ill Reform. FOR SPEAKERS, WRITERS, AGFNTS, ETC. J. L.. GREEN, F.S. THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM; — <- AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. BY J. L. (GREEN, F.S.S., Editor of " The Rural World," Author of '■ The Bural Industries of England," '^Allotments mid Small Holdings," '• The Old Yeomen," '■' English Country Cottages : Their Condition Cost, and acquirements," (Sc. LONDON : THE RUBAL WORLD PUBLISHING CO., Lti., 110-111, STRAND, W.C. [All Rights Reserved.'] 1904. • i j.._.^. II »>»i LOVE AND MALCOMSON, LIMITED, PRINTERS, LONDOX AND REDHILL. c t c t c . e c c e c WD \s>xr \90A 6,^2 J^ PREFACE. Hj It is submitted that, iu tlie foUoAviug pages, material will be found sbowiuff that our free- % imports sj^stem — erroneously called Free Trade — =^has proved injurious rather than beneficial to agriculture. It would appear that there are those who hold the opinion that so long as the urban trades and manufactures flourish all is well. That is the 5 conclusion deducible from the arguments of " free ^ importers." Pounds, shillings^ and pence are the "~" test of the nation's soundness with them. The ^ time, however, appears to have arrived when even the urban traders and manufacturers feel seri- ously the pinch of a fiscal policy which agricul- turists of all shades of political opinion have felt, and condemned, for many a long j-ear. It seems reasonable, therefore, to conclude, that fewith the rural and the urban elements — with the ^agricultural and the manufacturing elements — "joining forces, something may be done to alter vi PREFACE. a state of things whicli, it is submitted, ought not to have been allowed to exist for so long. The agricultural predictions of Mr. Cobden in 1843-1846 have everywhere been falsified by the results. Mainly on the strength of these, agri- culturists were led to adopt the fiscal policy he urged upon them — a policy which is proving in- creasingly injurious to the agricultural and other industries of the kingdom. The Imperial asjDect of Mr. Chamberlain's pro- posals has not been touched upon in the following pages ; though looked at from this standpoint — which, in fact, embraces every other— there are those (the writer included) who are inexpressibly surprised that such proposals have not everyvfhere been accepted with alacrity— ^indeed, " jumped at," instead of its being necessary to " argue " their value and importance. CONTENTS. CHAP. PAGE I. An ENQUiRy— 1 9 II. An Enquiry— II 23 III. COBDENISM— I. „ 47 IV COBDENISM— II 60 V. T.vPviFF Reform and its Effects ... 76 VI. Objections Answered 93 VII. Rates and Taxes 118 VIII. Denmark -. and British Dairy Farming 130 IX. Conclusion 140 APPENDICES. I. The Colonies 151 II. The Recent Corn Duties and theiu Results... 154 III, Mr. Chamberlain and the Rural Popu- l^vtion 158 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM.' CHAPTER I. AN ENQUIRY. Depeessiox, Prices, Competitiox, Laboue. We tliiuk it \vill not be doiibled by auyone who bas traTelled much in rural England, or who has otherwise taken the trouble to make careful enquiiy into the condition of the agri- cultural industry, that not only is such industry seriously depressed, and has been for many years, but that the chief cause of the depression is the lowness of prices received for the various productions of the cultivator. Eor our own part we can say that we have, during the last twenty years or more, been in every county in England on more than one occasion, and in the majority of them on several occasions ; that we have come across all classes of cultivators ; and that we have never yet met with one who has not maintained that the depression in agriculture is mainl}^ due to the cause we have indicated. A visit to the " market ordinary " or to those farmers who 10 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. either there or in the market put in an appear- ance, will, if conversation be indulged in, soon make it plain that although there are many things which may be done either by the State or by private initiative to help farmers to, in colloquial language, keep their heads above water, yet none of these will, unless some scheme such as that which Mr. Chamberlain has pro- pounded be also adopted, make for any substan- tial or permanent improvement in the position of the British farmer. And here let us say that although, in our opinion, the British agriculturist may quite legitimately claim at the hands of the State exceptional and favourable treatment in the conduct of his business, we urge the adoption of Mr. Chamberlain's proposals, not merely becau3e they will benefit agriculture, but because, and as a consequence, they will greatly benefit the nation at large. We have always claimed, and we still claim, that whatever benefits agriculture or tends to make it more pros- perous must be of special advantage to the nation from the point of view of public health, social order, and, what ws regard as of minor import- ance, of public or private finance. Such a claim cannot be substantiated on behalf of a town manufacturing industry, for, although such industry may prove more financially prosperous, for the time being, at any rate, to those engaged in it — and even to the nation — it lucks to no small extent — as experience all over the world AN ENQUIRY. 11 more and more shows — the other elements of public health and social order to which we have referred — elements absolutely necessary to the continuance in sound condition of any State. The lowness of prices to which we have alluded has not been temporary; and the fact makes the claim for tariff reform the more important. The last Royal Commission on Agri- culture, moreover, declared there was a consensus of opinion amongst the witnesses before it that the depression in prices was " pro- gressive " ; indeed, so unanimous was the testimony from nearly all parts of the country, that the Commission considered it unnecessary in its report to go at length into the statements of the individual witnesses. We may, however, add that the views expressed by these themselves were emphasised by the evidence gathered by the various assistant Commissioners who travelled the country and who made independent enquiries on behalf of the Commission. But loJiat has been the actual depression in the prices of agricultural produce? Sir Robert Giffen states that between 1874 and 1891 the fall in the annual value amounted on the average to 77 millions sterling, or 25 per cent., and it is, of course, common knowledge that there has since that period been a still further serious decline. Grain. The average price of wheat, for example, was higher in 1891 than in the previous 12 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. seven years, or iu any year since. Mr. Turnbull, a careful statistician, also estimates that the reduction in the gross annual revenue from agriculture comparing the years 1874-75 with the years 1892-93, was some 82 millions sterling, or 33 3-5 per cent. After careful enquiries, practical cultivators declared before the Commis- sion that the average value in the price of all kinds of farm products had declined 30 to 40 per cent, at least. No doubt, the depression has been largely due to the low price of grain; and it is no wonder that such an excellent authority as the late Sir J. B. Lawes was of opinion that unless prices in some direction became better arable land would still further go down to grass. Since he made that declaration arable land, as a matter of fact, has gone down still further to grass. But what have been the prices for grain? "Without giving a lengthy table, we may state that whereas the triennal average price of wheat from 18 7G to 1878 was 49s. 9d. per quarter, it came down to 31s. 9d. per quarter in 188G to 1888, whilst in 1903 the average price of that cereal was only 26s. 9d. per quarter. As regards barley, the prices on the same three occasions were respec- tively 38s. 4d., 26s. 7d., and 22s. 8d. per quarter. In regard to oats the prices were 25s. 6d., ITs. 4d., and 17s. 2d. It is very important in this connection to bear in mind that whilst in 1903 the average value of the home-groAvn wheat was, as already stated, AN ENQUIRY. " 13 oiih' 26s. 9d. a qviarter, the average value of tlie imported article was officially declared to be as follows iu the same year, viz., 28s. 6d. a quarter in the case of wheat coming to us from Argen- tina ; 30s. from Chili; Roumania, 28s. lOd.; Russia, 29s. ; United States, 30s. Id. ; and Germany, 29s. 2d. It would appear, therefore, that our farmers were forced to sell their wheat at a much lower price in our markets than was the foreigner; and it is certain, we think, that competition which has that result must benefit the foreigner rather than our own growers, who have so much more to bear in the wav of rates, taxes, and cost of production. Meat. The fall in the prices of grain has also been accompanied by a fall in the price of meat, The evidence before the Commission of numerous witnesses was to the effect that in the case of beef the fall was from 30 to 40 per cent., whilst, if we examine the statistics which are available to anybody who chooses to seek them, we shall see that such examination bears out the state- ment in question. For instance, the triennial average price of first-class quality and inferior quality cattle per stone of 8 lb. was, in 1876 to 18T8, 63. and 4s. 5d., respectively. In 1886 to 1888 it was 4s. 9d. to 2s. lOd., whilst in the latest figures at hand, viz., for 1903, relating to the Metropolitan Cattle Market, it is 4s. Td. and 14 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. 2s. lOd., respectively. These prices show the diminution ranged up to 40 per cent, in price if we put the figures of 1876 to 18T8 as repre- senting 100 in each case. Store and Fat Cattle. Store cattle, like beef, have also declined, for Avhereas in 1882, for example, good store cattle realised £16 a head, they only realised <£13 a head ten years later, and the reduction, which has been even lower since, was by no means confined to one district of the country, but was quite general. Sheep, too, in spite of fluctuations, showed, both as regards fat and store stock, a steady depreciation up to the time of the report of the Royal Commission ; since Avhich period the evidence all goes to show that prices have not improved. Up to 1894, hoAvever, there had been a very marked decline, which varied from 21 to 33 per cent., according to the class of sheep sold. Turning to the official records of the Metropolitan Cattle Market, we find that first quality sheep, per stone of 8 lb., realised on the triennial average, 18T6 to 1878, 6s. lid., whilst in 1893 to 1895 this price had descended to 5s. 9d., and in 1903 it was 5s. lOd. ; second quality and inferior quality making in the first triennal period 6s. 6d. and 5s. 5d. respectively, and in the second triennial period 5s. Id. and 3s. 9d. respectively; whilst in 1903 the figures were 5s. Id. and 3s. 8d. In the case of pork, neither the agricultural AN ENQUIRY. 15 returns nor the ordinary official records give statistics as to the prices of the British produc- tion, but we find the Royal Commission stating that there is reason to believe that the prices of British pork have also decreased. In our opinion, they have decreased very considerably, judging from various enquiries we have made. Wool. Turning to wool, this used to be a very important item with the British farmer, but there is not a producer of it in the kingdom who would hesitate to declare that the price has gone down 30 to 50 per cent, during the last twenty to thirty years. The wool of black-faced ewes in the sixties and seventies used to realise in the North of England some lid. per lb. on the average, but since that period it has gone down to 6d. ; and this statement is also confirmed by Scotch producers. Welsh wool, vrhich thirty years ago realised Is. per lb., is now usually to be obtained around 6d. to 8d. per lb. In the "West of England — Devonshire — wool which realised Is. to Is. Id. per lb. twenty to thirty years ago, has fallen to from 6^d. to about 7d. per lb. Lincoln wool, some of the best in the kingdom, which thirty years ago realised from Is. 5d. to Is. 9d. per lb., according to quality, now realises about 9d. per lb. on the average. Southdown wool has also declined in value from 40 to 50 per cent, in the same period, 16 AGRICITLTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. Dairy Produce, Etc. If Ave are asked, " What about our home dairy produce?" we reply that here, too, prices have enormously fallen. Sir Eobert Giiieu, in his evidence before the Royal Commission on Agri- culture, showed that the changes between 1874 and 1891 in the prices of milk, butter, and cheese, as a whole, amounted to a fall of 33 per cent., whilst other witnesses before the Com- mission estimated the reduction at from 25 to 30 per cent. There has been a very considerable fall since that period. With regard to milk, in districts within easy access of a large toT\m, the reduction in price has been, according to the Commission, and as one would certainly expect, less marked than in the more remote country districts, where the article has to be sold in the manufactured form of butter and cheese in com- petition with similar products imported from abroad. Butter, unless of the highest quality, for which there is but a limited demand at the price of a high-quality article, has decreased from 15 to 20 per cent, in price, whilst as to cheese, this has fallen from 25 to 30 per cent. Moreover, it is the general opinion amongst those best qualified to know, that the price of potatoes has decreased quite 20 per cent, in the last thirty years or so, whilst everyone is aware that hops, a very precarious crop, do not realise anything like the figures of years ago. We agree with the Eoyal Commission referred to, which was composed of members of both AN ENQUIRY. 17 political parties, that one of tlie gravest features of the depression which has been so manifest in the course of the prices of ag-ricultural products has been its persistency. Foreign Competition. How far did foreign competition affect the fall in prices? In our opinion it has been, and still is, as already suggested, the main cause of such fall. Look at the importation of cereals, which has been as follows: — Years. Wheat and Wheat Flour. Bailey. Oats. 1875-77 ... 1885-89 ... 1893-95 ... 1903 Cwts. 58,314,000 79,856,000 99,257,000 108,731,820 Cwts. 11,261.000 17,619,000 25,902,000 26,548,078 Cwts. 12,186,000 16,408 000 14,821,000 16,281,910 We have, in the case of wheat and wheat flour, nearly doubled our imports in the period indi- cated, whilst the figures are still increasing. During the period 1875-77 to 1893-95, whilst the augmentation in the importation of the foreign wheat was accompanied by a diminution in the value of that article to the extent of 50 per cent., such fall was not equal to that which occv.rrcd B 18 AGRICULTURE A2nD TARIFF REFORM. in tlie price of the Britisli wheat during the same period, as the following figures show: — Years. 1 Average Price ! Average Piice of Britiah Wheat of Imported Wheat per qr. of 480 lb. 1 per (jr. of 480 lb. 1875-77 1893-95 49s. 4d. 243. Id. 47s. lid. 24a. 9d. At least 70 per cent, of the total supply of wheat in this country comes from abroad, and it is a significant fact that one of the character- istic features of Our wheat supply has been the progressive displacement of the home-grown article by the imported article, a process which the Royal Commission declared was concurrent with the fall in the price of wheat in our markets and with a persistent shrinkage of the area under that crop in the United Kingdom. Moreover, it is worth noting that whilst in England, according to all the best authorities, it costs from £7 to £8 to produce an acre of wheat, the cost in America, according to a report issued by our Foreign Office a few years ago, shows that it varies there from, at the lowest, £1 per quarter, up to, at the highest, £4 4s. It may be asked: — "How can a British farmer, saddled not merely with the cost of growing hia wheat, but with ever- increasing local and Imperial charges (to which, by the by, the foreigner using our markets is not subject), be said to AN ENQUIRY. 19 compete on fair terms with the American or other producer? And how long v/ill the public consider this a right state of things?" With regard to barley, it would appear that while there has been, until quite recent years, relatively little or no expansion in the supply of foreign barley, one important change which has been in progress has been the diversion of the import abroad towards those centres of pro- duction whence the cheaper varieties of barley are now obtained, a notable instance being the rise in the imports from Russia and the decline of those from the countries of Western Europe. In connection with this change, there has, no doubt, been a growing demand for low-priced foreign barley by stock-feeders, but it is difficult to account in this way for the apparent displace- ment of the dearer against the imported malting barleys, and the facts would appear to point to a material change having taken place in the nature of the materials used in the brewing industry.* Regarding oats, the imports have undoubtedly increased from, sq,j, thirty years ago, but the proportion of foreign oats relatively to the total supply available for consumption in the United Kingdom has not been so seriously felt as in the case of either barley or wheat. Concerning meat, it does not seem unreason- able to suppose that with the enormous importa- * Royal Commission on Agriculture. B 2 20 AORIOULTTTRE AND TARIFl'^ REFORJ*!. tions into this country the reduced prices which have prevailed must haA^e been in part brought about by such competition and such importa- tions, although we are Avilling to admit that the competition has been severest in the second quality rather than in the first quality of British meat. At the same time, the competition does exist, and in a severe form; and foreign meat, too, is sold in this country as British, and realises the price of British of the best class ! There is plenty of evidence in proof of this; indeed, we think nobody with any pretence to experience in connection with the matter will deny it. As to the importations of meat referred to, we may say that we imported no less than 876,787 cattle and sheep, and 17,498,130 cwts. of dead meat in 11)03, as against 712,691 head of cattle and sheep, and 16,971,022 cwts. of dead meat in 1902 ; whilst the inquisitive Avill fiud these figures to exceed enormously those for the corresponding classes of imports in earlier years. In connection with foreign competition in dairy produce, the Royal Commission suggested that such competition was successful mainly because the dairy industry abroad is better organ- ised than in Great Britain. It is true that there is better organisation abroad ; but that fact does not, of itself, account for the British farmer not being successful in his competition with the foreigner. The facts are: — (1) The British farmer cannot make cheese or butter to sell at the prices which the foreign articles realise ; AN ENQUIRY. 21 and (2), tliat even if lie could, it would not pay liim so Avell as it does now to sell the milk instead of to convert it into clieese or butter. This is speaking generally, although we admit that there is a limited room for more British butter and cheese of the " best " class. That, however, only touches the fringe of the great industry of agriculture ; and organisation for that particular purpose will not much improve matters. The farmer might, perhaps, combine to sell his milk at a higher price, but that, of course, is another matter, and the public would be the first to complain of his '' organised monopoly " in a necessary article of food. In regard to milk-selling, the British farmer at the present time makes practically no com- plaint, except on the score of the railway rates being too high. As to wool, the importations of this raw material have increased enormously, nameh', from 084,014,000 lb. per annum in 1875-77, to 599,509,732 lb. in 1903. A good part of the imports, it may be admitted, is again exported. Most of the wool comes from our Australian Colonies, and even though, as is the fact, the greater quantity of the wool received from such Colonies is merino — a variety which only in- directl}" affects the value of British and Irish wools — yet, in consequence of the diminished proportion of the production of the United King- dom to the whole supply, there has been, and is, a displacement of the latter by the increasing 22 AGRICULTUEE AND TARIFF REFORM. imports, aucl, accordingly, it is evident that the presence of so large a quantity of wool grown abroad in our markets is a factor of some import- ance in the determination of the demand for and the value of the home product. The price, in- deed, of the home-grown wool has corresponded generally with the movement in the values of imported wools. Increase in Cost of Labour. The Eoyal Commission on Agriculture found, from the facts submitted to them in respect of 77 farms within recent years, that 31.4 per cent, of the total expenditure, or £1 5s. 5d. per acre, was for labour; and there can be no doubt whatever that the item which gives the farmer most concern, week in and week out all the year round, is hov/ to rake in the money to pay his men, to say nothing of the difficulty in many districts of getting an adequate supply of labour at all. It is not necessary to ask if the labourer receives his fair proportion of the proceeds from, or produce of, the land. What is necessary to know is that such share on the whole is, fortun- ately, greater than it used to be, but that the farmer has not been able to increase his receipts in proportion to, whilst the landlord, except in favoured dairy-farming districts, is receiving a much less rental than twenty, thirty, and fifty years ago. CHAPTER II. AN ENQUIRY (Coutiniied). Facts ai\d Figures for Speakers and Writers. The enquirer, wliether tariff reformer or anti- tariff reformer, will, we venture to say, find tlie statistics and facts in the present chapter of interest, and we trust of value. They have not been " selected " to suit the side of tariff reform, but have been taken from official and other reliable sources after exceedingly careful research ; and if it happen — as is the case — that they constitute a solid mass of material telling practically all in one direction, we must blame the facts — if blame at all — rather than the writer of this work, who has simply found them by such research as that referred to. Rural Depopulation. The number of labourers, farmers, &c., in England and Wales occupied in agriculture was, according to the official Census figures, as follows : — In 1851 „ 1861 „ 1871 „ 1881 ,, 1891 „ 1901 1,904,687 1,803,049 1,423,854 1,199,827 1.099,572 988,340 / 24 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. It needs no argument to prove to any indi- vidual possessing ordinary common-sense, and who, at the same time, has some acquaintance with town and country life, what a serious state of things the figures referred to indicate. Bankruptcies. The Board of Trade returns from 1885 (the first year for which official figures are avail- able), show that in the list of Receiving Orders made in bankruptcy farmers have always been in point of total number of failures nearly at the top of the list. The actual figures are as follows ; — VoQV No. of Position Year. No. of Position 1 eai. Failures. on List. F.iihires. on List. 1885 206 Second 1894 200 Fourth 1886 332 JSecond 1895 313 Third 1887 295 Third 1896 260 Second 1888 282 Third 1897 247 Fourth 1889 247 Fourth 1898 191 Fifth 1890 172 Fourth 1899 151 Fourth 1891 187 Fourth 1900 179 Fourth 1892 236 Third 1901 167 Fourth 1893 282 Fourth 1902 189 Fourth The foregoing table alone indicates pretty clearly how seriously distressed agriculturists have been. Physique. Although it is true that a large proportion of our agricultural labourers year after year drift to the towns to " improve " their position, we find that instead of the physique of the urban labour- AN ENQUIRY. 25 iug mau becomiug improved, it is, judged by tlie recent Departmental Committee's report, exceed- ingly unsatisfactory, altbougli tlie sanitary or mortality statistics sliow in their general aspect an improvement over years ago. When we dive below or fully into these we get at startling facts. Thus it happens that, to take for example a town like York, we have 28 per cent, of the popu- lation (according to Mr. Eowntree), and 30 per cent, of the population of London (according to Mr. Charles Booth), living in poverty ; whilst the Director-General of the Army Medical Service, in writing on recruiting in his report to the War Office, dated 2nd April, 1903, quotes Sir Frederick Maurice as stating that 60 out of every 100 of the men offering themselves for enlistment in the army are rejected as " physically unfit." It is alarming to be told that most of these men are " labourers, husbandmen," and the like. Who has benefited by the agricultural labourers going to the towns? Clearly not and certainly not agriculture; and it looks as though the nation in this respect is storing up for itself a rich harvest of disappointment. Pauperism. The question of pauperism must always appeal to the agricultural social reformer. The fi.gure8 below apply not only to the rural districts, but also to the urban districts. They relate to England and Wales. 26 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. We find that in 1854 there were 864,617 paupers in England and Wales. The average for the five years »> >> 1855-59 1880-84 1885-89 18S0-94 1895-99 showed there were 'J >> 99 894,822 787,118 788,357 765,282 814,749 In 1854 the cost £5,282,853. The average cost for the five years for poor law relief was >» >> 99 >9 I) »> 9> 99 '9 1855-59 1880-84 1885-89 1890-94 1895-99 was 9> 9> >» £ 5,846,054 8,211,092 8,354,379 8,963,272 10,526,003 The figures show : — (1) That the cost of pauperism has nearly- doubled (but not the population) ; and (2) That the actual number of paupers is very much the same as in 1854, the tendency more- over at the last five-yearly period being to in- crease. This is in spite of the serious fact that the number of charitable agencies is now infinitely greater than in 1854. If these were not in exist- ence there is every reason to suppose that the number of paupers now would be hugely more than before 1854, or before our free imports system was adopted. Cost of Living Abroad, Etc. A good deal of misrepresentation in regard to the above point is made by those who oppose Tariff Reform. We have seen it said that if Tariff Reform is adopted, black bread, horseflesh, goose fat, and other curious articles will have to be AN ENQTHRY. 