THE AGRIC U LT - URAL CO-OPERA'Tlvli AWAKENING IN ENGLAND F ROM time
to time during the last twenty years I have been asked to leave my work in Ireland and talk to meetings of English farmers upon agricultural en-operation. The interest was languid, and very rarely did any practical result ensue. Early this year I was present at meetings of farmers in Birmingham, Truro, Bedford and Carmarthen. They were all, judged by the accepted teats, successes. Not only was the question of agricultural co-operation earnestly discussed, but I came away in each case with the conviction that those present meant businosa. The experience revealed to me a move- ment of public opinion the significance of which is unmistakable. There is going to be a revolution in British agriculture such as has long been in process in Ireland, where the beet proof of its vitality is that it has survived the bitterest political opposition. There is happily no English question of such paramount importance as to render the ceasidaration of a more prosperous agriculture unpatriotic.. Therefore the English movement may develops rapidly, especially if public opinion realises what it means for the country and the people,—why and how it should be promoted. On these issues I propose to offer a few observations.
All Over the world we find the phenomenon of the rural exodus. It started in England, where, more than in any other country, it was accompanied by a concentration of all the best thought upon the problems of manufacture and commerce, to the neglect of the problems of agricul- ture. Throughout the national life the town thus became the centre of interest, as it has always been the chief source of progress. Legislation and administration favour the town worker. The press, the pulpit and the library exercise most of their influence upon the urban half of the population. In the urbanised national consciousness the factory was the real basis of England's commercial supremacy. The towns, which formerly depended for their food on the surrounding fields, now buy it with their manufactured commodities from the inhabited globe. The town workers, who have good reason to claim that it is through their industry that Britannia rules the waves, have come to feel that they are as much beholden to the farmers of the Southern and Western Hemispheres as to the sleepy folk who remain upon the land at home. When all this is said some questions may be asked. Why did the countryman, when neglected by the pre- dominant townsman, do nothing to help himself ? When those engaged in every other occupation recognised that it was necessary to combine together to advance their particular interest and to protect it against the encroachments of other interests why did the British farmers make them- selves the sole exception to this universal law of modern business and refuse to listen to those who called upon them to combine ? Why did they ignore the patent fact that their Continental rivals in the British markets ha4 adopted certain methods of combination which were obviously the secret of their success ? Why was it that the Irish farmers bad begun to reorganise their industry upon co-operative lines for ten years before it dawned upon the English farmers that what was sauce for the Irish goose was sauce for the English gander ? It is hard to answer these questions convincingly and yet inoffensively. I respect the character of the English farmer and hesitate to attribute his failure to move with the times either to stupidity or to lack of enterprise. I would say rather that he suffered from the defects of his qualities. In days when individuals counted more than organisations, it was the yeoman class that laid the foundations of Britain's world-wide commerce. The manly independence, the splendid isolation, which the British farmer still proudly boasts, had up to a certain point in national evolution served him well and profited his country. Then it must be remembered that the farmer's calling lends itself to individualism. Men who live apart, who have to exercise an independent judgment and who work long hours out of doors have little inclination to go much beyond their family circle in hours of relaxation. Nor is it altogether obvious why habits centuries old must be radically changed. The altered. conditions of the modern market, demanding that food shall be consigned to the great centres of consumption regularly and in bulk of uniform quality, necessitated organisation on the part of the producer. Before producers can combine for the market and in the market they must learn to combine at home, otherwise the profits of agriculture will be absorbed by middlemen.
Even when this is admitted—and I do not think the general position I have stated is in dispute—the starting of agricultural co-operation in England is no easy matter. On the Continent this necessary reform grew out of foreign competition, a factor I often hear agriculturists talk about as if it were a visitation of Providence upon the British farmer alone. Rapid and cheap transportation, combined with methods for preserving produce in fresh condition over the longest routes, enabled the farmers of newly settled tracts of virgin land in the uttermost parts of the earth to compete upon more than even terms with European farmers in supplying the growing cities of the industrial age. In most Continental countries the farmers thus threatened not only weathered the storm, but found themselves, when they had reorganised their business, more prosperous than they were before. The secret was a public education so well related to the lives of the people that it had developed in them economic efficiency and made them adaptable to economic change. Thus they were able to elaborate a system of combination to replace the isolated methods of production, distribution and finance which were adequate to the requirements of the first half of the nineteenth century.
