental and intellectual activities.

This may doubtless be accounted for by the fact that in the middle of the war it required a considerable amount of imagination to realise the influence which the young men would exert when they returned to the villages. It was thought by many that they would not return to the land, that they would be unsettled' and restless and would not again face, after their terrible experiences, the dullness of village life. For the most part they have returned, and appear in many cases to Vol. 237.-No. 471.

Y

have settled down to the old life. But to assume that the war has made no difference in them is to take a very superficial view. Were the Selborne Committee to meet now, they could not fail to take this into account, and to view more broadly the problem as affecting the men of the village. When they reported, agricultural labour was not organised, and they make no mention of labour unions. By any one reviewing the agricultural position to-day, this factor cannot be ignored; and, in any serious consideration of future policy, the increased class-consciousness and assertiveness of the rural wageearner must be reckoned with.

If, however, the Selborne Committee five years ago did not fully visualise the sociological factors of village life after the war, the Government in framing their policy had a better opportunity of realising the new conditions. They have, however, not attempted to do as much for the agricultural worker as the Selborne Committee suggested, and have been content with first adopting and then repudiating the principle of a minimum wage. They inserted in the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Act a provision imposing upon County Councils the obligation to make inquiries, which has been so far ineffectual in its results.

That British agriculture can and should be left to work out its own salvation, unimpeded and unassisted by the State, is a sentiment which nowadays meets with approval in many quarters. But, as has already been indicated, agriculturists are by no means content to be left alone. It is quite true that the success of British agriculture will in the future, as in the past, depend upon the intelligence and energy of those engaged in it, and the extent to which they avail themselves of modern knowledge. But, however self-reliant they may be, they must be greatly affected by the action of Parliament and the Government from time to time. The nature of that action obviously will be decided by the complexion of the Government which the people put in power. It may be assumed that all candidates for rural constituencies will find it necessary to state in general terms the agricultural policy which they will support. The only definite policy yet put forward on behalf of any

party is that of the Labour Party already referred to. In that policy the Nationalisation of the Land is the dominating issue; and, if the Labour Party come into power, their agricultural policy would be built on that foundation.

What the result of the next General Election will be it would be rash to predict, but for the purpose of the present argument it may be assumed that a Labour Government will not be returned, that Land Nationalisation will consequently be deferred, and that the agricultural policy of the immediate future will retain, in its general principles, the present system of landlord, tenant, and labourer. Schemes for facilitating the acquisition by tenants of their farms, or by labourers of small holdings, may alter the numbers of the respective classes, but do not seriously affect the predominance of the system.

It will be generally agreed that, if present conditions were perpetuated, no legislation would be necessary to eliminate landlords. They would be squeezed out of existence by mere economic force. The function of the landlord in the agricultural hierarchy is to provide the land, to bring it into a state in which it is available for economic use, and to equip it with such apparatus (buildings, fences, roads, etc.) as is necessary for its utilisation as a farm. He is, however-at any rate by the old conception of his position in the scheme of things-more than the provider of land and capital. He is, or should be, responsible for ensuring that the land he owns is properly used. It is quite true, as is commonly urged by Land Nationalisers, that there is strictly no absolute ownership in land, and that the ancient form of tenure under the Crown which still survives in legal pedantry veils the truth that the ownership of land is a trust, and that it implies responsibility to the State for the due discharge of the trusteeship. That this is so has been recognised by generations of landowners who, according to their lights, have acknowledged and endeavoured to live up to the maxim that landed property involves duties as well as rights.

But the old order changes with the times. The ownership of land has in many cases fallen into the

hands of those who are ignorant or unmindful of the old traditions, and regard land as a private possession involving perhaps a little more trouble, but no more responsibility, than the ownership of a motor-car or a yacht. Where the old acres have not passed to new men, the surviving landlords have been, by the recent course of events, rendered almost helpless. On the one hand the crushing burden of taxation has rendered it impossible to maintain the proper equipment of the land, while on the other hand their control over the use of their land has been substantially lessened.

The illogical position in which landlords are now placed in itself suggests a possible solution of the problem on lines which will justify the maintenance of the existing system and remedy some of its admitted defects. The amount of agricultural land in this country is strictly limited, and in the nature of things must decrease rather than increase as the population grows. It is of supreme importance to the nation that it should be put to its best economic use. In the words of Lord Selborne's Committee, the waste of good land on game or games is inconsistent with patriotism.' In short, the monopolisation by individuals, for their selfish use, of tracts of land which are capable of being applied to productive purposes will be regarded as inimical to the public interest. The landlord will be expected to act up to his trusteeship, or to make way for others who will fulfil their fiduciary obligations.

[ocr errors]

If the ownership of agricultural land implies public responsibility, its occupation equally involves obligations; and here again Lord Selborne's Committee indicated the lines upon which the proper utilisation of the land may be secured. Earlier in this article I have endeavoured to vindicate British agriculture, as a whole, from aspersions which appear to me to be undeserved. But it is nevertheless indubitable that far too much agricultural land is badly farmed, or under-farmed, and that the total production is thereby reduced far below what it might, and should, be. This country has no monopoly of bad farming; there is plenty to be found in every country. But this, as has already been remarked, is a small country with a very limited area of agricultural land. There is no room for bad farming here, as there may be

in the wide spaces of other countries. Every acre is valuable, and should be so treated as to yield the maximum production of which it is capable under existing economic conditions. It is not only that some of what may be termed the farming class-i.e. those who are born and bred on the land and come of an agricultural stock-are deficient both in energy and knowledge, and are unchangeable and unteachable. This hindrance to progress time will gradually remove, though the process is slow and the nation may be compelled to accelerate it.

There is another factor which is peculiar to an old settled country, and is probably more influential here than elsewhere. A large proportion of agricultural land is occupied by persons who do not depend upon it for a livelihood. They take a farm either as a means of recreation-a refuge from the serious business of their lives—or as subsidiary to another occupation on which they depend for their income. In many instances such 'amateur' farmers are keen and efficient. If they are successful men of business, they bring brains and commercial training into the management of their farms, often with marked success. But farming is a serious business, and, unless the occupier of a farm takes it seriously and endeavours to make the most of it, he is a hindrance to production and progress.

It need hardly be said that the adoption of measures to remove bad farmers involves, as a corollary, the adoption of measures to enable farmers who are doing their duty by the land entrusted to them to feel secure in their position. The system of yearly tenancies which now so generally prevails in England and Wales has always appeared to me theoretically indefensible. To take a farm-at any rate a mixed farm-for a year is on the face of it not a sound business proposition. No man of business would, if he could help it, open a factory or shop on such terms; how much less business-like is it to embark on a business like farming, in which a four or five years' rotation is necessary for a full turnover? But, as matters have developed, yearly tenancies have now been established under conditions which give the tenant almost as much security as a lease, without its liabilities.

« PreviousContinue »