27 consumed by the Britisli working-man. Of course all such statements are made without reference to the facts, because not one of these articles of food is necessarily consumed by the foreign working-man, or by anybod}' else ; and, from conversations we have had with foreigners in our own country, we can only say that they have expressed surprise that any Englishmen should be so gullible as to believe the stories on this matter which have been repeatedly told to them. As an ounce of fact is worth a ton of fiction we need only further add that our own visits to France, Holland, Germany, Denmark, and Sweden, do not bear out the statements of opponents as above referred to; Avhilst on the other hand we find by reference to the ofncial Blue-Book, that the cost of food is such as to entirely disprove the assertions of anti-tarifE reformers. We have, therefore, extracted the figures, and we give them in the table below; — Year. Food and Co&t • 1901. ! Beef, Mutton, Pork, Eggs, Milk, Butter, lb. lb. lb. doz. per qt. per lb. d. d.'d. d. d. d. d. d. d. s. d. England 8J to 9i 51 to 7| H Ill 31. to 4 1 2k Germany 7 to 7j5| to 81 6| to 7i n 2S 10^ to 1/01 France... H m 6| U. States 65 61 10| 3i l/4i The price of bread in England (London) is officially stated to be 5d. per 4 lb. loaf, and it 28 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. varies from 4cl. to Gjd. in Coutineutal countries. It would appear that on the whole the foreigner is rather better off than we, as his meat (beef, mutton, pork,) is much cheaper than ours, and his bread just about the same. The lowest price in England for mutton (namely 5^-d. per lb.) is due to the fact that Ave get so much from our Colonies, with whom tariff reformers wish to increase our trade. Live Stock. I. — In Great Britain. In 1869, the first year official figures were available, there were 38,243,127 head of live stock on agricultural holdings in Great Britain. In 1903 this number was only 36,568,103 head, or a reduction of 1,675,024. If agriculture had been as prosperous as in other countries, the head of live stock in our case would have increased just as our total popu- lation has enormously increased. II. — United Kingdom and Abroad. The following table shows approximately the value of the live stock in the countries indicated in the years named : — Years. 1830 1850 1897 M illions Sterling. Country. 84 104 202 United Kingdom 96 166 232 France. 88 138 303 Germany. 80 120 161 Austria. 16 17 26 Denmark. 30 36 93 Italy. AN ENQUIRY. 29 Pehmanent Pasture. lu 186G (the first year official figures were avail- able), there were in Great Britain only 11,148,814 acres of permanent pasture. In 1903 there were 16,934,495 acres of per- manent pasture. The figures mean that in less than 40 years over 100,000 adult able-bodied labourers have had to seek employment in the towns ; or (with only three children in each family) that 500,000 people have left the land in less than 40 years. If we go back to Cobden's time, the number (from 1851 to 1901 — the last Census) comes up to the enormous total of 916,347 persons. Bread and Meat Imports : an Important Point. The Alleged Cheajmess. The adoption of the free-imports system in 1846 did not, and could not, have immediately lowered the price of wheat and flour and cheapened the price of bread. In proof of this it is only necessary to give the following tables of figures, which are official and accurate. The first table gives (a) the actual price of wheat in the year before the Corn Law was repealed; (b) the average price for the six years 1845 to 1850 (inclusive); and (c) the average price for the six years 1850 to 1855 (inclusive) : — Years. (a) 1845 (6) 6 years, 1845 to 1850 (c) 6 years, 1850 to 1855 Prices. 50s. lOd. per quarter, 51s. 8id. 53s. 34d. 30 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. Tlie second table shows tlie actual quantities of wheat and of wheat flour imported into our country in the years indicated : — Year. Quanti- V of Wheat and Wheat Flou r Imported. In 1846 3,344 quarters. „ 1847 4,484 „ 1848 3,082 „ 1849 4,835 „ 1850 4,830 „ 1851 5,330 ,, 1852 . 4,164 „ 1853 6,235 „ 1854 . 4,473 „ 1855 . 3,207 The same argument applies to cattle, the im- portations of which did not seriously increase until 1853, when, owing to the dreadful cattle disease, pleuro-pneumonia — which lasted for five years and did enormous destruction amongst British stock — our own farmers were unable to meet the home demand for meat. The figures are : — Year. No. of Cattle Imported. In 1846 ... „ 1847 ... „ 1848 ... „ 1849 ... „ 1850 ... „ 1851 ... „ 1852 ... „ 1853 ... „ 1854 ... „ 1855 ... 45,043 75,717 62,738 53,449 66,462 86,520 93,061 125,253 114,200 97,400 AN ENQUIRY. 31 Bread and meat, therefore, not only did not, but could not have become, through our foreign imports, immediately cheaper in price after the adoption of Cobden's proposals for the free importation of foreign corn and meat. Cheap food is, in point of fact, like cheap clothing, cheap iron, cheap clocks, or cheap anything else; that is to say, it is a question of supply and demand, aided, as they all have been, by discoveries in science and art, which have enabled the goods to be produced at a cheaper rate, and brought by sea and land at a cheaper rate, too. In spite of free imports, however, there are 916,347 less labourers, farmers, &c., engaged in agricultural pursuits than in 1851. Wheat. I. — Wheat Acreage. The following figures are very significant. They are ofncial : — Whereas in 1866, the first year for which oflticial figures are available, there were 3,350,394 acres in wheat, there were, in 1903, only 1,497,254 acres ; or a decrease in 37 years of 1,853,140 acres. II. — Wheat Yield ijer Acre, Here and Abroad. It cannot be said that the British farmer's ability to grow vfheat is not equal to that of foreign farmers; because the average product per acre on British soil and in other countries works out as follows : — The United Kingdom, 33 bushels per acre; I 32 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFO:iM. France, 20; Germauy, 18; Russia, 13; Austria, 16 ; Hungary, 12 ; Italy, 12; Sweden, 20; Norway, 25; Denmark, 25; Holland, 23; Belgium, 24; The United States, 24; and Australia, 10. III. — Wheat Yield 2^^''' Inhahiiant, Here and Abroad. The yield of wheat per inhabitant in various countries is as follows : — - Great Britain, 7 bushels; Germany, 13 ; France, 19 ; Russia, 20 ; United States, 24. lY. — Wheat Prices in England. The following table shows the average price of wheat per quarter between the dates named : — s. d. 1820—29 ... 1830-39 ... 1840—49 ... 1850—59 1860—69 1870-79 1880—89 59 10 per quarter. 56 9 55 11 53 4 41 7 51 4 37 4 AN EXQriRY. 33 s, a. 1890—99 26 9 per quarter, 1002 28 1 1003 26 9 It would appear from tlie foregoiug that the price of wheat per quarter did not seriously lower until 1880 to 1889; or, 30 to 40 years after the Corn Laws were repealed. Y, — Wheat Prices, Here and Abroad. The following figures are interesting, showiwg the average wheat prices per ton in different countries : — (1) In 1869: London, £11 8s.; Paris, £10 18s. ; Berlin, £10 ; Yienna, £8 Gs. ; and America, £10 83. (2) In 18T9: London, £11 10s.; Paris, £11 12s.; Berlin, £9 123.; Yienna, £8 83.; and America, £9 63. In 189T the price in America (United States) vras only £6 9s. ; whilst an average, taken a few years later, over 16 years showed that the prices were : In London, £11 lis. ; Paris, £11 18s. ; and Berlin, £10 8s. The figures appear to show that in countries with a tariff, and v.diere the farmers are prosperous, the wheat actually sells for less than it does with us. More corn is of course grown, and it can be produced and profitably sold at less than we can at present produce and sell it. YI. — Wheat Duties, Here and Abroad, and their Effects. There seems to be a good deal of misunder- standing regarding the effects on the public at 31 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. large of the wheat duties abroad. Taking France and Germany, the two countries which most closely resemble our own agricultural and in- dustrial conditions, we find : — • (1) That in the United Kingdom wheat did not seriously lower in price till 30 to 40 years after the free imports system was established ; (2) That wheat in France — where the import duty since 1894 has been 12s. 2|-d. per quarter — has been much lower than when the duty was, as in previous years, from 7d. to 8s. 9|d. per quarter ; and (3) That wheat in Germany with an import duty of 7s. T^d. per quarter ever since 1892 is lower than when in previous years the duty was from Is. 2d. to 6s. G^d. per quarter. The argument from these facts would appear to be that it is not so much a duty of a few shillings a quarter which regulates the price, as the law of supply and demand, assisted by steamships, railways, and other inventions. Home A^"D Foreign Production of Grain, The production of grain (wheat, &c.) in the United Kingdom, v.'as as follows: Millions cf busheld. 1831—40 408 1851— eo 390 1874—84 33i 1887 311 1892—95 801 On the other hand, the production of grain in foreign countries has gone on constantly increas- ing. Moreover^ not onl^ has the ^rain produced AN ENQUIRY. 35 in the United Kingdom gone on decreasing and in other countries increasing, but Avhilst in the United Kingdom the number of bushels per inhabitant in 1831-40 stood at 16, it has now- diminished to about 7 to 8, whilst in the other countries whose populations, like our own, have considerably increased, the number of bushels of grain per inhabitant has increased, a fact which is very remarkable. If we tvirn to the cereal, wheat, we find an equally remarkable state of things. For instance, according to Mulhall, production in the United Kingdom has been as follows : — Millions of bushels. 1831—40 120 1851—60 121 1871—80 85 1881—87 78 1888 76 1894 58 since which time the acreage devoted to wheat has greatly diminished in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, France has increased her yield from 190 to 340 millions of bushels from the first to the last dates just named; Germany, 50 to 117; Russia, 110 to 300; Austria, 65 to 180; Italy, 60 to 117; Spain, 58 to 100; the United States, 78 to 454 ; Canada 6 to 33 ; and Australia 2 to 40. CoxsuiirTTOX OF Grain and !Meat. In the United Kingdom, compared with the population of the country, we produce at the pro- sent time 7 to 8 bushels of grain per inhabitant, whereas in 1870 we produced 11 bushels per c3 36 AGRICULTFRE AND TARIFF REFORM. iuliabitaut; in 1846, 15 busliels per inhabitant; and in 18-30, 17 busliels per inhabitant. On the other hand, the consumption of wheat, which in 1811 to 1830 was 300 lb. per inhabitant, has only increased for the ten years ending 1889 to 384 lb. per inhabitant; and these figures in- clude not only the amount actually eaten, but the amount used as seed, which latter may be taken at 12 lb. per inhabitant at the date last given. If, to this statement it be added that our population has gone on increasing since the last date ; that our production of home-grown grain has diminished, both in acreage and in price; and that the production of the foreign grain imported here has both increased in acreage and in its price to our consumers (which are facts), we cannot consider the position as healthy, whether as regards agriculture alone, or as regards the nation at large. The consumption of meat may be taken a^i follows for the years specified*: — 80 lb. per iiihabiiaiit. ] 831— 41 ... 80 1851—60 ... 81 1831-70 ... 87 1871— SO ... 87 1S81— 87 ... 98 1S9j ... 109 It would appear that of our total meat con- sumption, we depend upon the foreigner for at least five months of each year ; and yet there is no country better situated than Great Britain for the production of the best class of meat if more encouragement were given to our farmers and less to those of other lands. * Mulhall. ~~ AN ENQUIRY. 3? Value of all Agricultueal Pkoducts. Auotlier fact of interest is that wliereas in 1812 the total value of the agricultural and pastoral products of the United Kingdom is placed at 260 millions sterling by Colquhouu, and in 1820 at 2-50 millions sterling by Spackman, the value, as taken out by Mr. Mulhall in 1889 was prac- tically the same as at the latter period, namely, 251 millions sterling. Again, Mr. Caird (after- wards Sir James Caird) estimated the value in 1878 at 2G0 millions ; and Mulhall, in 1895, esti- mated the value at 2o0 millions. These figures, at the best, go to show that whilst the total value of the products of our farming have been more or less the same during a period of 813 j^ears, the character of the farming has been enormously altered from arable to pas- t>»ral, and the rural population has, at the same time, enormously decreased. Milling. There is not a county in England but in which it used to be common to find " the miller and his merry men." To-day, however, scores and scores of mills in every county have been closed, owing to the fact that there is no work for the men or for the masters, Avho formerh^ had the carrjdng on of the local industry of milling. Less than forty years since nearly the whole flour used in this country was manufactured from the wheat bv the British miller, and at the same period we were also exporters; but nowadays, in 38 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. spite of the fact tliat the population of the towns has grown enormously, and therefore consumes more flour, the British miller manufactures much less than what we now use, and he is still fast going down the hill in this respect. The following figures will make this clear: — Britbli-iuilled Foreiiin Flour. Flour. CAVts. cwts. 1871 ... 61,940,000 3,977,000 1901... 69,021,000 22,576,000 1902 ... 78,550,000 19,386,000 It will be observed that in 1902 we milled in this country a much larger quantity of flour than in 1901 ; whilst, at the same time, considerably less foreign flour came into our country. The reason for the two facts is that in 1902 there was a small duty on foreign flour, Avliich flour is, of course, a manufactured article. That duty has, un- fortunately as we think, been since taken off ; but, whilst it was on, the foreigner sent us less flour and more wheat. As a consequence, we ground the wheat into flour and employed British labour to do it, whilst the working-man, in his turn, set the shopkeepers and others going by the money which came in this way to his pocket. Rentals, axd Yalite of Land, It is sometimes said that the rents in England arc higher than they ought to be. Whether this is 80 is quite a matter of opinion, but the im- portant point to remember is that, whereas in 1813 the rental value of land was £40,170,000, AN ENQUIRY. 39 it was, iu 1888, only £44,470,000, wliich would scarcely go to sliow that landlords liad been con- tinually increiising the rents of their lands. As a matter of fact, except in the case of good dairy- ing land, or land near a town, owners have largely reduced their rents, even from the j'ear 1888, as to which much evidence was given before the Eoyal Commission on Agriculture; which showed that rents had been reduced generally from 10 to 30 per cent, in the least distressed districts, to 50 and 80 per cent, in the worst districts. It will perhaps be interesting if we mention that the largest owners, that is to say, those own- ing estates of over 500 acres each, let their land at the lowest rent per acre, and that the next largest owners, that is to say, those owning estates from 100 to 500 acres each, come next in point of rent they charge for their land ; whilst the two remaining classes of owners, namely, those own- ing estates from 50 to 100 acres, and those owning estates of under 50 acres, come next to those already mentioned in point of rent charged. A« a matter of fact, of the four classes of owners, the average rent charged per acre works out in the first case at oGs. per acre, in the second at 40s., in the third at 48s., and in the fourth at £5 16s. per acre. It is common knowledge that the owners of very small properties, such as those last referred to, are not " land owners " in the sense in which the term is commonly understood, as the land is either attached to a dwelling, and accord- ingly possesses a higher value than ordinary agri- cultural laud, or it is more or less accommodation 40 AGIUCULTirRl^ AND I'ARIFF REFOHM. or market gardening ground, Avliicli always realises more rent than average-sized farms of, say, 200 to 400 or 500 acres. Concerning the value, however, of agricultural land, the following figures are even better than those supplied by official Government publications, and they have the merit of referring to a county — Lincolnshire — which is pre-eminently agri- cultural. They were published in the " Notting- ham Daily Guardian," on June 25th, 1004:, in an article headed " The Value of Land in Lincoln- ghire." The writer says : — " A farm of ^15 acres was recently submitted to auction, and although it cost the vendor not less than <£15,000, the highest offer Avas i!4,000, a decrease in value of nearly three-fourths. At Aisthorpe, too, only a year or two ago, an estate of 890 acres came into the market, and the highest bid Avas £25,000. The owner (Mr. Ealand) gave for it more than double the sum. Decreases of 50 per cent, are common. A well-known Lincoln gentleman has an estate at Caenby, for which he gave over £50,000. He also spent about £10,000 in improvements, but it is a v/ell-known fact that he would accept £30,000 for it novr, if anyone would but make an oifer. Aid. Bovding 25 years ago bought a farm in Dunston Fen at £20 an acre, but the same land two years ago passed to the posession of Mr. Webster, of Martin, at £35 an acre — and this included the inventory ! There was a striking case, too, only a few vrccks ago at Northorpe, near Gainsborough. About 1820 Mr. Coupland purchased a farm there for AN ENQUIRY. 41 £21,000, aud this was knocked down at about £10,000. lu May, 1901, an estate of G28 acres of arable and pasture land at Thorganby was pur- chased for £22,270, and vvdien it was valued for probate in May, 1904, the value was returned at only £8,830. Another case is reported from Blankney Dales. A house and buildings and several closes containing 103 a. 3 r. 23 p. in June, 1828, fetched £0,120, and £5,000 was advanced upon it on mortgage. On April 6th this year, however, it sold at £2,800. " In all parts of the district the same lament- able state of aiiairs prevails. A farm at Bin- brook, containing about 131 acres, vras purchased in 1881 for £6,000. In October, 1901, it was re- sold for exactly half the suin. The small land- owners are also suffering in like degree, for a farm of 31 acres at Moortown bought about 1860 for £1,630, recently sold for only £500; 79 acres of land at Barlings, which cost £5,500, only real- ised £2,100; and 64 acres at Middle Easen, cost- ing £3,200 or £3,300, fetched £1,500. A similar figure to this was all that could be obtained for another at IS'orth and South Somercotes, vfhich was bought in October, 1872, for £3,800. Two closes of arable land at Middle Sasen, purchased in 1875 for £505, sold two months ago at £300 ; and a small holding at Basingham, for which £1,050 v/as given in May, 1880, had to be parted with last October for £500. xVnother little farm at Maltby, for which £1,335 was given, £1,000 being obtained on mortgage, was sold in October, 1901, for £550; and 12 a. 3 r. 15 p. of laud at 42 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. Friskuey, secured in 1882 for £1,070, lias since only fetched .£555/' Tlie particulars given bear out wliat we have previously said, viz., that the depression in agri- culture is due to low prices, which, in turn, is due to the unfair foreign competition in our markets by foreign farmers. Rateable Yalue. In 1870 the rateable value of " lands " was £;J9,835,088, or 38 per cent, of the total rates on " all kinds of rateable property " in England and Wales. In 1894 the figures were £33,654,550 and 20"9 per cent, respectively; whilst in 1899 they were £31,312,342 and 17 '8 respectively, thus showing great depreciation. In 189G it was possible, owing to the Agricul- tural Eates Act, 1896, for the first time to find out what was the actual rateable value of (a) " agricultural land " ; the figures prior to that date including (6) " lands other than agricultural, farm houses, farm buildings, tithe rent charges, and uncommuted tithes, but excluding lands occupied as railways, canals, quarries, etc." In the sum above given for 1899 is included £7,277,639 (or 4M per cent.), being the rateable value of (b) just alluded to, the item for (a) in that year being, accordingly, £24,034,703 (or 13'7 per cent.). According to statements furnished to the Local Government Board, the rateable value of "agricul- tural lands " as deiiucd by the Agricultural Kates Act, 1896, was: -In 1896, £24,565,058; in 1897, 1 AN ENQUIRY. 43 £24,342,020; in 1898, £24,100,332; and in 1899, £24,034,703 ; or an average annual decrease between 189G and 1899 of £198,883 or 0*8 per cent, per annum. In 1901, according to Parlia- mentary Paper Xo. 300, issued in Juh', 1903, the rateable value of agricultural land as defined by the Act alluded to, bad still further declined to £23,885,995... Rates axd Taxes, Here axd Abkoad. Agriculturists have never ceased to complain of the injustice under which they suffer of having so many burdens in the shape of rates and taxes thrown upon them, some of which are certainly more of a national rather than of a local character. It is interesting, therefore, to observe, that a reference to other countries would appear to show they arc justified in the position they take up. For instance, the total burdens on agriculture in the various countries named below, is as follows * : — P er cent Tax. United Kir lgdo!U 8.3 France ... 4.8 Germany > • ■ • • I 3.0 Austria ... • • > ■ • 4.9 Belj;iuni 2;8 Holland ... ,2.8 Italy ... ... s 7.0 It AGmCULTURAL CAriTAL, IIeRE- AND AbROAD. According to ^lulhall, the agricultural capital in Great Britain, which in 1840 was 1,908 millions . »w.-t^"- /. * Mulhall. 41 AGRIOULTITRE AND TARIFF REFORM. sterling, and in 1891-96 only 1,686 millions ster- ling, or a decrease of 282 millions, shows a very different and miicli more serious state of things, when considered in the light of figures relating to the agricultural capital of other countries. The following table shov.-s this at a glance:-- 1S40. 1891—96. France ... 1,713 3,093 null Germany ... 630 2,508 Russia ... 517 2,710 vVustria ... 702 1,797 Italy ... 452 1,399 Spain ... 724 1,212 Denmark 46 251 Holland ... 246 295 Belgium ... 235 351 United SUtcs ... ... t06 4,U2 Canada 80 3li , Australia 18 392 Argentina '>0 • 1 « ^tj 198 on?, If the foregoing figures were analysed so as to show the agricultural capital per inhabitant of the various countries, the marked deterioration in the case of the United Kingdom would be con- siderably more apparent than the figures already indicate ; which, amongst other things, show that whilst our agricultural capital has decreased — and enormously — that of every other country cited has gone on i-ncreasing and increasing by leaps and bounds. j^Ir. Mulhall truly points out that, " viewed as a money-making occupation, agriculture is by no means so profitable as other pursuits, for while it represents, broadly, about 40 per cent, of the population and 31 per cent, of the wealth, it stands for only 20 per cent, of the AN ENQITIPvY. io total earnings of the nations." Agricultural interests stand, indeed, at tlie highest point in Russia, and lowest in Great Britain and Holland — the former (Great Britain) a free-importing country and the latter (Holland) largely so, whilst Russia is largely Protectionist. LABom AND Wages, Heue and Abroad. The following table gives the average rate of agricultural labourers' wages per week in the countries indicated, and at the dates named : — Year. England. France. Germany. United States. 1850 ... 1870 ... 1880 ... s. d. 9 6 15 17 6 s. d. 9 12 6 U s. d. 8 6 10 6 12 6 £ s. d. 16 1 1 5 Agricultural labour in En^^land has diminished since 1880; whilst in the States especially wages have gone up, and are still doing so. In Eng- land, therefore, with a diminishing labour supply the farmer's lot is not a happy one. The average rate is not, in our experience, so high in England to-day as is stated ; but, in any case, wages have increased all over the Avorld, and not with us alone. In England, however, the labourer to- day misses the perquisites he used to get. In Cobden's time wages were low because the farmers had rural districts which were over- populated. Cobden admitted this in his speeches (see pages 58 and 57). 46 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. o a ■a h H=* 00 . o r^ C-i 0) -' a ■* c w '/I r « oja ii^ .'a w a .S'i rn -u .. "; m H rd 4> :_) P.H Li s-s P o 5=3 Oo Ph ■"4J §J« o% 1-q ti c o O £?^ t— 1 03 ^ P4 s*^ o t*-t ;2 <1 .S^ d O. , f^ -w o MH fc. o J. P o « 2 o t».=r3 ^gS ^ •c2g o tT^ an w 5 --^ H occg 1—1 00'-'= M aj • C ^ ■■So -2 P '^^•2 ® o a ;^. '■K hH •S2^0 w *^^'3 l-l-l ^+J o u csStf 1—1 .2:^« ^ai o S t i* -4-:) 4 ©Pi '5 a ^x a o .3 ^ CI o K Pi <0 -5 cooo ;= :M •MM ^ 2i S ;* i -d lo o '-o ^ a 0) - ^ * o ■?= X iC'i'd ® 3 O -d -d o a'=^§ X o r^ 'd -d T-'d o •'d—i nr: ^j • CD w ^1 ^ .73 o-^ ^«2 . • -'ii -h3i .■d'd'd-'J — 'TS'd^"''" o -d qj O © O 3j 4) O © a^ CJ t-* ;-< f^ ^ i. V-i ffl ^ u-^ o t: •ri T1 4JC^ ■ Hi:i Ti "J f. rr r/ T C4 , Ha -* .— « rM O) rH ?