This task demanded a highly developed intelligence in the agricultural community Before an agricultural co-operative society can succeed, its members must realise that its constitution, rules and procedure have been so carefully devised as to harmonise the interests of all concerned. To this end we in Ireland found it necessary to establish a propagandist body, known as the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society (more familiarly the I.A.O.S.) This body has, during the last decade and a half, produced a profound effect upon the economic thought and business methods of our farmers. And yet the function of this society consists simply of inducing groups of farmers to do what they would have done spontaneously, without any advice or instruction, if they had had the right kind of education.
In England the Agricultural Organisation Society (with its headquarters at Dacre House, Deere Street, West- minster) was formed seven years later in 1901. The constitution of the A.O.S. was modelled on that of the I.A.O.S., which it regards as its parent. Its secretary, Mr. J. Nugent Harris, is an Irishman who has made a study of the work of the I.A.O.S. Scotland has since joined in, and has her S.A.O.S. The Scottish movement is still in the slow initial stage. Until about eighteen months ago the operations of the A.O.S. were almost restricted to the simplest form of co-operation,—the purchase of fertilisers, feeding-stuffs, seeds, implements and other agricultural requirements. It had not the advantage of being able to apply the co-operative principle to the establishment of creameries as was done in Ireland, owing to the fact that the sale of fresh whole milk is more profitable than the manufacture of butter anywhere within reach of large cities. It has, however, had a great deal of success in organising distribution of fresh milk. Since the awakening of public opinion to the urgent necessity of combination in the farmer's business the A.O.S. has been called upon to organise co-operative societies to deal with every branch of farming.
The passing of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act in 1907 was probably the chief cause of this awakening. The Act gave local authorities power to let land to associa- tions for the purpose of promoting the creation of small holdings and allotments. At the same time, County Councils and the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries were both given powers to promote agricultural co-opera- tion. Quite recently the Board has made a grant to the A.O.S. to aid it in its work in connexion with small holdings. No less than a hundred and six small holdings societies have been formed under the auspices of the A.O.S. This is an extremely important fact. The big farmer may paddle his own canoe—if such an inappro- priate metaphor may be pardoned. The small farmer, without combination, is in these days an economic absurdity, unless, of course, he is either a market gardener or only partly depends upon farming for his livelihood. Nevertheless, I am not at all sure that a community of small holders, thoroughly organised for agricultural production, distribution and finance, does not offer the best chance of making the utmost out of the resources of the soil. If this judgment be sound, two consequences of public importance follow. The small holdings policy depends for its success upon the adoption of agricultural co-operation. The British taxpayer will depend for the security of his investment of some £200,000,000 in Irish land upon the progress of that system in John Bull's other island Apart from the difficulties indicated above, the agri- cultural co-operative movement is handicapped by the fact that the social life of the country has badly broken down.
This must be brightened and made more attractive before a prosperous rural community can be established. The agricultural co-operative society is the best possible agency for this purpose. When men learn to come together for mutual advantage in the business of their lives, and do so under the conditions laid down by the organisers of agricultural co-operation, it is always found that they go further and apply their business organisation to the higher object of social and intellectual advancement. I may add that organisation for business purposes is the secret of effective influence both upon legislation and administration. I hear farmers talk of electing agricultural members to represent their interests in Parlia- ment, where, I admit, they are little understood. Even if they could get them elected, which I do not believe, their representatives would have no real influence in the legisla- ture unless they spoke for an organised interest. This lesson I learned during eight years in Parliament.
Such, briefly, are my reasons for believing in, and to the best of my power assisting, the agricultural co-opera- tive movement in Ireland. I further keep in touch with those who are engaged in the same work in England, Scotland and Wales because I realise that in many matters the home suppliers of agricultural produce in the British markets must make common cause in order to compete on even terms with their foreign rivals. This co-operation between the three movements must continue as long as we have a common legislature, a common fiscal system and a common market. But here I am only con- cerned with the agricultural co-operative awakening in England. I advise any who read what I have written, even if they be townsmen, as most of them probably will be, to keep an eye on the movement and give their support to the A.O.S. I hope, too, that society will be remembered when Mr. Lloyd George's Development Fund is created, and when " the teaching of agricultural co-operation " is (as promised in his Budget speech) included in the purposes for which the fund is to be available.
HORACE PLUNKETT.
Previous page
