THE • AGRICULTURAL- CONFERENCE
THE Minister for Agriculture is tb be congratulated' on the stand he has made against the importunity of the National Farmers' Union in the person of Mr. Ryland. The Union will now no doubt return to its legitimate occupation of attending to the interests of its members as agriculturists. Certainly, neither the National Union nor its Scottish equivalent is any happier or more successful than other Unions in its incursions into politics. The headquarters - of the English Union are apparently the last stronghold of the old-fashioned. Protectionist and seem to live in the days of Lord George Bentinck. The Scottish Union rushes to the opposite extreme and pins its faith to a policy of statutory security of tenure for farmers, oblivious of the fact that security of tenure is merely another name for dual-ownership, and that dual-ownership of all known forms of land tenure is the most incompatible with a prosperous or a progressive agriculture. It seems indeed to be the in- evitable fate of all British Trade Unions that when they- touch politics they go mad. But the officials of the Farmers' Unions on both sides of the Border will find that they have a very -different type of member -from that which is found in the Trade Unions proper ; and the protests which are being heard both in-public and private against Mr. Ryland's action already show that the farmers of England have no desire to identify themselves with a policy of bounce and braggadocio.
But the National Farmers' Union have this excuse. They were only " trying on " the game they played throughout the Parliament of 1922-23. Then they exercised a quite unjustifiable influence over the views of the Government in agricultural affairs. The denoue- ment was disastrous. At the eleventh hour—or at the thirteenth, perhaps, for the dissolution was already announced—the Government accepted from the Union the policy of " the £1 an acre " arrived at by the method of epistolary question and answer and swallowed, too, apparently without adequate discussion and without any attempt to ascertain the directions in which a subsidy could most effectively and economically be applied. Undeterred by the result, the Union leaders were deter- mined that the new Government should be equally acquiescent to its control. But 1924 is not 1923, and Mr. Wood brings to his office firmness of character, a notable width of view, an admirable sagacity. He and the Government have shown that they enter upon their tasks in an independent and impartial spirit, and that they are not likely to be dominated by any special interest. Only thus can national affairs be conducted with success. A Government, for good or ill, must be master in its own house.
Now the representatives of the various agricultural organizations who will meet in conference will come to discuss and advise, not to threaten and command. It would be tempting to turn to the great problem that the Conference will consider—how another million acres can in this country be brought under the plough. All that can be said here is that one of the best indications of the enlightened views with which the Minister framed his invitation is his specific reference to the possibilities, of " arable stock-farming." A high authority on agricul- tural methods both here and on the Continent recently remarked to the present writer that " the great tragedy of farming in England is that we grow such good grass." Certainly, if that seems to be a startling paradox, it is a commonplace that the amazing prosperity of the Danish farmer has been built up, so far as his purely farming methods are concerned, by the greatly increased stock he is able to maintain for each acre of land as a result of substituting for pasture a close and intensive tillage. But Mr. Wood's reference to arable stock-farming is mentioned here not with any desire that the Conference should be dominated by any one view. That would be fatal. It is essential that nothing should prevent an absolutely comprehensive and unprejudiced view of every practicable means of increasing our arable acreage. There seems to be, perhaps, the suspicion of a danger that one avenue of inquiry may be neglected. Experi- ence on the Continent, notably in Denmark and Germany, has shown that the division of land into small farms and holdings increased the proportion of arable land and the productivity of the soil. What has been the experience in Britain ? The time is ripe for a full colla- tion and analysis of the results, from this point of view, of the land settlement which has now for some years been proceeding in England under the County Councils, in Scotland under the Board of Agriculture, . and in Ireland, on lines not altogether dissimilar, under the Congested Districts Board. Small .farms and small- holdings have their enthusiastic supporters and their determined opponents. Both have a tendency to discuss the topic in vacuo. But the time for theorizing should be past. It is to be hoped that the Conference will not be closed before the public authorities who have the information at their disposal have been given an oppor- tunity of making it known to the country.
In Scotland, the present writer believes, the result of 'land settlement has been to increase the proportion of arable in the land so settled. The most striking example was the conversion of a Perthshire grazing farm of 550 acres into eleven farms of approximately 50 acres each. There the conversion of grass into arable has been com- plete, and there, too, a. population of at most five persons has been succeeded by eleven households, and, moreover, by some seven permanent hired workers. It is true that this particular scheme was brought into operation before the War and that the holders reaped the benefits of the War years ; but it is significant that ten of them have bought their holdings and that all are prospering. This is but one example, however ; what is needed, -and 'what the Conference can do, is frankly, plainly, and with- out " fear or favour " to let the country know whether in the increase of the occupancy, or better still of the ownership, of small farms or holdings the amount of arable land in Britain can be substantially increased.
Mr. Lloyd George in the House of Commons recently asked whether smallholders were to be present at the 'Conference. He succeeded in quite missing the point. The evidence of one or two holders could not supply any comprehensive information as to the results, in this respect, of land settlement as a whole. They could only ,give their personal experiences. The private soldier in the fighting line is the last man to be able to judge how the battle, as a whole, is going. Full information can only be given by the authorities responsible for the conduct of land settlement. It would be a thousand pities if a Unionist Minister of Agriculture missed this opportunity . of bringing strongly into the public view the most critical -and -vital aspect of a policy of which the Unionist Party have been constant exponents, and to which Mr. Baldwin. . pledged himself anew at the General Election.
NOEL SKELTON.
Previous page