-H o a, C/J i » o So u o • o « 4) 's . h ;-! ij ce ft© 05 S Oi ^ CHAPTER III. COBDENISM. Mr. Cobden's Agricultural Sayings. It is mauy years since we first read the speeches of tlie late Mr. Cobdeu, but we have felt com- pelled to go through the process again since tariff reform became a prominent topic for con- sideration. We give below the most important extracts from the speeches wherein the agricultural pro- blem is dealt Avith. We take the speeches in order of date, placing a note or comment at the end of each extract : — SrEEcii, February ITth, 1843 (House of COMMOXS). (1). " When the agitation was begun for the repeal of the Corn Laws our complaints were met by showing that our commerce was increasing, that the Savings Banks were prospering, that the revenue was improving, and that consumption was augmenting." Note. — This is the exact argument adopted to-day by those who oppose tariff reform. 48 AGiaCULTXTRE AND TARII.' REFORM. (2). " The present law lias ruined the Corn Law speculators (laugliter). You may laugli . . . but wlien you hare ruined tlie corn speculators who will supply you with foreign wheat?" Note. — It scenes curious that Mr. Cobden should have been interested in corn spccidators. Speech, May Iotii, 1843 (House of Commons). (3). " Let the farmer perfectly understand that his prosperity depends upon that of his cus- tomers." Note. — Exacthj; hut hy unnatural means the forelynar is aUoiced to supply those customers. (4). " I do not ask for a law to enhance the profits of my business." Note. — \ncther he asked for it or not he got it; be- cause by the repeal of the Corn Laws the laboureis flocked to the towns to engage in that C'xtra work which icas brought about by the fact that the foreigner who sent liis wheat, etc., to us had, at that day, to take in return our manufactured goods. (5). " I ask owners if they expect farmers io farm well without long leases ? " Note. — Owners would he only too glad to grant long leases. That is just xchat they cannot do; because tenants, by foreign competition, feel no certainty as t.) how long they will he able to stand such competitioii. Hence, tenants refuse long leases. (6). " "We (the manufacturers) are the farmers' best friends, their only friends, their best customers." Note.— T/t/s was true in IS.'fS, but it is by no n^.eans so true to-day. ' COBDEXIS?.!, 49 SrEECir, SLU'TEiiBi'K 28Tir, 1843 (Loxdox). (7). '* Laudowuers liave uotliing pecuniarily, tlicj liaYc nothing ultimately, to dread from a free trade ia corn." Note.— /f matj be admitted that oicncrs who have land near large toicns suitable for dairy farming, ichich cvi- ploys the least amount of labour of any farming, v\alc^ as much of their land now as formerly; fcnf it is from a ■national and not from a landowners' jwint of view that this question ought to he diseussed. (8). " The home market for food will be doubled." Note. — Yes; but of what avail is that to the British agrieulturist uhen the foreigner supplies the market, u-hieh is u7.af Jiappens so largely under the present system ? Speech, October 18tii, 1843 (London). (9). '* Oiir object is what I always declared it — the benefit of the whole commviniij'." Note. — Tlte farming industry is still the largest in the. Icivgdotn, hut instead of a hem fit our jxrcsent system of imrcstricted free imports has proved qirite the contrary. (10). " I venture to say that there will be no class that will not be permanently benefited." Note. — What about agriculture and the 916,3/(7 farmers and labourers ir/io hare had to leave agriculture f Speech, October IOth, 1843 (^Maxchester). (11). " The permanent interest of the agricul- turist is in the prosperity of his customers." Note. — That is what it ought to he, but it is not the case in England, for those cusfom^ers are supplied by the forciijner at the rxpensc of the British agrirulturi^it. 50 ACniCULTITvE AND TAPJFF T{EFOP»M. (12). " I liave never been one who believed that tlie repeal of the Corn Laws would throw an acre of ground out of cultivation." Note. — We grow 1,853,1.1^0 acres less of wheat to-day than in 1S66, when the first official figures were pub- lished, and there has been an increase of 5,785,681 acres of permanent pasture in the same period. (13). " Our object is not to diminish the labour in agricultural districts, but I verily believe that if the principles of free trade are fairly carried out they will give just as much stimulus to the demand for labour in the agriculcural as in the manufacturing districts." Note. — The very reverse has been the case, as everyone knows. There are 016,S.\7 less farmers and labourers, as already stated. (14). " Though our agriculturists have much to learn, they are doubtless very much in advance of most of the agriculturists in other countries." Note. — Tliis is an admittance u-hich should be remem- hered by those ulio to-day say that the fanner alicaya was and ahoays is behind others in the business of his calling. As a matter of fact he grows more corn per acre than any other farmer in the world, and his live stock is considerably better cdso. Speech, Februahy 8tii, 1844 (Loxdox). (15). "All we ask is that corn, &c., shall find its natural level in the markets of the world." Note. — But liow can the British fanners' corn, meat, &e., find their natural levels when we let in the foreigners' stuff free, and when the foreigner taxes everything ivc send to hinif ■ COBDFATSil, 51 (16). *' There are narrow-miuded men iu the \ agricultural districts who meet us at every turu ! with prophecies of what is going to happen in j the future; and who tell us, forsooth, that free trade will throw land out of cultivation and deprive the labourers of employment." Note. — Cobden ridiculed these prophecies; hut these ^ prophecies have come true, and his own prophecies have \ proved false, as ice have already shoicn. (17). " I predict that with free trade in the corn, so far from throwing land out of use, or injuring the cultivation of the poorer soils, free trade in corn is the very way to increase the pro- duction at home." | Note. — The contrary has been the fact. ' (18). "We do not contemplate deriving a / quarter less corn from the soil of this country." Note. — TT'c cultivate l,S.'>3,l.lfO acres less ichcat now than in ISGG, as already mentioned. (19). '' We do not anticipate having one head less of cattle or of sheep." Note. — The number of head of live stock on the farnu% of Great Britain in 1903 ivas 3,67Jj,907 less than in 1S09, tjie first year for ivhich official figures were available. Speech, March 12th, 18-14 (House of Commons). (20). "Farmers valued their farms by a com- putation that wheat would be such and such a price per quarter owing to the Corn Laws being kept up." Note. — This was no doubt so pretty generally throughout the various parts of England, but nobody proposes t9 go back to that system; and, in any case, it ivotdd he iin- d2 52 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. possible to revert to such a systcv^, because the people most interested in the question- are the artisan and labouring class u7io, by their votes (ichich they did not have in Cobdcn's time), absolutely control the situation. In Cobdcn's time it was, practically spealdng, only those u-ho had a little bit of freehold property of some sort v:ho had a vote. (21). " The farmer has been tokl the fallacj- ! that if there was free trade in corn wheat would be so cheap that he would not be able to carry on his farm." Note. — Mr. Cobdcn said this v:as a fallacy; but how viany farmers daring the last JfO or 50 years have had to give up their farms through not being able to grow \ wheat and other corn crops, and to feed their stocJ: at a profitable price? . (22). " There is another point upon which ' much misrepresentation exists, namely, the price at which corn can be grown abroad. The cost of transit from Dantzic may be put down at 10s. 6d. per quarter. This is the natural protection { enjoyed by the farmers of this country. The ; farmer v/ill thus secure the constant protection of half a guinea per quarter on his corn." ; Note. — So far from the farnur having an advantage ! over the foreigner in the matter of freight the reverse is the case; for wheat can be brought not nurcly from Dantzic but from America to TAverpool at ~.s. to Ss. tier (juarter! ! I (23). " I do not anticipate that wheat will be I reduced below 45s. per quarter, even by free trade, and meat, butter, and cheese will certainly not fall in the same proportion." Note. — This statement uos adopted by Cobden from a letter he received from a correspondent. The facts COBDBNISM. 63 of to-Jay show that wheat during last year stood on an average at 20s. 9d. per quarter, whilst it has not ai'er- O'jed as high as .'fOs. for the last 20 or 30 years. (24). " Less wages are paid upon dairy farms." Note. — Dairy farming has increased enormously in this country since Cobdcn's tiinc; whilst arable farming has gone quite the other leay about. (25). " Farmers are iu no way responsible for low wages." | Note. — We hope this admittance by Cobden- will he \ borne in mind by those speaking in rural districts or by those who write on the question of tariff reform. (26). *' If a Committee is appointed, as I desire, to enquire into the question, evidejice may be obtained which Avill go far to help the landlords out of their diflieulty, viz., the means of giving employment to the people. The great want is employment." Note. — "'e edways said that there was an orer-sxipply of labour in the rured di^dricts at and before Cobdcn's time which kept down the xragcs of the labourers. To- day the reverse holds good. (27). " How should v, e mauuiacturers get on if we got a pattern (a specimen of the productions of a rival manufacturer), and if we brought all our people together and then said, ' It is quite clear that Ave cannot compete with this foreigner; it is quite useless attempting to compete with Ger- many or America ; why we could not produce the goods at the price they do.' But how do we manufacturers act in reality? We call our mei together and say, ' So-and-so is producing goods at such a price, but we are Englishmen, and what 54 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. Germany or America can do we can do also.' The opposite system, Avhicli tlie rural interest goes upon, is demoralising the farmers." Note. — Mr. Cohdcn could not adopt the same system to-day; as he would he bnund hy the Trades Unions he cordially hated, who insist upon a. certain u-age beinj paid to their mcmhcrs, and that those memlers shall only icork a certain number of hours. Still less, if he were a farmer could he adopt any such system. Speech, July 3rd, 1844 (London). j (28). " We do not believe that free trade in corn will injure the farmer ; we are convinced it i will benefit the tenant farmer as much a^ any trader or manufacturer of the community."' Note. — The prophet teas icrong. Whilst the viann- facturer has gone on prospering (up to the last 15 o" 20 years), farrners are still nearly at the top of the lis' ill the total number of banhruptcies annually recorded by the Board of Trade, and they have been so ever since the Board of Trade issued official statistics in 1885! No doubt they were before, too. (29). " We are satisfied that those landowners who improve their estates and surrender moro political power by granting long leases to the farmers, will increase the productiveness of their estates, and will not suffer pecuniarily." Note. — As everybody Icnows, who has enquired into the subject, oirners have enormously "improved" their estates. The "productiveness" of the land, however^ is of no benefit because of foreign competition with the produce of their tenants. As to " leases," landlords are only too glad to get tenants who desire leases, which is the exception rather than the rule. CUBDEMSM. 53 (30). "We Lelicve that free trade Avill increase tlie demand for labour of every kind." Note. — What about agriculture, xchcre the labour sup- ply has diminished, year after year, for the last 50 years and more? Speech, October 24th, 1844 (Manchester). (31). " I speak my unfeigned conTiction wlien I say that there is no interest in this country that would receive so much benefit from the repeal of the Corn Laws as the tenant farmer interest. AVhen the future historian comes to ' write the history of agriculture he will have to : state ' From the time the Corn Law Avas repealed, agriculture sprang up to the full vigour of exist- ence in England, to become what it is now, like our manufactures, unrivalled in the world.' '' Note. — IT'e wonder wliat those uho believe in Cobdcn's theories will have to say to this unfeigned conviction, ichieh has been absolutely falsified by the result? ' Speech, December 11th, 1844 (London). (32). In this speech Mr. Cobden spoke of Mr. Henry Clay, who had stood for the Presidency of America on the ground of his being the author and the father of the protective system in America. Mr. Clay, Mr. Cobden said, was rejected " at the hands of 3 millions of citizens, who," he added, " sent him back to his retire- ment." Note. — To-day, as all the xcorld knows, America is more protective than ever; her artisans insist upon the system; and they, icith the Germans, are our greatest competitors in the whole icorld, and have been for many years. 56 ACiRICL'LTUKE AND TAllIFF REFOKM. SrEKcii, January 15th, 1845 (London). (33). " You compete with foreigners now, and all we say is that you will be able to do so better if you have your bread at the same price as your competitors have." Note. — We wonder if the Cohdenitcs of to-day vcill adopt this argument. They have been saying all o%^er the country, that bread is cheaper in England than abroad. All Cobden icanted apparently xoas that our bread should be as cheap as the foreigners, which, at the time he spohe, was not the case! And yet the foreigners were, and still are, Protectionists ! (34). " The introduction of more corn, cattle, butter, and cheese, will not hurt the farmer in this couutrv." Note. — Then why is the farmer, in 90 cases out of 100, asking fur the adoption of ^dr. Chamberlain's pre- ferential tariff prnposcds? And ifhy has foreign com- 2-)ctition lowered prices so much and made labm:r so scarce? Speech, Makch 13x11, 1845 (IIotjse of Commons). (35). " The vraut of capital is the greatest want among the farmers, and the want of leases is the cause of the want of capital." Note. — Farmers, in the great majoritij of cases, nould be glad to have a little more capital even to-day, but they certainly don't want leases, and only in exceptional cases will they take them. Besides, they had more capitcd years ago than they have to-day. (30). " Take cheese. There is not a farmer but who makes his own cheese for the consump- tion of his servants.'' Note. — There is searccly a farmer, except in the cheese- ninking dlsiriris, to-day, who docs anything of the sort COBDENISM. 57 (for leant vf trade), and tJnis the checsc-maJcing industry has gone dtncn hill, year after year. (37). " Ou tlie last occasion on wliicli I spoke in this HoiisG, I was answered by tlie riglit honourable gentleman, Mr. W. E. Gladstone, President of the Board of Trade; and tbat right honourable j^entleman talked of us free traders throwing poor land out of cultivation and throw-, ing other land out of tillage into pasture." ] Note. — Mr. Gladstone leas right, and Mr. Cohden was- wrong. Consult the staiistics. (38). " The landlords have absolute power in the country; there is no doubt about it." NoTii. — Sueh leas the ease; but, to-day, the landlords have not that power, and therefore, nobody xcho attempts ■to deal with fiseal reform icould be so mad as to bring ill a reform mainly for the benefit of landowners. The fact is, Mr. Chamberlain^s j^roposals are a worhing-mans question, as he himself has said, and if adopted they u-ill result in increased work for worJcing-men, besides drawing the Colonies and the Mother Country nnirh, closer together, ichich wc, of eourse, ardently desire to do. (39). " The last Census shows that you cannot employ the labourers in the agricultural districts. There are too many of them, it is said." Note. — Precisely. There xcas over-popidation in the rural districts, and, consequently, where there were two or three men after one job, wages would necessarily go down. They did go down, therefore, in Cobden's time. (40). " "VVe all know that the Allotments sys- tem has been taken up. It is a plaything. It is a failure." Note. — If Mr. Cobdcn had spent half the energy in putting people on to the land that he spent in opening 53 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFi'^ REFORM. our jjorts to unrcsfricied free trade, he ucould have done a far better thing for the rurcd districts of the country than he has done. At any rate, it seems an extra- ordinary tiling that he should speak of the Allotments system in the unsympathetic terms quoted. Ask the 200,000 to 300,000 men lehat they think of aJlotments; and xcho hare got them since Cotden^s time. Speech, June IStii, 1845 (London). (41). " We liave all said sonietliing different from what we have said now. Have we not all grown wiser? " Note. — Let us hope so. i Speech, July 18th, 184G (Manchestee). [ (42). " I believe if you abolish, the Corn Law honestly and adopt free trade in its simplicity, there will not be a tariff in Europe that will not be changed in less than five years to follow your example." ! Note. — This teas said in ISIfG. It is now nearly sixty \ years since then, and European countries have not even \ yet changed to folloxo our example. Speech, January Dth, 1853 (Aylesbury). (43). Mr. Cobden was talking of wages at Aylesbury, in 1853, and he Avent on to say "that men were earning more, and getting more of the comforts and necessaries of life, and that at two- thirds, and even less, of the prices of 1847." Note. — A voice, presumably that of a labourer, answered that it u-as not so ivith the agricultural labourers, thereupon Mr. Cobden, somewhat angrily, answered that the labourers at Aylesbury were not the COBDENlSM. 59 nation. The man's cjaculaiion icould seem to show that the opinion was held that Mr. Cohdcn advocated free trade rafhrr in order to get cheap labour in the toicns than for anything else. The cheap bread could not possibly hare hrpi. imported, as ice only imported 3,000 to 6,000 quarters of vhcat and ivli cat-flour per annum beticecn 1846 and 1853; whilst the price of wheat icas actually higher from 1S50 to lSo5, namely, 53s. 3^(7. per quarter, than in ISJ^O to ISoO, xchen it was 51s. 8^cl. per quarter. In 18Ji5 it was 50s. lOd. per quarter. The labourer therefore, was probably right, and Cobden wrong. CHAPTER lY. C0J3DEXISM (Continued). Typical Cobdexite Aeguments. It is curious that men, otherwise well informed, should refer to our present fiscal system as one of " Free " Trade. For instance, Mr. G. Armitage-Smith, M.A., in the latest edition of his hook — "The Free Trade Movement and its Ecsults,'" which is dated 1903— says that Jiis study and experience " only more deeply convince him that a free-trade policy is essential to the well-being; of this country"; these remarks folknving a paragraph in which reference is made to the origin of the movement connected Avith ILr. Chamberlain's name. It would puzzle Mr. Armitage-Smith. or anyone else, to show that free trade, as we know it, is what Cobden meant; whilst it is not, of course, free trade in fact. The same gentleman, in his volume, has a chapter devoted to " British Agriculture and Free Trade " ; and, if we deal v.'ith this writer at all, it is simply because we have found him, in argument, a typical Cobdenite. The chapter, however, in question is out of date in part, and shows a sad and lamentable want of knowledge COBDENISM. Gl of tlie results — general and specific — of our free import system upon agriculture, and by conse- quence, upon the other national industries. The author starts with the statement that " Pro- tection,'' as he calls it, has been invoked mainly on behalf of farmers. This was doubtless true when the book was first written, but it is scarcely true to.-day. Ke says, too, that the manufac- turers " are mostly free traders." We are all free traders if we can get free trade as Cobden understood it, but our manufacturers — or those of them who have the greatest interest in the trade of the nation — are certainly not believers in the free import system, or we should not have lived to witness the remarkable spectacle of manufac- turers north, south, east, and west asking for a revision of the preseut absurd fiscal system. " Farming is the least progressive of our national industries," we are told. It would be no discredit if it were, seeing how capital has been frightened from the land during the last thirty or forty years or more ; but it is simply not true, and both now and in Cobden's time our farmers produce more corn per acre and produce better live stock, vrhetlier horses, cattle, sheep, or pigs, than any farmers in the Avorld. We are told that agriculture employed '* 3^- millions " of '' labourers " in the United Kingdom in (pre- sumably) Cobden's time, whilst in 1895 only " 2h millions " found work upon the soil. It would be interesting to know how the proof upon which this statement vests is obtained, as, according 6-2 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. to ilie Census, the number of " farmers, labourers, &c.," in England and Wales occupied in agriculture in 1851 was 1,904,087, and in 1901, 988,340. It is true that the author refers to the United Kingdom, but it is pretty certain in our mind that there were not 3-^ millions and 2| millions of agricultural " labourers " at the dates he mentions, respectively. But, even if there were, it would rather assist the case of tariff reformers than otherwise. " The repeal of the Corn Laws," we are gravely told, " did not operate injuriously to agriculture." The statement is not founded on fact; every- one knows that in spite of improved machinery — which enables more work to be accomplished in a much less time than by hand — and in spite of pedigree seed, and improved live stock of all descriptions, the main cause of farmers being so badly off to-day is the lower prices they have received owing to unfair foreign competition. Almost in the same breath, however, the author assures us that " agricultural imports increased " up to the seventies, and that '"' demand kept pace"; whilst, "excepting corn and wool, prices did not fall materially for some years " — which is just what we say, namely, that owing to the low prices realised for arable produce farmers have neither been able to make fair profits nor to employ a fair amount of labour, whilst these low prices themselves are in their turn due to foreign imports. We are informed that it was from about 1879, COBDENISM. 63 owing to bad seasons (which some of us very well remember) that depression in agriculture began, and that it has not recovered since; and then, curiously, the author at once admits that a chief cause of this depression continuing is what we have stated, namely, foreign competition. The author next has a tilt at the Agricultural Rates Act, 189G, by which the rates on farm lands have been lowered ; and he adds — without a shadow of proof — that the measure will confer no permanent advantage upon farmers. lie should remember that half a loaf is better than no bread, and that permanent or not, great advantage has been received by the farmers, whilst it still remains for him or anybody else to prove that the Act has failed in any particular. Dealing with ^diat he calls the remedy of " Protection," the author, in characteristic Cobdenite fashion, says, " for good or evil, Great Britain has become dependent upon imported wheat to the extent of more than TO per cent, of her consumption; that cheap food is essential to her industrial supremacy; and that only by free importation can an adequate supply be obtained." Does Mr. Chamberlain propose to prevent cheap food? Does he not expressly say that he wants wheat to come in free from our Colonies; and, is it not known to everyone who cares to know, that Canada alone could supply in a very short period all the wheat we require? How is it possible to place reliance in a guide who omits all reference to facts like these? G4 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. It is perfectly true that " under 30 years of exceptionally strong ' protection ' food was dear, and that at the same time the farming classes complained frequently and bitterly." Why? Y/ould it not be more becoming to state the rea- son? "We will do so. Food was " dear " because rents were high; and the farming classes "com- plained " owing to the fact that vdiilst they had to pay large rents on the basis of corn being kept up at a high figure by Act of Parliament, the seasons sometimes proved inauspicious, and rents had still to be paid. Aloreorer, as Cobden declared, tenants were unable to obtain " leases " for any lengthened period; and consequently, if they began to do well, up went rents. Is there, however, a man in his senses v.-ho thinks this possible to-day? Y\]io in Cobden's time had tlie political power? Was it not the landlords; and did not Cobden, over and over again, expressly state so? Who has it now? Is it not the lab- ourers and artisans? And does not political power carry with it the ability to secure v/hat- ever laws the possessors of the political power may desire? Of course it does, and nobody recognised that fact more than Mr. Cobden him- self ; for he was insistent upon it in practically every speech that he made of an agricultural character. And yet Mr. Arniitage-Smith quietly ignores the diuerence between then and now in this all-important matter ! We are told that from 1S4G " there have been but two enquiries into agricultural depression." COBDENISM. 65 He mentions those of 1880 and 1893. It is a pity- he does not — in writing in 1903 — tell ua the results of the report of the Eoyal Commission issued in 1897. For his benefit and for that of those who think like him, we may add that the Commissioners came to the conclusion that low prices were the chief cause of the agricultural depression; whilst they mentioned foreign com- petition in connection with such prices. " One conclusion," the Commissioners stated, " which cannot fail to be drawn from a perusal of the evidence before us is, that amongst all classes of agriculturists there is a consensus of opinion that the chief cause of existing depression is the progressive and serious decline in the prices of farm produce " ; whilst, as to foreign competition, of the witnesses which gave evidence before that Commission no less than 42 of them, including some of those whose names are " household words " amongst agriculturists, declared that " the fall in prices has been directly con- nected with the increase in foreign competi- tion " ; another, but not so serious a cause being the cost of production. As for the remedy for these low prices and foreign com- petition, the Commissioners stated, " the remedy for the present state of things suggested by the majority of witnesses has been a return to measures of protection; nor is it possible to ignore the fact that a great many farmers throughout the country share this view." The Commissioners themselves, whilst evidently sym- 66 AGRICULTURE .IND TARIFF REFORM. patliising witli tlie view lield by tlie majority of the witnesses, did not actually incorporate Pro- tection in one of tlieir recommendations, but tbey did include an alteration in tlie currency, namely, for establishing bi-metallism. Mr. Armitaffe- O O Smith, however, accepts with alacrity the Com- missioners' more or less definite views on one matter, namely, on Protection; but on the other, bi-metallism, he absolutely disagrees with them, Vv^hich apparently shows that he accepts, without argument, the Commissioner's views when it suits his purpose to do so, and disagrees altogether with the views held by the great majority of witnesses and farmers themselves when it does not suit his purpose. It seems to us that the men practically engaged in agriculture are better guides even than the Commissioners in a matter of this sort. Our author says : " Agriculture presents four distinct interests or aspects for consideration, namely, the interest of the agricultural labourer, farmer, landlord, and consumer." The con- sumer is undoubtedl}^ benefited by low prices and abundance. The labourers, we are told, have benefited, although, it is added, " there is a decline in their efficiency." Landlords, it is apparently admitted — indeed, it cannot be denied, for the facts are too patent to the least casual enquirer — have suffered greatly in a fall of rents ; especially in the arable districts. As an off-set to this fall of rents v,'e are asked to remember that prices of consumable goods have also fallen ; COBDENISM. 67 so that a landlord buying bread and other con- siimablo goods pays lesa for tlie same just as does the rest of the community. This is a curious sort of argument, and it is strane-e that the author of it should rest content with it ; for what has become of the labourers whom the landlords used to employ, and what has become of the local tradesmen v/hom they used to be the chief supporters ^,f in the way of trade? Their em- ployment has been taken av.ay; and it is no comfort to a man to know that the articles he v/ishes to consume are half the price they used to be if he has not the money necessary where- with to purchase them. It would be, in his case, at any rate, better for the articles to remain at a rather higher price if, by work, he also has the money wherewith to buy them. "^Ye said above that our author does not quote the report of the Eoyal Commission on Agri- culture, issued in 1897; but he does, later on, although he ought to have done so at the point above referred to, where he could have done it in a direction which would have told very much against the argument lie was seeking to establish. However, in quoting that report (as we say) " later on,'' he says that farmers had for the previous twenty years received on an average only 60 per cent, of the sum vrhich was in past days considered an ordinary rate of average pro- fit, and the reason for this he rightly puts down to foreign competition. We are told to console ourselves, as British farming is only " undergoing e2 ;r'^^J 68 AGRICULTUS!&^i^^- TARIFF RF.I*ORM. an experience common to ail industries " ; tliat is to say, it has cliangecl from arable to pasture. We are asked to be satisfied. That is tlie sugges- tion, not of a wise man, but, rather, of a philo- sophic pedant. When did a country remain permanently prosperous either on pastoral farm- ing or by commerce? Is not the cultivated land the ultimate source of wealth? And why should we, in this country, not make it worth the while of man to cultivate the land? Is there national stability in any sense in town life? Mr. Armitage-Smith looks at the "money" results of free imports; and that, unfortunately, is the be-all and end-all of so many free import thinkers and writers. But is it all? Assuredly not ! Dealing with the British farmers' backward- ness, Mr. Armitage-Smith speaks of Denmark, and of the success which has attended the efforts of that country in butter-making. He then quotes Sir W. Windmeyer, of New South Wales, to show what that State has done by co-operation in butter-making; and he suggests we are apparently behind them in their methods. It is a pity our author did not state the whole truth about this matter. We may as well do what he has omitted, and do it in a very short space too. The truth is that the British farmer does not go in for co-operative butter-making like the farmers of Denmark or of Ncav South Wales, because he makes more money at the present time than the farmers of either of those countries by selling COBDENISM. 60 ■hia-mi lk to tow n £ ini3, who sel l it retail at ou r doors. -"TSIrr'Armitage- Smith then talks about " the utmost science being applied to agricultural pur- suits in other countries." Our own farmers are certainly not behind in skill those of other coun- tries or they could not produce more corn per acre and produce better live stock than the farmers in any other part or parts of the world. Moreover, scientific education in agriculture is undoubtedly greatly spreading with us, and has been for many years; but we have yet to come across the scientific farmer in this country who can make his farm pay. Perhaps Mr. Armitage- Smith can tell us of one, when, if permitted, we will gladly pay a visit to see for ourselves what has been accomplished. Meanwhile, it is a little bit too gratuitous to lecture British farmers in the way Mr. Armitage-Smith does, and at the same time to give doubtful " facts " to support his inuendoes and statements. What — we should like to know — are the scientific methods which the British farmer does not em- ploy, but which if he did would ensure his farming being profitable? "Cattle and dairy farming supplemented by the rearing of fowls, would seem," we are told, " at present to be the most paying side of British farming."' We do not dispute the statement ; and it is because Mr. Chamberlain's proposals will enable this work to be even more successful that we are surprised Mr. Armitage-Smith does not support them. He lO AGRICULTURAL AND fARII'i' REFORM. seems, in fact, to be all at sea wken we come to boil clowu his comments and to find out wliat tlie practical issue of them really means; and, Avlien he might v/ith advantage aj^ply Mr. Chamber- lain's proposals to the benefit of agriculture, he, for some reason best known to himself, neglects to do so. He does not argue them upon their merits, and seems, indeed, not to grasp their importance. It is all ver}- well to say we must know this, that, and the other, and must be advanced educationists. Of course we must; but it so happens that the most advanced and prac- tical farmers whom we have come across are not only abreast of the latest knowledge in their particular lines of agricultural work, but are tariii reformers as well; whilst, v^e may add, the Central Chamber of Agriculture — the most repre- sentative body of agriculturists in ihe Kingdom — has also passed a resolution in favour of Mr. Chamberlain's preferential tariff proposals. Mr. Armitage-Smith knows nothing of these things ; hence it is we have considered it well to say a few words which we hope may do some- thing to set him and others right regarding them. Mr. Armitage-Smith in his volume also has a chapter entitled " Preferential Tariffs." It is condemnatory of Mr. Chamberlain's proposals. We refrain from a further discussion of the author's views as contained in this chapter, not because there is no satisfactory answer to them but because the chapter, generally, consists of such a jumble of pedantic statements, and is con- COBDENISM. ri ceived in siicii a biassed — rather than an impar- tial — spirit almost from the beginning to the end, and shows such palpable ignorant dogmatism as to the practical bearings of Mr. Chamberlain's proposals, that no one who has really endeavoured to think out what those proposals are would ever dream of answering a mere parody of them. EEMAEKABLE COBDEN CLUB YIEWS. In 1888 the Cobden Club lent its name, reputa- tion, and authority to the publication of a book which bore the title, " The British Farmer and his Competitors." We thought at the time the statements in the book were remarkable. We think so still. We dig this little volume out to-day only to compare the facts of the present with the state- ments, opinions, &c., of the author or Club at the time v/e speak of. We do so the more willingly, as, of course, nowadays everybody but the Cobden Club admits that agriculture is badly oif, or, as Lord Rosebery says, is "crippled." The Cobden Club, however, will, vre imagine, hardly care to be referred to views, not of 1843 or thereabouts, but even so recently as 1888; and yet the public may have a little interest in them, though we may at once say that thosQ desiring the book under notice will find, as we have found, a difhculty in getting a copy of it, the Club having, it informed us, ceased to circu- late it. We were, for instance, told (in 1888) that " it 72 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. is certainly very much to the disadvantage of the country that land should be diverted from arable cultivation to grass " ; and then, it is added, that "the non-agricultural classes will be wise, even from a selfish point of view, if they not only refrain from opposing, but earnestly help forward any reasonable reforms or concessions which give farmers a fair chance of meeting foreign competi- tion." The Cobden Club has, of course, never done anything to bring back grass to plough- land; and its attitude even now is opposed to the reforms which the great body of agricultural opinion considers " reasonable." The " wheat-growing area of the world has already (1888) begun to contract," says the book, and " will be seriously diminished imless the average price of wheat is about 40s. a quarter in England." The very reverse has been the fact; and wheat in England has not for years been "about 40s. a quarter," whilst last year it was only 26s. 9d. The Club's author asked, " Will the foreign supplies of wheat keep up at anything like cur- rent (1888) prices ? " and he answered his own question by saying, " My contention is that they will not." Price or no price being " kept up," the supplies have kept up, and that is the prac- tical part of the whole business. The " land of this country," said the writer, " will not bear all the burdens laid upon it in more prosperous times." Anyone knows that; but the party mainly identified with the Cobden COBDENISM. 78 Club has persistently and consistently opposed each and every reform brought in by those who have sought to remove any of the said burdens, and it is still so opposed. Then we are told that " at SGs. a quarter only will the best of the wheat lands — and those only — pay a living profit." Moreover, " on the whole, it can scarcely be profitable to grow wheat here at a lower range of prices than 36s. to 40s. per quarter." Wheat has not averaged 40s. a quarter since 1883, and yet the Cobden Club has con- tented itself, and still contents itself, with plati- tudes, and with opposing every effort of the great body of farmers themselves to alter the situation. Finally, our sapient Club, by its patronage of the book in question, said '' it would be absurd to suppose that land in this country .... Avill go out of cultivation." Well, since 1866, the first year the official figures Avere available, the area devoted to wheat has decreased from 3,350,394 acres to 1,497,254 acres in 1903 ; the area devoted to permanent pasture has, in the same period, increased from 11,148,814 acres to 16,934,495 acres; and the number of horses, cattle, sheep, and pigs has, since 1869 (the first year the official figures were available), decreased from 38,243,127 head to 36,568,130 head, in spite of the great increase in our general population ! Agricultural capital, too, has enormously de- creased; and the number of farmers and labourers, which in 1851 was 1,904,687, has decreased to 988,340 at the last Census of 1901, 74 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. It looks, therefore, as tlioiigli tlie laud lias goue largely out of arable cultivation ! Anotlier publication issued in 1903 under the Club's auspices is entitled " Free Trade, and the English Farmer." After talking round the sub- ject and insinuating what he docs not prove, the author dismisses the main point in preferential tariff reform {i.e., as it affects feeding stuffs for live stock), in less than seven lines as follows ; — " But let us," ' say some Protectionists,' " put a dutjT- on flour, and permit grain to come in free; then the millers, grinding more corn, and getting a higher price for flour, will sell the offals cheaply to the farmers." " Slieh," saj-s the writer of the publication, " it vv'as claimed, would be the result of the differential duties on corn and flour so lately imposed, and so promptly repealed." If the writer in question had but stated the facts regarding those duties and what was claimed for them he vroula have had to admit what has been asserted will result if vfe insist on the foreigner, as far as we can, sending us the whole wheat instead of the flour only; for it is well knovrn — and is proved by the official statistics in another part of this volume — that when those duties were imposed we, in that year, imported less flour, and also ground nearly 10 million cwts. more flour in British mills. We are not surprised, therefore, that the Cobden Club's writer should dismiss this " offals " question in the space alluded to. The extra employment created when C0BDENIS3I. io the difPerential duties Avere on — as sliovvn by the increased British milling — is proof, we think, that a similar result would accrue were some such expedient resorted to as was resorted to when the duties above referred to were imposed. The mere man in the street may naturally ask what the Cobden Club really knows about agri- culture, and what value, if any, can be attached to its assertions on any trade when, in regard to the oldest and largest industry in the kingdom, it is so glaringly at fault — both in 1S8S and in 1903! CHAPTER V. TARIFF REFORM AND ITS EFFECTS. The proposed tariff is 2s. per quarter on "foreign" coru; 5 per cent, on "foreign" dairy produce and meat; and 10 per cent, on " foreign " manufactured implements, &c. ; and in this cliap- ter v/e deal witli the probable eli'ects of the tariff upon agriculture and agriculturists. There is to be no tariff on any goods from our Colonies ; and no tariff on foreign maize or foreign bacon. We may say at once that as Mr. Chamber- lain's proposals are intended, so far as coru growing is concerned, to give a preference to the Colonies over the foreigner in our markets, it is clearly not intended, or likely, that corn-growing, for instance, in Great Britain will receive any particu lar impetus by their adoption. I We agree with the best'iufurmed agricultural opinion that \ the future of British farming will be mainly in a stock-raising and dairying direction, accom- panied by a large increase in small holdings for the production of those smaller articles of the farm which can be grown best by what is popu- larly expressed as the " small man." Opponents of Mr. Chamberlain have, on the one hand, asked how, if the farmer is not given a high tariif on foreign corn, will he be bene- TARIFF REFORM AND ITS EFFECTS. 77 fiteJ (not that they wisli to benefit the farmer in that way) ; and on the other hand, they have said to the farmer that Mr. Chamberlain pro- poses, if his sug<^estions are adopted, still to allow our markets to be "flooded " with corn, which, however, will be produced in the Colonies, and not in foreign countries. Questions or state- ments of this sort are beside the point, and are pure political trickery to which no importance should be attached. Mr. Chamberlain has a very definite object in view, as Ave understand him, and that is to encourage a reciprocal and certain trade with our Colonies, and, at the same time, to cement those bonds of friendship and affection by the additional ties which commerce would give. Accordingl}', in considering his proposals we have noted, like farmers at large, with lively satisfaction, that although there is no special inducement to the British cultivator to increase his area of corn as a profit-growing crop for feed- ing our peojile, there will be every inducement to him to keep more stock, which he will certainly feed at a cheaper rate, increasing his arable area at the same time. More stock means more roots, and, to a certain extent, more straw. Farmers are bound to have straw — even as they have it at present — although it does not prove by itself a profitable thing to grow. On the question of manure, the farmer at present relies mainly on the home (or British) manufactured commodity; and, therefore, tariff reform will have practically little effect in this -1 78 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. direction, in otlier words an average tariff of 10 per cent, on tlie few imported manufactured articles coming within tliis category is not likely at all to affect tlie cultivator. The great bulk of the manures consists of raw material which will arrive here untaxed. Tariff and the Live Stock. As we have said, it is on the great and all- important question of feeding stuff's where th e ) articular interests of farmer s com e in ; and as, lerefore, the effect of tarin' reform vnW be felt so much in this direction, we devote some attention to it. How, then, are the live stock of the farm fed on the best farms, for it is necessarv to know something on that point? As to horses, the food required in winter con- sists mainly of oat-straw, beans, and oat-straw chaffed; v/hilst, in summer, the bulk of the food is grass, or some green forage crop, to which may be added some straw chaff and a liberal supply of oats. Regarding sheep the v.-inter diet for fattening I sheep is chiefly swedes and a small proportion I of hay, undecorticated cotton cake, linseed cake, I and oats ; whilst, in summer, there is usually I given a very small supply of linseed cake and of I undecorticated cotton cake, and a very liberal supply of grass picked tip in the fields. In- lamb ewes receive as a dietary mostly grass, together with a little hay, oats, and bran, daily. TARIFF REFORM AND ITS EFFECTS. 79 . In the case of fattening bullocks tlie dietary in ] winter consists largely of roots (sncli as swedes), ' linseed cake, and oat-straw. In summer the . oat-straw and tlie roots may be dropped off, I whilst the linseed cake may be diminished by I about a half. I The food which dairy cows will eat in winter-time will consist of such dry food as oafc- straw chalfed, hay, sharps, and pollard, unde- I corticated cotton cake, oats and beans ; or of I roots (such as mangolds and turnips), hay, un- decorticated cotton cake, and oat-straw chaffed, J Brevrers' grains are also largely used by farmers I as food for milch-cows in the winter. In sum- ^ mer-time the cows will need very little else but J grass, although the more expert farmers reckon \ to give a small quantity of sharps and pollard, UD decorticated cotton cake, and beans. With regard to pigs, fattening animals are commonlj'^ given maize, barley-meal, and sharps and pollard ; whilst in the case of sows, the food consists most frequently of sharps and pollard, and bran. Poultry, too, consume large quantities of mai;:e, and of o:S:ais from the wheat, aJl the year round, \ but especially in winter-time; and this con- sumption is a specially important matter to all I who keep poultry for profit. I The above statement supplies a very good idea I of the foods given daily, according to the season of the year, to live- stock; but of course the stock- owner — whether of horses, bullocks, cows, sheep, 80 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. pigs, or poultry — will have to keep his eyes upon the markets to see how the prices of feeding stuffs vary, because it might be more profitable to him on some occasions to give more of one food and less of another, according to the prices of the foods concerned, and this will be especially so if he can got good and cheap wheat offals. /'' There seems no doubt, however, that those stocli-^ owners who would mostly benefit by a re-arrange- j ment of our tariff system would be : (1) dairy ' farmers who use such large quantities of meals / for their cows, especially in that part of the year when there is no grass available; (2) the 1 pig-owner, whether he be an allotment-holder 1 with his one sow or porker, the small-holder with ; his two or three, or the regular and larger breeder i of pigs — each of which animals consumes such a \ large proportion of offals and barley-meal ; and \ (3) all who keep poultrj' for profit. ^ _y It seems a reasonable supposition that the wheat- meal, or the bran, sharps and pollard, and the barley-meal, of which so much is already used at high prices on every farm, would come down at least 4d. to 6d. in every shilling from present prices, were we to obtain from our Colonies the wheat, &c., which they are only too willing to supply, instead of our obtaining from, for in- stance, the Yankee (as now) the manufactured lour without the offals, which offals he keeps and feeds to his own live stock, ultimately dumping such live stock upon our markets in the same way as he does his flour. And it stands TARIFF REFORM AND ITS EFFECTS. 81 to reason that if our home supply of wheat offals is largely added to by the wheat offals from the Colonial-grown grain the price of offals generally must come down. If the supply of Colonial offals is likely, as we have said, to be a large one, then those purchas- ing offals must, of necessity, share in the benefits . resulting from lower prices. We find, on thii point, that in 1903 we imported 20,601,191 cwt of wheat-flour. This quantity means 2,307,333,39 lb. of flour; and, according to the amount o: offals obtainable from an official quarter of wheat of 480 lb. (a test which was conducted at our request by a British miller) we find that whilst we received the above weight of flour from the foreigner, the latter kept for his own use the oft'als, which would amount to 24:7,461 quarters. How far such a large quantity of most valuable feeding material would go towards assisting in the feeding of the live stock of this country, every working-man who keeps a pig or poultry, every small holder who keeps one or more head of any class of cattle or pigs, and every farmer — whether he be a dairy farmer or a grazier — will be able to form an opinion for him- self. At any rate, it is clear that the foreigner is too cute for us; and if, therefore, by such an arrangement as Mr. Chamberlain suggests, we can deal with our Colonies and have the whole wheat sent to us instead merely of the flour, we stand to do ourselves a very good turn indeed, and at the same time we shall be doing a good turn 82 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. to our Colonies, who ■will supply not only all tlie wheat but all the barley, oats &c., we require (and not supplied by ourselves). Maize is to come in free — and that, of course, is largely used as a stock food by all classes of farmers. By tariff reform we shall get, as has been suggested, the whole of the grain — wheat, barley, and oats; whilst the meal we shall grind out ourselves. It is clear, therefore, as already sug- gested, that Ave shall get a large increase in the supply of feeding stuffs, which must lower the cost of feeding the poultry, pigs, cows, bullocks, and horses. To this extent every working-man and every farmer who keeps one or more head of such stock will benefit. There are, however, some other feeding stuffs. For instance, we import a lot of rice and rice- meal, the latter of which is, at any rate, used largely by some stock-owners. As this comes mainly from our East Indian possessions it will, under tariff reform, come in free of duty. We also import cattle cakes from India, and here again, such will come in free. On the other hand, we get from the Continent and from America linseed and linseed cake, and also cotton cakes; but the duty on these — even if a duty is imposed at all (which, being in the nature of raw material to the farmer is not likely to be the case) — will not, we may take it, be more than 10 per cent., and certainly this will not prove a serious item, as the quantities are not large when considered from the point of view of each farmer. TARIFF REFORM AND ITS EFFECTS. 83 On the question of feeding stuffs, therefore, for our live stock, the allotment holder with his pig, the small holder with his pig or cow or both, and the larger farmer with his varied live stock, will all feed such stock at a considerably less price than now — from 30 to 50 per cent, cheaper. Tariff and Machinery. Having dealt with the live stock of the farm and tariff reform, let us now say a word or tvro on the question of the dead stock, to see how the cost of this is affected by the proposed tr.riff changes. In the first place, let us take the allotment holder or gardener. He wants a spade, a fork, watering can, hoe, rake, and if he grows corn he may have a small allotment plough suitable for a pony to draw, a harrow, perhaps a culti- vator, and one or two other miscellaneous items — such as a wheel-barrow, and other articles — some of which are commonly made by himself. In any case he Avould not purchase the foregoing more than about once in a lifetime, and never all at once. The actual implements, &c., referred to vv'ould be suitable not merely for an allotment of an acre, but for a small holder, and could be purchased for about £10. The proposed tariff of 10 per cent, on £10 comes to £1, and that is the amount he would have to pay once in a life- time, supposing (which is altogether doubtful) he had to pay the whole of the duty either on the imported goods if they were imported, or upon the British made goods, if these went up in f2 84 AGRICTJLTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. price owing to higlier wages received by the Britisli artisan. In the second place, let us take the case of the average farmer. We have for very many years travelled amongst the agricultural community, and we say without any fear of well-informed contradiction that the average outlay per annum on new machinery does not come to more than £10 to £20 at the most. The farmer may pur- chase one of the latest and best swathe turners for £15 15s., a mower or tedder for £16 and £13 13s. respectively, a horse rake for £15 10s., a cultivator from £12 to £15, a corn mill for £16, a manure distributor for £20, a drill from £3 to £10, a self-binder for £40, a cream separator for £20, or less, and a few other articles. We have taken these prices as being the cost of the latest and most improved implements exhibited at the last show of the Eoyal Agricultural Society, and they may be accepted, therefore, as being accurate. When a farmer wants one or other of these articles, will a 10 per cent, duty upon it kill or "cripple" him? The question is too ridiculous for serious consideration ! Suppose, however, he spent, what not one farmer nowadays does in a thousand, namely, £500 on new machinery on taking to a farm, and suppose, further, every bit of it was American or foreign, or that, if English, it was increased by an average 10 per cent, duty, which Mr. Chamber- lain proposes to put on the corresponding " im- ported " manufactured goods. This extra cost TARIFF REFORM AND ITS EFFECTS. 85 vt'ould come to £50; aud he would be stocked with all the latest appliances, and svich as would, with the occasional repairs which a farmer now has to make, last him a lifetime. Now, it used to be considered that a farmer ought to have £10 of capital for every acre he desired to farm. For argument's sake, we shall suppose the farmer has £5; and we are willing to admit that in the great majority of cases to-day, owing to general agricultural depression, he has not even that sum. Very well, on a farm of 200 acres, which would be but of moderate size, his capital would therefore be £1,000 on the lowest computation, whilst on a 400 acre farm it would be £2,000. Will any man say that in return for the expendi- ture of the extra £50 referred to, once in a life- time, the returns offered him in another direction by tariff reform are not vastly greater? Tho fact is, that the whole £50 would be recouped on most farms in one or two years at the outside, and would be an excellent investment at that. The " extra cost for machinery " bogey does not, we are glad to think, frighten the farmer, al- / though, by the way, from some mere politicians'! I talk he ought to be frightened out of his witsj j on this score by now. Small and Laege Occitpiers. The small occupier, whether he be a small -holder who depends largely upon fruit and vege- tables for his living, or a market gardener who makes a speciality of, say, jjotatoes, strawberries, ur some other commodity, will benefit probably 86 ACllICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. more in proportion to liis liolding than tlie larger farmer. Eor example. We were recently in a Midlands tov/n, and vre found tlie " small men," wlio had a little bit of laud, vrcre buying their offals at the rate of Is. per 14 lb. That is ruination. It means 8s. per cvrt., or £8 per ton, for sharps and pollard. The adjoining farmers, however, who bought in larger quantities, were paying not more than £6 per ton. Now, if the former were to pay from 8d. to Gd., instead of Is. per 14 lb. — v/hich is not at all an unreasonable sup- position — they would, we venture to say, appre- ciate the saving or the advantage much more than the farmer, who under the same tariff arrangements, would pay £3 to £4 per ton instead of £G. The small man, however, may, as indeed many do in the "West of England — particularly down in Cornwall — grow potatoes for the early British market. By dint of every cure the Cornishman is able, shovild the season be favourable, to fore- stall much of the foreign competition. If the climatic conditions are adverse the foreigner gets our markets, as was the case, in part, in 190'j. The Britisher accordingly suffers a very serious drav/back. Both political parties in the State have for the last twenty years or so had in view the encouragement (judged by what they have both said) of the allotments and small holdings systems, but it sa}-s very little for those amongst them who are TARIFF REFORM AND ITS EFFECTS. 87 afraid to go a step fiirtlier — that step further being to tax the foreigner to a small extent (the 5 per cent, referred to) for the privilege he has of taking profits from our ovrn people. There are many who urge that the foreign goods ought to be kept out until such time as the English articles are ready for market; in which case, they could all compete on equal terms, and the public would benefit by the double supply and the lower prices which would naturally ensue. Under the present regime, however, if, as one small holder put it to us, the " bottom " is knocked out of the potato trade by the existing foreign competition, at a period of the 3'ear when the climate turns against our own growers, and our goods are by consequence two to three weeks later in maturing, it is " hard lines " that the British growers should have to bear all the anxiety, trouble, and loss, and that the foreigner should benefit at their expense. It seems only reasonable, that if the foreigner is to benefit, he should pay for it to some extent at least. There would be no fear of his not sending the goods. He would be only too glad to pay the 5 per cent. (Is. in the £) which tariii reformers propose to charge him. Moreover, those who now wish and are content to buy at high expense the foreigners' early crops, could not reasonably object to or complain of this arrangement. They could not, moreover, even if the tariff resulted in their paying the 5 per cent, duty themselves. As in the case of the late registration duty on corn, hov/- ever, we believe the foreigner would be the person 88 AGRICULTUrvE AND TARIFF REFORM. Avlio would in tlie end pay this amount, and not the consumer. Foreign competition, too, " hits " our early strawberr}^, asparagus, &c., growers, so many of whom are small holders depending mainly upon one or other of these crops. A well-known market gardener from the Worcestershire district, declared before the Royal Commission on Agricul- ture that foreign competition interferes not only with asparagus, as we have already suggested, but with radishes, lettuces, &c., to say nothing of the serious competition in apples. Market gardeners and small holders particularly, feel the depression in town trades more quickly than any class or classes in the kingdom, because directl}'' a town working-man is on short time, his wife, who has to " draw in " in the way of expenses, stops pur- chasing all but the most necessary potatoes and cabbages, the purchase of fruit being out of the question. On the other hand, when trade is good, the artisan's wife indulges in extras, or " luxu- ries," just like the rest of us. The larger occupier, that is to say, the farmer who goes in for dairying (whether milk selling, butter-making, or cheese-making) ; the grazier, or the farmer who fattens bullocks ; or the farmer who does a little of both, will, it is clear, from what we have said, not only have the 5 per cent, tariff in his favour on foreign meat and dairy pro- duce, but he will feed some or all of his stock at a cheaper rate, whilst his outlay on implements and appliances could not — were he to pay the \1 TARIFF REFORM AND ITS EFFECTS. 89 whole duty ou them — be anything like as much as what he will save in his corn and cake bills. Even, therefore, supposing he makes no more money from the live stock which he sells (to say nothing of his other sales), he will be better off at the end of the year from the fact that he has fed his stock at a less cost. It is no small advan- tage to be able to say that; but it is a special satisfaction for us to be able to state that the small man will benefit even more proportionately to his holding with his varied crops. Cost of Living. There is only one other aspect — apart from the Imperial aspect — which needs for the moment consideration here, and that is, whether the cost of living to the large or small farmer, to the allotment holder, or to the agricultural labourer who has no allotment at all, will or will not be increased. Canada alone has over 300 million acres of the finest wheat-growing land in the v/orld. The quantity of wheat required by the United Kingdom is 200 million bushels annually. If we assume that only 20 bushels per acre could be grown on the 300 million acres referred to (as against our 30 to 33 bushels per acre), then it follows that Canada alone could produce wheat sufficient to feed not only our existing population but a population thirty times as great as that now inhabiting the United Kingdom. Those who oppose Mr. Chamberlain never enlighten the elec- tors on a fact such as this, vi-hen they talk about 90 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REirORM. his " wanting " to " raise the cost of living." And wliat Canada can do in the wheat (or bread) line she can do in the meat and dairy produce lines too. All such food is to come free. The same proposal applies, also, to every one of our Colonies and daughter States; and yet we are asked to believe that food will be " dearer '' ! Mr. Chamberlain has himself said, on this point, that there will not be any increase in the cost of living. He has pledged his word to that extent. He has gone further, and promised to reduce the household bill for food and drink, so that, if by any chance the duties imposed by us on the foreigner were paid by the Britisher, he would take off the Britisher more than any such payment as that referred to. Such a statement and such a pledge will carry no conviction to a rabid political opponent; but it may be remem- bered, that none amongst the ranks of those who are so bitterly assailing that statesman have shown a tithe of the successful interest in the working-man, Avhether agricultural labourer or artisan, that he has shov/n, and this dates from a time even before he entered Parliament. An Honourable Parliamentary Eecord. It is well to look back on this matter for a moment, when his honour almost is challenged, and when his proposals are attacked in so unfair and bitter a manner. It is not difficult to appeal to facts. For example, it is now 15 or 16 years since the first general Allotments Act was placed upon the Statute Book. That Act should TARIFF REFORM AND irS EFFECTS. 91 have been passed by Mr. Gladstone and the Liberal Party of that period. They refused to pass this Allotments Act, although Mr. Cham- berlain and Mr. Jesse CoUings had advocated throughout the country this and other rural reforms. Mr. Gladstone took advantage of the position. The advantage he took was to get into power over the labourers' backs, and then, without ceremony, to throw them over for Home Eule. If that abominable treatment of poor men stood alone, one might possibly forgive the Liberal Party; but the same politicians went again for Home Hule in 1892 instead of for the various social reforms required by the agricultural labouring and farming community. It is not a matter for wonder that Mr. Cham- berlain and others refused to trust the interests of the agricultural labourer to Lord Eosebery, Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, and their Home Rule friends ; and we are able to state that since the great " split " took place on the first Home Pule Bill, the rural population has secured more reforms and better reforms than have been secured in any similar period of our history. It would take too long to mention the many magnificent Acts of Parliament of special interest to rural people which we have se- cured from the combined Unionist Party; but there are two Allotment xicts Vv^hich, for the first time, enable any labouring man to apply for an acre of land, and give him compulsory powers by which he can obtain it; there is a Small Holdings Act, which, for the first time, enables U2 AaRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. a mau to buy land up to 50 acres iu extent, mainly witli the aid of public money; there is an Allot- ment and Cottage Gardens Compensation for Crops Act, Avliich, for the first time, enables a poor man to claim compensation for the crops in his garden or on his allotment, when he leaves, or is turned out thereof ; there is a Market Gar- deners' Compensation Act, which, for the first time, secures market gardeners protection and compensation in their industry ; there is the Free Education Act, which Mr. Chamberlain could never get Mr. Gladstone to pass, and which he secured from the Unionist Party; there is the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, which enables working men, in town or countrj^, to buy their own houses, mainly with public money; and there is the Workmen's Compensation (Agri- cultural Labourers') Act, which, for the first time, gives agricultural labourers compensation, in money, if injured iu the course of their employ- ment, and three years' wages or £150 to their dependents in case of death, &c. For these and other measures Mr. Chamberlain and the Union- ists are directly responsible. These measures were not initiated by his opponents who now are so bitterly opposed to him. They had the chance to pass them when in ofiice, but they refused or neglected to do so. Perhaps, therefore, once again reviewing the foregoing, the agricultural labourer will feel dis- posed to judge Mr. Chamberlain by what he has actually done in Parliament in connection with social reform, rather than by what his political TARIFF REFORM AND ITS EFFECTS. 93 opponents would like to have him believe he has done. For our part, we cannot help thinking, that sooner or later, the agricultural labourer- like the sensible and patriotic indivudual he is — will prefer to believe that it is better for us as a nation, to, so to speak, dig our own garden, rather than to allow our foreign neighbours to dig theirs, and then to dump the produce of it into our dwelling. Better Wages and more Employment. We have briefly indicated in the foregoing part of this chapter to what extent those who occupy land and who keep live stock would benefit by tariff reform; but we think a further word may be desirable — perhaps necessary — to indicate that not merely will great benefit accrue to each of those coming within the category referred to, but that the wages paid in the rural districts to agricultural labourers, are also certain to increase at the same time. For instance, we have everywhere found that the labourer who looks after live stock for his employer is paid some two or three shillings, and in some cases more, per week than the labourer who does not have stock to attend to at all. Now it stands to reason, that if an employer is able to feed his stock at a very considerably less rate, he will very likely increase his head of stock proportionately, or at any rate to such further extent as his farm will allow. In view of such increase, it is obvious that there must be required 94 AGRICITTiTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. more labour to cope with tlie iucreasecl employ- ment, and it so happens that this labour is of the highest-paid class. It is true, stock-men usualh' have more hours to vrork ; inasmuch as their stock must be fed and otherwise looked after, not merely on week-days, but also on Sundays. "We have, however, never found a labourer object to any such increase, provided he is paid in proportion ; which is, of course, the present system. Accordingly, if the present system is to be extended to a considerable extent, as we maintain must result by the adop- tion of tariff reform, the agricultural labourers must feel the improvement by the increased employment of a better-paid character. There used, too, to be a large number of flour mills in every county. These have largely fallen into desuetude, owing mainly to our importing the flour, instead of the whole wheat, and partly to the newer processes for abstracting the flour from the grain. We have it, however, on the author- ity of millers themselves, who have spoken to us, that if Mr. Chamberlain's proposals are adopted, there would be an enormous increase of work in the rural districts and connected v/ith the mil- ling industr3^ This, of course, means a further source of better-paid employment to the agri- cultural labourer and his sons. Local Tradesmen Benefit. It must, moreover, be borne in mind, that no such beneficial result can accrue without some TARIFF REFORM AND ITS EFFECTS. 95 improvement iu other directions, and it does not need a genius to predict or to perceive, tliat if the farmer is, on the one hand, improving his position, and a very large number of labourers in each county are, on the other hand, obtaining higher wages, the local tradesmen of every description will receive their share in the in- ceased prosperity of their customers. The " general " agricultural labourer will be drawn upon for this better-paid work ; and will mani- festly be in a position sooner to avail himself of those Acts of Parliament passed for his benefit, Acts which enable working-men to get upon the soil on their own account, and in connection with which Mr. Chamberlain and the politicians with whom he is connected did so much to promote. It is the intention of those same politicians to still further assist the agricultural classes of this ' 'untry, and not least, the agricultural labourers ; and, as a testimony on this point, we need only mention the three Bills of the Right Honourable Jesse Collings, 31. P., namely, a Bill to amend the Small Holdings Act, so as to make the Act more advantageous ; a Bill to enable those farm tenants who desire to do so to purchase their holdings, on a much similar system to that which has already been created for and adopted by the Irish farm tenants ; and a Bill enabling the children of labourers and those of other cultivators of the soil to secure a better education in those rural subjects with v.hich in after life they are, as we all hope, to be more and more identified. CHAPTER VI. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. We deal in this chapter with the objections to tariff reform which are commonly met with. It is, however, as well that the public at large should remember that the question of preferential tariffs, which some assert would be of no advan- tage to agriculturists, has been particularly fully discussed by the Central Chamber of Agricul- ture, the most representative of agricultural bodies in this country. Two sittings were given to it, and eventually the following resolution was put to the meeting and carried by a very large majority against only seven dissentients: — " That this Council considers that the time has come for the reconsideration and reform of our present fiscal svstem. It cordiallv welcomes the proposals submitted by Mr. Chamberlain as being necessary and desirable for such reform." This resolution was agreed to on December 9th, 1903, since which time up to now our experience shows us that farmers have been and are in ever increasing numbers intent upon having prefer- ential tariff reform. OBJECTIONS. 97 Agricultural Education. Undoubtedly, education is at the root of many successes in life; indeed, no industry can be carried on with, the greatest success unless the education is of the most perfect kind. Of what avail, however, is education, whether to a townsman or to a farmer, if, when he has obtained it he is driven out of the market by the foreigner? Education will not get one over the foreigner's tariff wall ! If we want to send 1 cwt. of butter to France or to Germany, we must pay a stiff price to the authorities of either country for the privilege of being able to do so ; but, if a farmer in either of these two countries — or any other country — wishes to send butter to our country he is allowed to do so. Our policy, in fact, at present is, " Let 'em all come," paupers and criminals as well. The foreigner thus has his own market and ours in which to sell his butter, &c., whilst we have the British market alone. So long as a foreign farmer makes a good price at home in his own country, he can undersell the Britisher, and gradually wipe him out of existence. What applies to one British farmer applies to the whole lot; and yet we are asked by some queer people to look on whilst this process of gradual extinc- tion is being accomplished. And we are told to look quietly on at it because the rest of England would benefit. Does anybody suppose that when our farmers are finally crushed out the foreign G 98 AGRTCFLTTJRE AND TARIFF REFORM. produce will be sold at the same rates as now? Are foreigners devoid of cuteness, or is it not we ourselves wlio are devoid of that quality? AVhere comes in that " natural level " of prices (which Cobden wanted) when by an unnatural process the farmer is " robbed " of his own market here, and is not allowed by the " robbers " to enter theirs? It is certain that no British in- dustry can stand for ever this form of " robbery " which the Cobdenites nowadavs think is fair " competition." Faem Better. This is a favourite suggestion of some people, and doubtless it embodies a modicum of sense, inasmuch as most of us know land which could be farmed better than it is, or than it appears to be. It is, however, worth while to hear what Sir John Lawes (the greatest British agricultural scientist and practical farmer) a few years since stated on this particular point, especially as his argument is, if anything, more valuable to-day than at the time it vras uttered. He said: — " It is generally supposed, and has often been said, that the lower the prices of our agricul- tural crops, particularly of wheat and barley, we ought to grow more and more. Unfortun- ately, the result of all our experiments, which are very extensive, is that the reverse is the lav.-. As you increase your crops so each bushel after a certain amount costs you more and more. There- OBJECTIONS. 99 fore, if we had a famine in the land, and we could get a guinea a bnsliel for our wheat, we should try to grow the very utmost that is possible, but the lower it goes so we must contract our farming down to what I should call the average of the seasons. "We have in this country very bad seasons, and very good seasons, and the mean of those is something like what we can grow, not more." " Then (he was asked) in your opinion a remedy is not to be found in higher cultivation, in the sense of putting more manure to the land? " " Xo, it is quite contrary to that, The last bushel always costs you more than all the others." " Then (he was further asked) I suppose, you would deduce from this that, in the corn districts, the higher the farmer has farmed his land in the sense of adding manure, the worse has been the financial result?" " Yes, quite so." Finally, he was asked, " Do you think that those farmers who have farmed on a verv hiirh system have probably lost more money than those who have farmed on a lower scale? " He replied, " I am afraid so." The suggestion that we should " farm better "' is one of those vague suggestions which simply do not stand enquiring into. If a man does farm better it is, generally speaking, of no avail, as the returns are not commensurate with the trouble and outlay. It is, however, as often cs not quite impossible to "farm better," as the capital is wanting, labour is scarce (and, often not of the best), and prices, even where the farm- q2 100 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. iug is high, do not constitute a business return on one's outlay. We speak of arable or mixed farming, for milk-selling (which constitutes the bulk of the remaining farming) is already more or less a profitable business, employing, however, the least labour, as dairying must always do. " Farm better " is a maxim which may be applied to small holdings, the number of which in the national interest we desire to see largely in- creased ; but it is not applicable to any general extent to the average farmer or to the farm lands of this country. Railway Rates. The question of railway rates is one which is being dealt with by the Board of Agriculture at the present time, and beyond saying that such is 2^r/»z^ facie evidence that there is a case for enquiry, we need perhaps hardly take up much further space. However, we feel that there is a preference given to foreign produce over that of British farmers, and we have been told this by growers on every hand. We are, moreover, of opinion that, in many cases, the charges of railway com- panies — apart from the preference indicated — are too high, and, in fact, more than " the traffic can bear," which, it is generally understood, is the idea which guides the companies in the mak- ing of their rates. Although the price of agri- cultural produce has fallen enormously between the last 20, 30 and 40 years, the railway rates OBJECTIONS. 101 have certainly uot fallen iu anything like the same ratio, whilst in unmerous cases they have increased; and, therefore, there seems to be a grievance, to the bottom of which we trust the Board of xigriculture will get. It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that a slis^ht re- duction on the carriage of milk, or on tlxat of other produce, would at the end of the year put the farmer in the position he ought to occupy, namely, one of fair competition all-round with the foreign producer. Much else clearly is re- quired than a reduction in railway rates. Rent. We do not propose to argue the question " What is Rent? " because economists and philosophers appear upon this as upon other matters to differ exceedingly. Besides, we have already had some- thing to say on the matter in Chapter II. We suggest, however, that it is both common- sense and business (to say nothing of the morality of it) that a man — call him a landlord or what not — should receive a reasonable return on the money he has invested in the purchase of his land, and on the improvements he makes upon or to it. This return, if one likes, may be called " rent," or interest. The late Duke or Argyll regarded the soil as the landlord's manufacturing plant, whilst Professor Marshall has admitted that not only the soil of a new country resembles such plant, but that even in an old country like England, for example, it is quite often an " essen- 102 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. tial product," as essential in fact as the bricks from which are made the walls of one's dwelling- house. The latter authority adds that the soil " receives an income of heat and light and rain and air," and in the case of urban land " of advantages of situation, all of which are inde- pendent of man's efforts." It is, however, clear from this process of reasoning that if an owner of land, as Mr. Grarnier has pointed out, " shares in the cost of production " by an expenditure of capital, he is entitled to a reasonable rent, and also " of the protection of the community." What a " reasonable " rent is may be left to the man who willingly takes laud and to the man who willingly lets it, which is a common practice, we are glad to say, in this countr3^ Whatever rents are nowadays, it may cer- tainly be said that they do not represent anything like such a return on the capital in- vested in the purchase and improvement of the laud and buildings as would satisfy any manufac- tuvor or any other trader or merchant on his outlay. ^\'e do not say that rents are not too high in some individual cases; but Sir James Caird, in 188G, estimated that there had been a fall of some 30 per cent, up to that time, whilst the Eoj-al Com- mission on Agriculture in 189 T reported that with some exceptions, chiefly in Wales, where remissions had been made instead, reductions in rent had been generiJ, varying from 10 and oO per cent, in the least distressed districts to, in the most distressed parts of England, 50 and in some OBJECTIONS. 103 cases 70 to 80 per cent. We liave not seen it suggested to what extent rents should come down except in general terms, but it seems to us that after all, this is a matter which can be best arranged between a willing tenant taking land from a man who has land which he willingly lets. At all events, the evidence goes to show that land- lords have met their tenants — except in a few- cases here and there — with liberality; and that for one case where rent has been maintained at an unreasonably high rate, it is easy to put fifty where it has been lowered to the satisfaction of the tenant, who even then is not able to earn a fair business profit. By the bye, we once heard (in 1903) a Liberal landowner and former member 01 Parliament, declare that he made a jirofit out of his cottage rents, and that he put up such rents, if possible, ou every vacancy. We cannot recom- mend the policy, and we were surprised to hear it from one Avho persistently is talking about the " dov\n trodden "' and the " ];oor " and againsL tariff reformers. It struck us that a little generosity on his part would have been better. LA^D Nationalisation. It would be unjust to nationalise the laud without compensation, and that contention has been admitted by John Stuart Mill, Henry George, and others ; but directly such is admitted, and the compensation is enquired into, one finds that the compensation payable to the landowners for their land and for the improvements they have made upon it, is much more than any rent the landlords 104 AGEICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. either now get, or, so far as we cau see, will iu future receive for the land they own. Land Nationalisation, therefore, is but a theory and is unsuitable in a country like this, where the people still believe both iu honesty and in the right of every man to make a reasonable profit from his work or from his investments. We once heard of a labourer who had saved a few pounds and who went to a "socialist" meeting. The speaker was remarking how much each would receive if all the money and land were equally divided. The labourer turned to a fellow labourer and enquired " Eh ! Bill, what did he say?" Bill replied, "He says that we shall all have £5 apiece if we go iu for his policy." " To Hanover with him," the labourer emphati- cally observed, "I've £1Q already, and I'll take d— good care nobody has £5 of that ! " Directly a man obtains a few pounds, an allot- ment, a house, a small holding or what not, he has something he can call his own. The " magic of property" acts. It is essentially a healthy thing, and the man possessing it at once becomes a better citizen. Experience everywhere proves it to be so. lie is not subject to those panics, sentimental or not, which seem periodically to overcome others not so fortunately situated as himself; and the legislation of recent years has been largely in the desired direction. What else can the Acts mean, nationally, which have been passed to put the labourer and artisan on to the land, and to enable him to possess his home? OBJECTIONS. 105 Tenuke and Improvements. Other siiggestious wliich liave been made are that a farming tenant should have fixity of tenure, free sale of his improvements, and that there should be rents judicially fixed by a Land Court. The suggestions have been pretty con- stantly before the public for more years than we care to remember, but we may certainly add that the most impartial and practical farmers and others whom we have come across, have in the main certainly not asked for " judicial " rents, whilst as regards fixity of tenure some of the most strenuous advocates of this have come to urge that it is not required where free sale of a tenant's improvements are allowed to such tenant. The Royal Commission on Agriculture came to the conclusion that not one of the three propositions was desirable in the interests of agriculture. With regard, however, to the free sale of im- provements which is perhaps the most important of the three items, matters have been consider- ably ameliorated by the passing of the Agricul- tural Holdings Act, 1900, and there is no reason to suppose that with further pressure, agricul- turists would not secure a further amendment of this Act should they generally desire it. No such amendment, however, could by any stretch of reasoning enable farmers to compete with the foreigner under our present absurd fiscal con- ditions. lOii AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. Small Holdings. A sufficient remedy for agricultural depression is, we are told, to adopt the small holdings sys- tem ; and here, fortunately, we have had a some- what unique experience. There is no stronger advocate of the small holdings system than the writer who, under the auspices of the Rural Labourers' League, of which he is Secretary, and of which the Right Honourable Jesse Collings, M.P., is the President, has assisted working men to take advantage of the Acts passed for their benefit. These Acts are the Allotments Extension Act, 1882, the Allotments Acts, 1887 and 1890, the Local Government Act, 1894, and the Small Holdings Act, 1892, It is not likely, therefore, that we should altogether adversely criticise the small holdings system. When, however, we are asked to cut up all our large farms and to make them into small holdings, we say the thing is both impracticable and undesirable. It is impracticable because, in the first place, we have not the population to immediately put on such holdings, and landowners have not the money to erect the necessary huge increase of farm buildings which would be required ; and, in the second place, a good deal of the land in most counties in England is, on the score of its distance from a station and its quality, unsuit- able for the successful conduct of small holdings. OBJECTIONS. 107 It is undesirable, because after all, it is to the lioldera of larger farms to wbom we must look (and to whom in the past we have looked) for those big outlays of capital in the produc- tion of the best horses, cattle, sheep, and pigs, and in the adoption of the most improved imple- ments and appliances for the most economic culti- vation of those lands unsuitable for small hold- ings. Such farmers are standing examples to all the smaller men around them, and their influence, both on farming and other grounds, is, and should be, of a most beneficent character. We wish, however, it to be clearly understood that we are a thorough believer in the small holdings system, and that we should like to see a considerable increase of small holdings in every county in England where the circumstances of the laud, both as to its character and proximity to markets, &c., are suitable. It should be consoling for tariff reformers to reflect that if we had a huge increase in small holdings, the cultivators of them here, as abroad, Vv'ould take precious good care that they had tariff reform, because to them tariff reform would be of special utility. Co-operation. How far co-operation can improve the position of the agi'iculturist is a question that does not admit, so far as it concerns English and Scotch farmers, of that easy answer v/hich is sometimes given to it. 108 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. It is customary to point to tte success which has attended the movement initiated by Sir Horace Plnnkett and others, in Ireland, in proof of the fact that the same might be done upon this side of the Irish ChanneL As a matter of fact, what has been done? The Irish farmer has co-operated for the sale of milk, which is then, under his own auspices, converted into butter. Cheese-making is not carried on to any extent worth mentioning, although there seems no very apparent reason why it should not be. The Irish farmer has no opening for the sale of milk in the large towns of Ireland, and as a result he must and does convert the fluid into butter. On the other hand, the British farmer has a large and increasing sale for milk in the industrial centres of England, and experience has shown him that this is more profitable to him than to turn the milk into butter. He cannot be expected to make butter if it is less profitable than to sell milk. Cheese-making too, upon this side of the Channel, does not prove to the great majority of British farmers so attractive or so profitable as the sale of milk. Here again, there- fore, he cannot be blamed for choosing to sell his milk instead of to make it into cheese if he secures more profit by the former, and (as lie does) a more certain trade. It may be urged, however, that he should co- operate for the sale of his milk. Now this par- ticular co-operation, so far as the public is con- cerned, might have a very unfortunate effect, as, OBJECTIONS. 109 directly the farmer is master by co-operation of the situation, he would be in a position to pop up the price of milk in our large centres, at which there would be an immediate outcry, and the farmers would be told they were indulging in a monopoly in a necessary article of food. Farmers, however, do not adopt this attitude as a rule, although there is certainly a tendency (with which we cordially sympathise) to combine both for the sale of their milk and for other purposes, such as, for example, for the purchase of manure, seeds, and implements. Nevertheless, it is quite open to question whether co-operation on any large or national scale, even for milk-selling, would, amongst our farmers, be preferable to the system of individual selling to companies or to large dealers — a system they appear to prefer. In the meantime, it is well that the public should be told that the whole question has been thoroughly enquired into by the Central and Associated Chambers of Agriculture. The con- clusion, after a very exhaustive survey of co- operation as existing both in this and in other countries, was that co-operation for " purchase " and co-operation for " sale " formed two separate problems. This is precisely what we might have expected them to say. They add that the solution of the one is easy, whilst that of the other is extraordinarily difficult. In other words, it is no difficult thing for farmers to subscribe towards an association of their own, which association can obtain manures, seeds, and implements on more no AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. or less beneficial terms by pureliasiug consider- able quantities of tbem and selling the same to their own farmers. Such co-operative associations for " purchase " are increasing ; but there is no reason whatever to suppose that, carried to the fullest extent, they would seriously ameliorate the condition of British farming, resulting, in the main, from low prices. When we come to co-operation for the purposes of " sale," the farmer is met with enormous difficulties, and effort after effort has failed in spite of the most careful and sustained labour. The Committee of the Central and Associated Chambers of Agriculture declared that nothing which came before them led them to believe that the profits of English farmers would be straightway increased by the adoption of any universal system of co-operation, " even supposing that the establishment of such a system were possible." It is well-known that many farmers are purchasers on a sufficiently large scale to be able to make practically as good terms as the}'' would be able to obtain through an associa- tion ; while many of the smaller farmers, especially near large centres of population, dis- pose of their produce direct to the consumers. The committee, however, thought that co-opera- tion for sale might advantageously be adopted in particular districts for particular products; but this is very dift'erent from applying the principle generally to British farming. Were we a nation of small holders, as is Ireland and Denmark, co- operation would be comparatively a very easy OBJECTIONS. Ill affair; and there is some hope, as small holdings extend, the system will be adopted. If we wanted any further evidence of the difficulty attending the establishment in Great Britain of co-operation for the sale of milk, butter, or cheese, we should find it in the third Annual Report issued in June, 1904, of the Agri- cultural Organisation Society, for the year ending 1903, At this date there were 73 co-operative societies ; but, of these, we are informed by the secretary, only nine sell milk, only four of them sell butter, and only two of them sell cheese. Use Labour- Saving Implements. It is said that our farmers should use labour- saving implements more, and that then they would produce food cheaper and solve the " scarcity of labour " difficulty. Our experience is that farmers are more and more adopting the policy, but that even then they cannot make farming a successful and safe busi- ness. It is, however, well to look baek a bit, when the farmer is being severely criticised for his want of progress in this particular direction. We shall show that there has been an increas- ing trend in the direction of using new and improved implements.* The thump of the flail could once be heard in every hamlet, and almost from every farmstead. There were a few horse threshing- machines on the largest farms, but they were * 'J'he Hxiral World, 112 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. mostly constnicted of wood and exceedingly cumbrous. Moreover, tliose wlio had them often feared to make much use of them, the labourers of those days entertaining very universallj^ the notion that all kinds of machinery took bread out of the mouths of the poor, and hence it Avas no harm to disable or even to destroy it when- ever opportunity served. During the agrarian riots of 18-52 the spite of the mobs was chiefly wreaked against farmers who had threshing- machines ; and, if they could reach their barns before the yeomanry came the machines were broken to pieces and burnt. An easier way was, however, that of igniting the barn itself, and incendiary fires on farms were rife in the troubled period of 1848. Wheat was mostlv sown broadcast. Summer fallows were general in those days, and often in October they were, even in clay, fine tilth at sowing time. The seed corn was then ploughed in, but, when a clover layer or piece of bean stubble, the land was ploughed, if possible, a fortnight before being sown. The wheat was sown broad- cast on the furrows, and the staler they were the better they could be worked down by the harroAvs for bur^ang the seed corn. Both ploughs and harrows were of exceedingly rough construc- tion, the handiwork of hedgeside carpenters and village smiths. A farmer's stock of field imple- ments was seldom more than two or three ploughs with cast-iron turnfarrows, a heavy pair of har- rows, tined drags, and a light pair, besides a OBJECTIONS. 113 woodeu roller, a tree truck fitted with a frame with shafts for the horse. Sometimes the wheat was dibbled, which was a far better way of put- ting it iu thau the above ; and as about a bushel of Avheat was saved in the seeding, the value of this when worth Ts. paid for the labour, and recuperative employment was found for surplus hands when there were too many of them. A field or breadth having been ploughed, a man armed with a dibber in each hand would walk backwards on two furrows, striking holes in them as he went, while a woman or lad followed to drop a corn or oftener two corns into each hole. The wheat plant always came up strong and vigorous after the surface consolidation by the tread of human feet, and, if performed early in the season, autumn tillering was the result. Beans were often dibbled similarly, but bean- planting by field women was the more general custom. A company of perhaps half a dozen women were often to be seen on a black February or March morning, each with an open-mouthed bag containing the seed beans suspended to her waist, and she would strike holes with a short dirk held in the right hand, and drop beans into them after taking them out of the bag with her left hand. Truly it was back-aching work for the poor women, who had to perform it stooping, with heads nearly down to the ground all day. Perhaps, it will be asked, why did not farmers drill their beans? The corn drills of that time were cumbrous, requiring four horses to drav,- H Hi AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. them through a stiii' bit of loam or clay land, and there was a still more potent reason why they were not used for beans. The cups that revolved in the seed barrels were not big enough to hold the large horse beans, although they could be made to act tolerably well in taking up the tick beans. Treating of drilling-machines, what an advan- tage the modern light-made ones — mostly con- structed with cast-steel instead of cast-iron and wood — confer on farmers able to avail themselves of them. The old Suffolk drill not only required four horses to actuate it, but a man and a boy to drive them, another man walking behind the drill to manage it. A modern one of equal width, stronger, although of such light draught, only requires a pair of horses which can be driven by reins held by the drillman. If we may here exclaim, " Look on this picture, and on that," in regard to drilling, the exclama- tion would be still more effective applied to ploughing as once done, and now often effected by farmers who can afford to have gang ploughs. These are virtually ploughing machines, for they have seats at the back for the ploughman, who rides instead of walks. But the man has to drive three horses with reins placed abreast, to draw the machine as well as manage it, and when the land is level and works well, an acre per horse has often been turned over per day. What a contrast to the state of things in the old days, when the same number of horses driven in a OBJECTIONS. 115 string only ploughed a single acre between them per day, and two men, and sometimes a boy in addition, were required. The advantage of the farmer having one or two of these ploughs to fall back upon in a busy time when the season is late, and he is likely to lose it altogether, is even greater than the actual saving of labour in less men and horses being required. This is the reason of the steam cultivator being invaluable when the farmer behind with cropping is able to get it. Certainly there is the same great gain with the self-binding reaper which did not exist in our youth. Two horses driven with reins by a man seated behind, who also manages the machine, will cut and tie into sheaves as much corn as twenty men could do by hand-reaping, according to the slow process of effecting it in olden times. The standing wheat then often got to be " goose- necked," and the corns in the ears became very horny before sufficient hands could be obtained to deal with it, and there were also frequently spoiling crops of grass awaiting the scythe. Our modern labour-saving implements, too, cause farmers to harvest their crops in less time, and thus perform invaluable service. For instance, grass-cutting can be delayed in a stormy, unsettled period with greater impunity under the certainty that when the skies become more cloudless the mowing machine can be set going from early dawn until sunset with two relays of h2 116 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. liorses, and, with a good harvesting machine kept continually on the move stirring the drying fodder, large quantities can readily be dried with- out the old tedious process of repeatedly turning it with the hand, pick, or fork having to be resorted to. The horse-rake will also draw the fodder when conditioned enough into big rollers, and although the mechanical contrivance for gathering the hay up and depositing it on the waggon as the latter is drawn forv/ard has not been worked much as yet, most likely any obstacles to its perfect success will soon be removed. For placing fodder on the stack the elevators of the different makers do their work admirably, and save some of the severest of muscular toil. Horse-hoes, no less than corn and seed drills, are now very skilfully constructed compared to what they were in the forties and fifties. Not uncommon is it to find a steerage horse-hoe nicely fitted with tines so as to stir perfectly the intervals of the rovrs of a crop of wheat, oats, and even barley. The seed corn should, of course, be drilled a little wider than the original ordinary width, still not more than 10 or 12 inches, and we have seen tjie object well carried out with inches intervals when the steerage hoe has been of the same width as the drill. Both sheep-shearing machines and cow-milking apparatus have given good account of themselves at trials, sufficiently to win the Royal Agricul- tural Society's medals. Both are urgently re- OBJECTIONS. 117 quired, us sheariug aud milkiug demand much labour, iu all probability still more difficult to be obtained in future. In olden times the farmers' sons used to co-operate together for shearing purposes, aud by having the shear days of the different farms of the locality on separate days they helped one another in turn, and combined festivity and pastime with the arduous work. The custom has long since, however, fallen into abeyance. Travelling gangs have for some years past been accustomed to visit farms, and perform the shearings at a fixed price per score or hun- dred sheep. But even this resource is likely enough to fail ultimately ovring to the scarcity of labour difficulty, and if it does seriously, clipping power-driven machines will become in- dispensable. But both these and the cow-milking machines are far too costly for middle-class farmers to buy, nor could any but large arable farmers find it worth while, even if they had the money avail- able, to possess themselves of self-binding reapers merely to work for a few days, and then to be laid by for the remainder of the year. Still, it is clear that not only have there been immense improvements in agricultural appli- ances, but that farmers have shown no particular laxity in adopting such of them as they could adopt. Those, therefore, who are so much in the habit of regarding the farmer as non-progressive iu this, as in other matters, would do well to be sure of their facts. CHAPTER YII. RATES AND TAXES. Anybody wlio knows anything at all about the question of rates and taxes in country districts knows that realty — that is to say, lands and houses — bears a much larger share of taxation than personalty ; and he also knows that many charges now thrown upon the local ratepayer are of Imperial concern, and therefore ought to be thrown equally upon both personalty and realty, and not upon one class of property — namely, realty. At the present time, however, there is indication of some interest being shown in the whole question; and in a volume dealing with agriculture and tariif reform it is perhaps right to tirge that agriculturists are still dis- satisfied with the system of rating and taxing which (since all protection from Cobden's time has been denied them) has, with lowering prices and foreign competition been most unfair and exceedingly hard upon them. There are some who altogether deny that the owner and occupier of land are overburdened in the matter. It is partly to combat this that in tracing the modern history of the subject we venture to place a few RATES AND TAXES. 119 observations before the public, whicli distinctly go to show that Liberals as well as Conservatives really stand committed to reform in the matter. So far back as May, 18G8, Sir Massey Lopes moved in Parliament a motion to the effect that it was neither just nor politic that the local charges on real property, which had been con- stantly increasing, should be levied exclusively from such description of property. In March, 1869, Sir Massey Lopes again brought forward the question, and asked for a Eoyal Commission to enquire into the incidence and effect of local taxation. Mr. Gladstone was not willing to appoint this, although he did promise that the whole subject should be taken in hand as soon as the Irish Church Disestablishment question was got rid of, and it was on this understanding that the motion for the Commission was with- drawn. In February, 1870, Mr. Goschen appointed a Select Committee, whose enquiries, however, were somewhat restricted, as, instead of enquiring into the incidence of local rates, it rather sought to ascertain the mode of collecting them — a very different thing. One thing, how- ever, which this Committee did was to recommend that whilst occupiers should be held responsible for a certain proportion of the rates, the general incidence of taxation ought to be taken into account before any such division of rates could be made. In February, 1871, Sir Massey Lopes again came forward with a motion seeking to ascertain the incidence of Imperial as well as 120 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. local taxation, and to impose tliat every descrip- tion of property should equitably contribute to all national burdens. Mr. Gladstone resisted this, and bis Government carried the day by 241 to 195 votes, on bis undertaking, however, at once to produce a comprehensive measure of his own. On April 16, 1872, Sir Massey Lopes, although opposed by the Government, carried a motion by 259 to 159 votes declaring that no legislation with reference to local taxation would be satisfactory which did not provide either in whole or in part for the relief of occupiers and owners in counties and boroughs from charges imposed upon ratepayers for the administration of justice, police, and lunatics ; the expenditure for such purposes being almost independent of local control. The motion, although carried, was ignored by the Government of the day, a most unjust proceeding. In 1874, the je&r after the General Election, Mr. Gladstone, in his election address, made special reference to the question of local taxation. He promised that the relief of the ratepayers from exceptional burdens would be the foremost item in his future financial policy. Mr. Gladstone, however, did not get into power at such election ; but Mr. Disraeli declared that " a system of raising taxation for general purposes from one particular kind of property involves as great a violation of justice as can well be conceived." Hereupon Sir Stafford Northcote, in his Budget, made provision for the relief of ratepayers in respect of the charges borne RATES AND TAXES. 121 for poliee and pauper lunatics, and this, with the transfer of the charge for prisons to the Imperial Exchequer, relieved the ratepayers to the extent of almost £2,000,000 per annum. In 1878 a Highways Bill was passed, by which the area of charge for a portion of the cost of main roads was extended, although it did not remedy the defect whereby the cost of road maintenance falls largely on other than those who use the roads most constantly. Prior to the General Election of 1880 the question of local taxation was brought prominently before the Duke of Richmond's Commission on Agricultural Depres- sion. ; .V^ That Commission reported against the unfair exemption of personal property from taxation, and it recommended, as a practical means of relief, that the cost of the maintenance of indoor paupers, instead of being paid by a union rate upon real property alone, should in future be defrayed either out of the Consolidated Fund or by a rate or tax equitably adjusted, according to means of subsistence; in other words, upon the personal as well as the real property of coun- ties, or of areas wider than existing unions. Pledges. It also reported that a certain proportion of local taxes should be assigned to the local authority in aid of local expenditure. On the 28th March, 1881, a motion was lost in the House of Commons by only fourteen votes, declaring 1^ AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. that it was " expedient to amend the Highways Acts of 1878, so that part of the maintenance of roads may be defrayed out of other sources than the county rate." In 1882 the Queen's Speech contained the assurance that Parliament would be invited in connection with local government reform to consider " the proper extent and the more equitable and provident form of contribu- tion from Imperial taxes in relief of local charges." As apparently no steps were going to be taken to put this assurance into effect, Mr. (afterwards Sir Richard) Paget brought forward a resolution on the subject. He was defeated by 110 to 105 votes. Three days later it was pro- posed to move " for relief to ratepayers from the present incidence of rates for the maintenance of main roads." Mr. Gladstone, who, of course, noted the close division on Sir Richard Paget's motion, acted wisely. He urgently appealed to the member who was going to move the motion in question; and, on certain explicit assurances, it was not brought forward. The explicit assur- ances resulted in a grant being made of £250,000 a year for main roads. On April 17th, 1883, in consequence of the failure of the Government to redeem their promise to deal with local taxation and local government reform, Mr. Albert Pell brought the question forward, and in a House of 450 members he was only defeated by twelve votes on an amendment moved by Mr. Albert Grey. Mr. Gladstone was immediately approached by thirty-one supporters of his Government, who RATES AND TAXES. 123 stated tliat they only opposed Mr. Pell becaune they had full confidence that he (Mr. Gladstone) regarded the whole question as " really urgent." On March 28th, 1884, however, as no proposals were offered to meet the difficulty, Mr. Pell again moved a resolution deprecating " the postpone- ment of further measures of relief acknowledged to be due to ratepayers in counties and boroughs in respect of local charges imposed on them for national services." This motion was carried against the Government by 208 votes to 197, but, as in the case of twelve years previously in Mr. Gladstone's Administration, compliance with the expressed desire of Parliament was once more /efused. In Mr. Childers' Budget speech of this year (1884) an undertaking Avas given that the consideration of proposals for increased charges on real estate by way of death duties should be entered on only in conjunction with the readjust- ment of local burdens. But the Budget of 1885 contemptuously violated Mr. Childers' under- taking. It was proposed by such Budget to place an additional tax upon real property. Accord- ingly, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach challenged the second reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. His motion, besides censuring other financial proposals in the Budget, " declined to impose fresh taxes on real property until effect had been given to the resolutions of 17th April, 1883, and of 28th March, 1884, by which it had been acknowledged further measures of relief were due to the ratepayers in counties and boroughs 124 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. iu respect of local charges imposed on them for national services." This motion was carried against the Government, and Mr. Gladstone immediately resigned. lie thus left office in 1885, as he had done in 1874, without having made any serious attempt to redeem the promises repeatedly made to reform the incidence of local taxation. Efforts at Relief. In 1887 the Unionist Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, recognised the peculiar pressure of certain local taxes in the country districts for objects of common interest, and announced that the Government would double the subvention previously granted for main roads. Accord- ingly, a further transfer in aid of roads out of the general taxation of the countrj^, of the sum of £280,000 for England, Wales, and Scotland Avas made. In 1888, by financial arrangements then effected, the exceptional pressure of local rates on owners and occupiers of land and houses in England and Wales was lightened by a sum of over £2,000,000. The relief was procured— (A) by the allocation to local purposes of a direct tax on personalty, being one-half of so much of the probate duty as is levied in England ; (B) by the transfer of certain locally-collected licences formerly paid to the Treasury. The amounts under " A " and '' B " for the year came to £4,876,000, but out of this sum the county coun- cils then established were to provide for the pay- RATES AND TAXES. 125 ment of certain subventious formerly granted by the Treasury, but then and now withdrawn, leav- ing a balance of some £2,000,000 in favour of the local people. It was also intended by the Excise Duties (Local Purposes) Bill to provide further relief to ratepayers in town and country by a new duty on horses, heavy carts, and vans. The amount originally estimated to be derived from this source was £830,000; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, through popular outcr}^ had to make certain concessions in favour of the oppon- ents of the wheel tax, this concession reducing the estimated relief to somewhat over £700,000. This £700,000 would have been practically equal to three-fourths of the cost of the maintenance of main roads, or say equivalent to the loss sus- tained by local ratepayers from the abolition of turnpike roads. So much resistance, however, was oifi'ered by those v.ho, it was declared, would have been affected by the proposed new duty under the Bill, that the Bill had to be withdrawn. In 1890 the liability of the general taxpayer (and thereby of all kinds of property) for objects of national importance was again distinctly admitted by contributions from the National Exchequer for police superannuation and for the extinction of pleuro-pneumonia. In the Budget of this year, moreover, by the imposition of tlie surtax for local purposes of Gd. per gallon on spirits, and by the transfer of a part of the beer duty, amounting to 3d. per gallon, a sum estim- ated to produce £1,043,000 in England and Wales was raised and apportioned to local authorities. 126 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. Of this amount, however, a sum of ,£650,000, namely, £300,000 for police superannuation, and £350,000 for the extinction of licences, was to be allocated for these two particular and specific purposes. The " residue," £393,000, was to go in relief of local taxation generally. The Govern- ment, however, withdrew that portion of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Bill which had reference to the licences, and the £350,000 was therefore add 3d to the " residue " referred to, which allowed of a sum of £743,000 being placed at the disposal of local authorities. No directions were given in the Bill as to how the local authori- ties were to use the money, though permission was given to apply it towards technical education purposes ; and from then up till now it has been chiefly used each year for such purposes. The Death Duties. By the Local Government Act of 1894 no further direct liability was thrown upon the local ratepayer, although the parish councils created under the Act have in carrying it out increased the local rates considerably. But the year 1894 will be memorable in the history of possessors of real property, for it was in this year that Sir Wiliam Harcourt passed his famous Budget im- posing the death duties. It has been the favourite cry of those who want to tax landed property more largely that the reason for doing so was because land was exempt from those dutiee which personalty pays when the owner of the personalty dies. On the other hand, the oppon- RATES AND TAXES. 127 euts of such, a doctrine state tliat there never was any reasonable ground for such a contention, as any slight advantage which was obtained by real property in regard to the death duties was more than counter-balanced by its assessment on gross income to Schedule A of the Income Tax. It is true, they argue, that this was to a certain extent remedied by Sir William llarcourt in his Budget, which allowed of the deduction of one-eighth irom the gross rental in the case of land, and of one-sixth in the case of house property, but this scale of deduction is, in the case of well-managed estates, entirely insufficient to meet the justice of the case. But inasmuch as it was said the Finance Act Avould equalise the Imperial taxa- tion of real and personal property, let us give an instance showing that this is scared}^ the case, and how hard it presses on the owner of landed property. For instance, suppose a man has £100,000 in Consols. He has only to sell a por- tion of this money to meet the death duties. But suppose a landowner's property is estimated to be worth £100,000 : how can he meet the death duties? If he sell a portion of his property to meet them he depreciates the whole. To retain the whole property, his income must be crippled, and the estate itself be less well administered. It must always be borne in mind, as Sir Eichard Paget rightly declared, that on well-managed estates the income over and above what is required for the management of them is comparatively very little in these days. If a man has a fortune besides his landed property, matters are different ; 128 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. but, generally speaking, owners of land have not such a fortune. Since 1894 we have had the Education Act of 1902, which has increased the local rates, and we have had the Agricultural Rates Act, which expires in March of 190G. Under the last the occupier of agricultural land is liable in the case of certain rates, including the Poor Rate, to pay one-half only of the rate in the pound pay- able in respect of buildings and hereditaments. Whilst one of these two Acts has thrown a burden upon ratepayers, the other has proved n relief. It would be a grave mistake, however, for anyone to suppose that the relief meets the justice of the case, and perhaps we cannot do better than to point out in this connection that the Council of the Central and Associated Cham- bers of Agriculture have on more than one occa- sion (the last being in 190-3) informed the public, and particularly the Government of the day, that " pending the readjustment of the unfair iiici- dence of local taxation " they (the Council in question) are " of opinion that the Agricultural Rates Act should be continued." We have by no means exhausted the claims which may be put in by agriculturists for further considerable relief in the system of raising monej'' from them for public purposes, but we have said sufficient, we think, to show that the man who makes his living by the land is still mulcted in a most disproportionate fashion, and therefore to an extent which justice does not demand. It is, indeed, not very clear to the plain man why the RATES A^'D TAXES. 129 raw material — land — of the farmer should be rated, whilst the raw material of the mauufac- tiirer should go scot free. At all events although it is no doubt very difficult to adjust the taxes or rates which should be paid by personalty and realty, the attempt ought to be made. The difference between rates and taxes consists mainly in the fact that rates are raised directly by one method and solely on real property, while taxes are raised by a variety of methods, and both directly and indirectly on personal as well as real property. What should be aimed at is so to charge these various rates and taxes as that every citizen shall in proportion to his income be an equal bearer of them. It is manifestly unfair that Income Tax, which, in the case of trades and professions, is fairly levied on the net income received, should, in the case of land and houses be charged, with but a nominal deduc- tion, on the gross rental. In the latter case a tax is paid on income which has not been received. Both parties in the State have admitted at various times that the real property element pays an unfair share of the national burden, and yet Sir William Harcourt, without any real com- pensating arrangement, inflicted a still further serious blow upon it. The farmer's outlay to-day on the upkeep of his farm is greater than before Cobden's agitation started; and yet he is sub- jected to infinitely greater competition and has none of the " natural protection " of distance which Cobden declared would always be at his disposal. CHAPTER YII. DENMARK : AND BRITISH DAIRY FARMING. An Interesting " Commission." The public will remember that wlicn the Tariit Commission was appointed to consider the ques- tion of tariff reform, there was a tremendous out- cry on the part of certain politicians who opposed Mr. Chamberlain because of his using the word " Commission." Of course, there is no reason why, when a body of gentlemen join together to make an enquiry, they should not, if they choose, use that term. At all events, the outcry was soon knocked on the head by the public recognising that there was really no reason to complain about the Commission at all. It is interesting, however, to point out that the very men who were scolding Mr. Chamberlain have since taken a leaf out of his book, their endeavour being, we suppose, to check-mate his proceeding. This is very interesting, but, at the same time, bearing in mind vrhat v,e have said in the above paragrapli, it is also a little bit dishonest. A number of gentlemen joined forces and the name by v.'hich they called them- selves was the " Scottish Commission " on " Ajrri- DENMARK, AND DAIRY FARMING. 131 culture iu Denmark." This Commission started on Thursday, June 16th, 1903, from Scotland to Denmark. From enquiries which have been made, it appears that the money for paying the expenses of this " Scottish Commission " was pro- vided by three prominent ilembers of Parliament and by a Scottish peer, all of whom are out-and- out opponents of ^.fr. Chamberlain's scheme of fiscal reform. We say again that this is very interesting. What v.as the object? It has been said that Denmark is a free trade country, and that we in Great Britain oug]-t to adopt the Danish agri- cultural co-operative system. The Commission, therefore, ostensibly went to make impartial enquiries on this joint riiatter; but, in view of its composition and party political origin, it is more than likely that it vv'ent v/ith the very definite ob- ject of proving that ilr. Chamberlain's proposals for tarilf re-form arc all v/rong. 'Noxv, we v,'ish to state that Denmark is not a free trade country in the sense that England is. It is triis that v.heat, wool, and some other articles are alio, red to enter Denmark free of duty ; but it is equally true that cheese and a large number of other more or less manu- factured articles have also to pay duties, and very stiff duties, too. It is monstrous, there- fore, that we should be told that Denmark is a " free trade " country. AVe are, however, told to copy tliC Danish people in their agriculture. What does that I 2 132 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. mean? It means that the whole of this country- must be cut up into small holdings, with the view of supplying ourselves with butter, &c, Now, readers are already aware that we are as strong ad- vocates of small holdings on rational lines as any- body can possibly be ; but we unhesitatingly say, in the first place, that in Great Britain we have not the population which could cultivate the small holdings, and, in the second place, that it is, after all, to the larger farmers, with plenty of capital, to whom we must look for the best improvements in our live stock and for the expenditure on the best class of machinery, which expenditure would result in keeping up tbe admit- tedly high character of British farming, and would be a lesson and of great advantage to the small holders whom we wish to see studded around such larger farms. We have ourselves travelled in Denmark, and have enquired there and else- where a great deal concerning that country ; and, as a result, we are of opinion that we cannot apply the Danish system to England in the same extensive fashion as is common in Denmark. The Danish farmer, moreover, is mainly a butter producer, sending his milk to his co-operative creameries for the purpose ; and he gets a price for the milk which is much lower than is already obtained by farmers in this country, who, with- out co-operation, sell it to town firms for con- sumption as milk. By all means let us increase the number of small holdings very much more than we see them at the pt-p.sent time, and we DENMARK, AND DAIRY FARMING. 133 Avill do all in our power to urge that upon Parlia- ment and the country ; but to say that we can stem the tide of agricultural depression in Eng- land by a wholesale adoption of the Danish system and at the same time can keep up our present absurd tariff arrangements (which are all in favour of the foreigner), is about as monstrous a proposition as any man or any Com- mission could possibly propose. Look, however, a little further at Denmark. We find that the acreage of Avheat has diminished from 140,350 acres in 18TG to 32,171 in 1901. Barley has also diminished in acreage, though rye has increased considerably, Avhich latter fact goes to show that some of the peojjle at any rate may eat rye bread instead of wheat bread. "We have seen Danish small holders eating brown or black bread and fat of some sort (not butter fat) which would be refused by a British labourer. The acreage devoted to grass lands has also considerably increased in the same period, whilst the number of sheep has decreased by nearly 700,000 head. On the other hand, cattle (cows) have increased by some 400,000 head. A study of Danish agriculture during the last t'venty-five years or so in the light of official statistics, shows that there has been a diminution or a standing-still in the cultivation of such arable crops as wheat, barley, peas, beans, buck- wheat ; a reasonable increase in oats and potatoes ; a considerable increase in roots and grass ; a satisfactory increase in horses; a big increase in 134 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. milking cattle and of pigs; and a large decrease in sheep and lambs. This is precisely what one would expect in a country which for many years has been, and still is, devoting itself to the pro- duction of milk and butter. Her people Avould seem to still eat a large quantity of rye bread, and this proportion is on the increase if we may judge from the official figures shovring the increase in the production of rye in Denmark. At any rate, an examination of the statistics shows that with a population of 2,497,000 in 1902, the importation of wheat in 1901 was only 577,094 bushels, or a little over four bushels per inhabitant. This means exactly half a quarter or some 240 lbs. of wheat per inhabitant per annum ! And such is " Free Trade " in Denmark ! Again, it is interesting to note that whilst Germany, in 1901, sent goods to Denmark to the value of 14 r, 497,000 kroner, we only sent goods to the value of 87,919,000 kroner; the United States, too, sending goods to the value of 8(5,911,000 kroner. In 1S91 the value of the States' exports to Denmark was only 19,4-']4,000 kroner, ours being in the same year G9,0;32,000. Both Germany and the States have increased their export trade with Denmark, because, v/e imagine, they were able to say they would limit the trade of Denmark with their countries unless a mutually agreeable arrangement could be come to, which is surely vrhat we ought also to do. A kroner is worth about Is, Id. As to the export trade of Denmark with DENMARK, AND DAIRY FARMING. 135 foreign couutries, free traders will find little en- couragement from tlie official figures. For ex- ample, in 1901 Denmark exported to Germany- goods to tlie value of 68,170,000 kroner, whilst ten years later the value was still only 08,181,000 kroner. The figures for France were at tlie tv.^o periods 2,373,000 and 040,000 kroner respectively ; for Spain, 480,000 kroner and 6,000 kroner; each of wliich countries is a tariff country. In the case of the United Kingdom, Danish exports to us have gone up from 132,139,000 kroner in 1891 to 260,781,000 kroner in 1901 ; and there has been a large increase in her exports to Russia, which also adopts free trade for several imported articles of food. It is apparent, therefore, from the figures just stated, that the prosperity of Den- mark is due, not mainly to the fact that she is herself, in part, a free trade country, but to the fact that she has our huge free trade market in addition to her own to send her products to. If she had not got that she would not be as prosperous as she is, and if we had a tariff and preferential trade with our Colonies, she would undoubtedly do then as other Continental nations already do, namely, feed their own people and keep them going, both on the land and in the factory — which would be both a common-sense and wise policy to adopt. It is what France does, and it is what Germany does, with the result that both agriculturally and industrially they are prospering more rapidly 13G AGKICULTnilE AXD TARIFF REFOllI^l. than we are, and witli the further result that the average savings of the community are more per head than in our country. It has also been claimed that Danish " free " trade has stopped emigration. If so, it has cer- tainly not done so in England. As a matter of fact, however, we find that the emigration from Denmark varies considerably. In the jeav 1870 the total emigration was 3,526, whilst in 1901 it had increased to 4,G57. During the last thirty years or more it cannot be claimed that the Danish system has really decreased emigration. In the seventies emigration varied from 1,581 to 3,525 persons ; in the eighties from 3,43G to 10,422 ; and in the nineties up to 3,570, in 1900 ; whilst in 1901 it was 3,457. What is all the talk worth, therefore, about the Danish system and Danish " free " trade preventing emigration ? The Danish system may be good for a country Avhich is practically without manufactures, and we congratulate the Danish people upon recog- nising that fact ; but for any body of men to claim that it can be, or should be, applied to England, which is a country both of very con- siderable manufactures and of very considerable agriculture, is a pure phantasy. Dairy Fahmixg in England. As to dairy farming in England, it should be generally knoAvn that it has made considerable strides during the last twenty to thirty years, althougl. we still produce far less butter or cheese DENMARK, AND DAIRY FARMING. 137 tiian we sliould do, whilst tlie increase lias been in the direction of the production of milk for sale in our towns. In the case of butter and cheese-making foreign competition has been severe, continuous, and increasing, so much so that only the best British product, whether of butter or of cheese, finds a really remunerative market, and even that of a limited character and at a reduced return as compared with former vears. In the case of milk, dairv farmers at present are able to hold their own ; although if the attempts of the French to send fresh milk to this country — attempts which have been made during the past three or four years— are con- tinued and increased, we may expect that even in the milk trade large numbers of our farmers supplying the London and southern markets will be seriously affected. It is, of course, mon- strous that we should allow foreign fresh milk to be sent to this country, produced under sanitary conditions over which we have no control, and to allow it to compete with the milk of the British dairy farmer, which farmer is subject to the most stringent control upon the part of our local authorities. If dairy farming — or the production of milk for sale — has considerably increased, and if that is remunerative to the British farmer, we see no cause for special gratification, looking at matters from a national point of view. "We are glad for the dairy farmer's sake that he has been able not only to hold up his head above water, 138 AGRlCULTtRi: AND TARIFF REFORM. but to get even liis shoulders above too, and tbat the class of dairy farmers has increased ; but, looking at this matter from the national point of view, we are bound to say that dairy farming employs much less labour than arable farming, or than farms composed of a large proportion of arable and the rest of grass land. It is not the production of milk alone in this country that vrc desire ; but also the production of meat and other food for the people. AVith this object in view it is with alarm rather than otlierv»"ise that we are vritnesses of the constant increase in permanent pasture and daivj farming — a system of farming which, whilst of benefit to both the tenant and landowner, is the very opposite as compared v.ith arable farming judging it from the national point of view. It may be urged that even dairy farmers require a proportion of arable land to grow roots for their cows. "We admit it. ^Vevertheless, the fact remains that with the growth of dairying the acreage devoted to fattening cattle and to corn land dimi- nishes, and we want meat and corn rather than milk; or, preferably, both. We should have both if we were but the sensible and prac- tical people we are generally supposed to be. We may take it that for every 2U0 acres of arable land converted into pasture, there are four labourers displaced ; in fact, it has been placed at a higher figure.* Moreover, the manure from dairy cows * Five. See Duke of Bedford's remarkable book, The Story of a Great Estate, published by Mr. John Murray. DENMARK, AND DAIRY FARMING. 139 is much less valuable than tliat from store-fed oxen. Where cheese is made, and the whey is fed on the farm, the loss is doubtless less, and it is less still where butter only is sold, and the skim milk is used on the farm. ■■ However, even on a small but good dairy farm of, say, 100 acres, vrith 50 acres of arable land, at least onc-sisith more cows could be kept than upon an entirely grass farm. In addition, a variety of foods could bo r-rovidcd which would be productive of a marked increase in the supply of the milk from the herd kept. The pigs, too, ATould be kept cheaper; and some help vrould be given to the poultry, the extra cost of labour, of horseiies]!, and implements being far more than covered bv the increased returns.! Tariff reform, would, by assisting the increase of arable land, benefit the farmer, labourer, and nation. * Dr. Frcam, B.^e.,in '* E'en!e7tfs of A;,ricvl/i/re," j'ichIit., Glasgnv.-. CHAPTER IX. CONCLUSION. It is not without some justifiable impatience thai, tiie average elector observes the nature of tlin great bulk of the opposition to Mr. Chamberlaiu'Li proposals. There is apparently little opposition from the Conservative or Liberal Unionist sections of the joint Unionist Party; and what there is in this direction is almost entirely confined to opposition from members of Parliament, whilst it is mucli more than counterbalanced by the support received from important and non-official Conservatives and Liberals outside the mere party organisations. As to Liberal Unionists, there can be no doubt whatever, especially after the meetings which Mr. Chamberlain addressed at the Imperial Theatre, Westminster, and at the Ivoyal Albert Hall, in July, 190 i, that the rank and file are in favour of tariff reform. Those meetings were remark- able alike in their huge numbers, enthusiasm, and successful organisation. The opposition to Mr. Chamberlain, however, resolves itself mainly into that emanating from Liberals. Let us again state that there are very many Liberal electors who have already come CONCLUSION. 141 over to Mr. Cliamberlaiu's views ; and that otliers are fast coming" over. Now we wish to say a few words regarding this Liberal opposition. First of all, what are we to think of Lord liose- bery? His lordship, within two or three days of Mr. Chamberlain's first speech on preferential tariff reform (May, 190o), went to and addressed a Lancashire Chamber of Commerce, but at that time he neither condemned the proposed reform nor blessed it ; in a v\'ord, lie took a leaf out of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's book, and " sat on the fence." The reason, of course, was clear : he neither knew how the public Avould take the reform nor had he the courage himself to lead. Later on, when he saw that the section of the Liberal Party to which he does not belong was banning it, he came into line with that section ; and the most we have ever got from this Imperial statesman since the reform was broached has been to admit that agriculture is " crippled," and that what the country needs is " repose." If agricul- ture is " crippled," the country expects statesmen of Lord Eoseberj-'s eminence to show why or in what way it has been crippled, and what steps can be taken to ameliorate the position. As to "repose," we think His Eoyal Highness the Prince of Wales, after his celebrated tour, more nearly hit the mark when he told all of us to " wake up." Mr. Chamberlain's is a noble re- spouse ! We do not forget other remarks by Lord Rose- 142 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. bery, which make liis present position anything but logical. On April 4th, 1900, his lordship was not such an ardent advocate of free trade or free imports as he now appears to be. " Have they ' (foreign nations), he asked, " realised what tl: free trade of the empire means to their mer chants? Why, we know in how many parts of the world — partly owing to our free trade and partly owing to our generous encouragement of other nations — their commerce has begun to push ours out." We prefer the Lord llosebery of 1900, when preferential tarilf reform was not on the carpet, and vrheu he saw free trade was in- juring us, to the Lord Eosehery of 1904, v/ho in the latter year of grace seems afraid to stand to his guns in support of Mr. Chamberlain. Is it unfair to suppose that his opposition takes the character rather of party political opposition thari that of a statesman who desires to raise the whole issue above mere party politics? In the second place, v.hat is the attitude of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, as representing the other Vv'ijig of the Liberal Party? At Perth, in June, 190-5, he told us that " there is about 30 per cent, of our population under-fed, on the verge of hunger. Thirty per cent, of 41 millions comei to somethinij over 12 millions." In October of the same year, at lioltou, he declared that "the mass of trade increases, and the signs of well- being with it." Tlie two quoted statements (and others from the same source could be mentioned) are self- contradictory, and we venture to think that no CONCLUSION. 143 statesmau of the rank ol the Laird ol Belmont Castle should have made them. They come, in- deed, with a very bad grace from one "who is con- stantly pointing out the supposed variation be- tween Mr. Chamberlain's attitude of years ago and of to-dav, and whose ou-n attitudes during one and the self-same j'ear are grievous even for well-wishers to behold ! After a lapse of years, especially when the interA^al has been frauglit with such busy experience as that which Mr. Chamberlain obtained at the Colonial Office, a man may reasonably be permitted to change his views. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, how- ever, can have no such excuse ; and the two things referred to when taken together, and con- sidered also in the light of the other facts in this volume, go rather to show that there is need for reform. Look at the attitude also of other Liberals of eminence. Sir E. J. Reed, in the Times of January 28th, 1904 said : " If we are refused free trade almost everywhere — as we certainly are — and are obliged to submit to regulated trade, why should we not ourselves take an active, intelli- gent, businesslike part in its regulation ? " Mr. Asquith, however, the month before at Doncaster, with holy enthusiasm remarked : " Let us stick to our well-tried policy of free markets and an open door." Clearh^ there is some dijTcrence be- tween these two gentlemen, both ox whom are supposed to be, and are, intelligent Liberals. Mr. Asquith, however, was somewhat pessi- 144 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. mistic at one time. For instance, at Leeds on November 24th, 1900, before tariff reform be- came the topic it now is, he remarked that, " In the international markets we are fighting for our trade with all our available strength " ; and yet at Cinderford, on October 8th, 1903 — after Mr. Chamberlain's proposals of that year had been placed before the public — he said that, "' Taking the annual average of five years from 189G to 1900, in the protected market of France the free trade United Kingdom sent 24 millions sterling of imports, as against 15 millions sterling from the protectionist country of Germany, whilst into the protected market of the United States of Vmerica the free trade United Kingdom sent 27 millions sterling, as against 16 millions from the protectionist Germany." It is a little interestiii.o' to observe that in 1900 Mr. Asquith Avas in a pessimistic vein, and had every right to be so ; and that in 1903 he is fovmd in an exactly opposite vein. Did the fact that Mr. Chamberlain, in May, 1903, gave forth certain views on preferential tariff reform have anything to do with the Cinderford speech ; and had the attitude which was then (and has ever since been) assumed more of a political origin and character than anything else ; in other words, is it unreasonable to suppose that Mr. Asquith may have been, and is, only following the party game ? If we reflect upon the speeches of Lord Eoso- bery, Sir Henry Campbell-Baunerman, etc. ; if CONCLUSION. 145 we reflect upon llie piedictions oi Mr. Cobdeii when he was asking the agricultural community to adopt his proposals — predictions which have all been falsified by the results of some 60 years' exjierience; and if we reflect upon the decline in our export trade to foreign nations, coupled as it is with a most satisfactory increase in our export trade to our Colonies and daughter States, we say again it is not without some " justifiable impatience" that the average elector regards the character of the great bulk of the opposition to Mr. Chamberlain's proposals. We suggest that this attitude is itself proof that there is a real necessity to at any rate reconsider our present fiscal position ; and we would further suggest that if such is impartially done, we believe that the proposals will in some form or another be adopted. The case for " reconsideration " of our fiscal position is immensely strengthened by a know- ledge of the fact that the predictions of Mr. Cobden and his friends have been, as suggested, falsified by the results. The agricultural community were led to adopt his proposals because of the induce- ments he placed before them. The Cobden Club, too, by its patronage of certain publications which have also led the public astray, is morally bound to adopt a different attitude than that with which it is generally credited. We are glad to be able to state that one of the most respected members of that Club, and himself one of the most honest and capable of agricultural writers in this 146 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. country, lias informed us that he has resio-ned his membership because he believes in reciprocity, and especialy in free trade within the empire. We hope and believe other resignations will fol- low. It is surely hardly necessary to recapitulate many of the arguments for a reconsideration of our fiscal system, as it applies to agriculture. However, let it be remembered: — (1) That whilst our exports to our Colonies have enormously in- creased during recent years, our exports to foreign countries have decreased ; (2) that the rural poj)u- lation has decreased by nearly 1,000,000 souls in 50 years ; (3) that the area under wheat has de- creased by 1,853,140 acres since 18G6; (4) that the area under permanent pasture has neverthe- less immensely increased, viz., by 5,785,681 acres in the same period ; (5) that our farm live stock has decreased by 1,074,997 head since 1869, in spite of the great increase in our town popula- tions; (6) that agricultural capital has enor- mously decreased ; (7) that the prices of cereals, of meat, wool, and other farm products, have gone down from 30 per cent, to, in some cases, 40 per cent, and more ; and (8) that whilst the position which agriculture occupies in the country is gradually getting worse and worse, the physique of the people, as judged by the report of the Director-General of the Army Medical Service, is in a very unsatisfactory condition. To all this it may be added that the emigration from this country to foreign lands is not only hugely CONCLUSION. 147 greater than it was fifty years ago, but that the expenditure on poor law relief is quite double, although the population has not doubled, and in spite of the enormous charitable agencies which have sprung into existence during the same period. The average man who, after considering all these and other facts, will assert that our present fiscal system is the best for agriculture and its people, must either be a political partisan, whose conduct or attitude Ave do not care further to de- scribe ; or he must be wilfully unwilling to admit the natural deduction to be drawn from the facts of the situation. If the case for the " reconsideration " of our present fiscal system is good, we think the case for preferential trade with our Colonies, depen- dencies, and daughter States no less good. We should hold this opinion even were the commer- cial benefits not likely to be all we believe they will prove to be; for we are of opinion that the Imperial aspect of this question is one which is deserving of adoption, even if we have to pay something for it. The consolidation of a people means unity; and unity means strength. Tlie idea of the British Empire feeding and support- ing itself — standing, as Mr. Cliamberlain said at the Royal Albert Hall, four-square against the vrorld — is something to live for, something to fight for. Assuredly, however, the British people are not wishful to enter into a family compact with the view of inflicting injury upon foreio'n TipfV'^?. k2 148 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. We are not a people who by nature desire to quarrel. On the contrary, we desire peace. We are, however, a practical people ; and we are be- ginning to see that foreign nations, whilst they are undermining us in our own home market — by fair means or foul — are in some cases likely before very long to be unable to supply us Avith the cheap food about which so many are most anxious. The United States, for instance, by the time our children are middle-aged or are old men, will, if the progress of that country goes on as of late years, have very little corn to spare for export purposes ; and this, coupled v/ith a declining export trade from ourselves to the States, to Ger- many, and to other foreign lands, is a fact which ought not to give Lord Eosebery or others " re- pose," but rather to cause them to see how we can turn our Colonies to account to feed our people, if for nothing else. Perhaps, however, we cannot do better in closing these remarks than to quote the following extract from a leading article in a New York paper, the writer of which sees clearly enough what Mr. Chamberlain saw before him. The extract, and the other facts of the situation, make us wonder how it is that with such a splendid prospect before the British people, it should be necessary for any one of us even to argue the question of preferential trade with our Colonies at all ; especially, too, when Cobden declared, when negotiating the reciprocity treaty with Erance in 18G2, that " we cannot fight against CONCLUSION. 149 the world," auJ that " if France will not admit our goods free we must fight them with the same weapons " {i.e., tariffs). The quotation from the American paper to which we refer is as follows, and the paper it appeared in is the New York Press of October 9th, 1903: — "We do not like Mr. Chamberlain's proposition. We do not like it because it strikes at our foreign trade, since Groat Britain and the British possessions (Colonies and Dependencies) are our greatest, our r-chest and our best foreign customers, taking much more than half of our total foreign sales. " But the man who does not see that Mr. Chamberlain's proposition is for the benefit of the British market, and the markets of British possessions, is a fool. " He is a ' fool,' because it means to take away from us and others a rich gift of trade and commerce, and to keep it for British subjects at home or in British pos- sessions. " And the man who thinks that the people of Great Britain will not listen to Mr. Chambtrlain's programme because it is one of Protection, so long scorned in the United Kingdom, is infatuated with a delusion that, wrapt in the contemplation of a fetich, ignores empty hands and gnawing stomachs. "When the British trader can no longer sell his goods to foreigners, he will listen to any economic or fiscal pioposition to gain him a market for them. " When the British workman cannot get, or hold, em- ployment because there is no sale as formei'ly for what he produces, be will do more than barken to Mr. Chamber- lain's programme ; he will vote for it and he will fight for it." APPENDICES. I.— THE COLONIES. It will be instructive ii we give the resolutious which were come to in 1902 iu London by the Colonial Prime Ministers when they were over here discussing in Conference the matter of pre- ferential trade. Resolution : — " 1. That this Conference recognises that the principle of preferential trade between the United Kingdom and His Majesty's dominions beyond the seas would stimulate and facilitate mutual commercial intercourse, and would, by promoting the development of the resources and industries of the several parts, strengthen the Empire. " 3. That this Conference recognises that, in the present circumstances of the Colonie-s, it is not practicable to adopt a general system of Free Trade as between the Mother Country and the British dominions beyond the seas. '■ 3. That with a view, however, to promoting the increase of trade within the Empire, it is desirable that those Colonies which have not alread}'- adopted such a policy should, as far as their circumstances permit, give substantial pre- ferential treatment to the products and manu- factures of the United Kingdom. 152 APPENDICES. "4. That tlie Prime Ministers of the Colouies respectfully urge on Ills Majesty's Government the expediency of granting in the United King- dom preferential treatment to the products and manufactures of the Colonies, either by exemp- tion from or reduction of duties now or hereafter imposed. " 5. That the Prime Ministers present at the Conference undertake to submit to their respec- tive Governments at the earliest opportunity the principle of the resolution, and to request them to take such measures as may be necessary to give effect to it." Recommendations. The representatives of the Colonies are pre- pared to recommend to their respective Parlia- ments preferential treatment of British goods on the following lines : — Canada : — The existing preference of 33^ per cent., and an additional preference on lists of selected articles: — [a] By further reducing the duties in favour of the United Kingdom; {h) By raising the duties against foreign im- ports ; (c) By imposing duties on certain foreign im- ports now on the free list. Australia : — Preferential treatment, not yet defined as to nature or extent. New Zealand: — A general preference by 10 per cent, all-round reduction of the present duty on British manufactured goods, or an equivalent APPENDICES. 153 iu respect of lists of selected articles on the lines proposed by Canada, namely : — (a) By further reducing the duties in favour of the United Kingdom; (b) By raising the duties against foreign imports ; (c) By imposing duties on certain foreign imports now on the free list. The Cape and Natal: — A preference of 25 per cent, or its equivalent on dutiable goods other than specially-rated articles to be given by in- creasing the duties on foreign imports. Other IvEsolutions. The following resolutions were also passed : — (1.) '' That iu all Government contracts, whether in the case of the Colonial or the Im- perial Governments, it is desirable that, as far as practicable, the products of the Empire should be preferred to the products of foreign countries. " With a view to promotiug this result, it is suggested that where such contracts cannot be filled in the country in which the supplies are required, the fullest practicable notice of the requirements and of the conditions of tender should be given, both in the Colonies and the United Kingdom, and that this notice should be communicated through official channels, as well as through the Press." Resolution : — (2.) " That it is desirable that, in view of the great extension of foreign subsidies to shipping, the position of the mail services between different 154 APPENDICES. parts of the Empire should be reviewed by the resj^ective Groveruments. " lu all new contracts provisions should be i:; sorted to prevent excessive freight charges, or any preference in favour of foreigners, and to ensure that such of the steamers as may be suitable shall be at the service of His Majesty's Grovernment in war time as cruisers or transports/' Resolution : — (}^.) " That it is desirable that the attention of the Governments of the Colonies and the United Kingdom should be called to the present state of the navigation laws in the Empire, and in other countries, and to the advisability of refus- ing the privileges of coastwise trade, including trade between the Mother Country and its Colonies and Possessions, and between one Colony or Possession and another, to countries in which the corresponding trade is confined to ships of their own nationality, and also to the laws affecting shipping, with a view of seeing v.'hether any other steps should be takeu to pro- mote Imperial trade in British vessels." II.— THE KECENT CORN DUTIES. When, in 1902, to provide funds for the South African war, a small duty was put upon all com coming into our countr}^, certain statesmen (for purely political reasons) loudly and insist- ently proclaimed : — (1) That the food of the people was being so taxed as to raise the price of bread, and (2) that the Government were trying APPENDICES. 155 to bring about the state of things that existed before the repeal of the Corn Laws. On these two points (which somewhat bear on the question of tariff reform) we have something to say. Taking the last one first, we would ask : What are the facts? Although the Corn Laws were repealed in 1846, a " registration " duty on corn and flour was retained for 23 years longer, and was only abolished in 1809. It was this registration duty which the Government in 1902 re-imposed. Mr. Gladstone re-modelled the duty in 1864, and then stated that it was retained because it was inconvenient to part with it. Mr. Sydney Buxton, a Eadical Member of Parlia- ment, refers, in a book he has written, to this duty as being a branch of revenue profitable in itself, collected with very little trouble, expense, or hindrance to trade, and " practically not affect- ing the price of food." Moreover, let it be remembered that the abolition of the registration duty in 1869 did not reduce the price of bread. Why, therefore, should its re-imposition raise the price of bread to-day? Is^evertheless, it was taken off by the Budget of 1903, much to the annoyance of agriculturists and others of His Majesty's subjects, and without any corresponding advantage. We come now to the second point, and again we ask: What are the facts? We went to some trouble at the time to ascertain them, and they constitute a complete exposure of the whole tribe of Little Englanders who trade too much on the 156 APPENDICES. presumed ignorance of the public. For the pur- pose of making this statement short and clear, we give below a tabular statement which shews what the price of bread actually was for the six months ending on the 5th of August, 1902. This state- ment applies to the price of ordinary household bread in 24 of the large provincial towns in Great Britain and Ireland. Here it is: — Price of 4 lbs. of Ordinary Household Brer id at Place. 1st 1st 5th 2nd 1st 5th March. April. May. June. July. Aug. * d. d. d. d. d. d. Birmingham... 4^ & 5=^ 4J & 5h H & 5J 4J&5J 4i & 5J 4i&5A Bolton 4 4 4 4 4 4 Bristol H 4 5 5 5 5 Cardiff H ^ 5 5 5 5 Derby Huddersfield 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Hull 4&5 4&4 4&5 4&5 4&5 4 Ipswich 5 5i 5h 5J 5^ 5i Leicester ^ ^ ^ 4^ H 4^ Liverpool 4 4 4 4 4 4 Manchester ... 4 4 4 4 4 4 Middlesbro' ... 5 5 5 5 5 5i Newcastle-on- Tyne 5 5 5^ 5^ 5i 5i Norwich 5 5 5 5 5 5 Nottingham . . . 5 5 5 6 5 5 Oldham ^ 4i 4i 4^ 4i 4| Plymouth . . . 5 5 5 5 5 5 Wolverhamp- ton 5 5 5 5 6 5 Aberdeen 5 5 5 5 5 5 Dundee 5 5 5^ 5J 5i 5i Edinburgh ... 5i 5k 5h 5| sj 5i Glasgow 5 5 5 5 6 5 Belfast 4J 4.i 5 5 5 6 Dublin 5^ 5| 5i 5i 5^ 5J APPENDICES. 157 Now it is well known to all tliose wlio have anything to do with the production or the sale of wheat and flonr, that for some little time be- fore the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Budget of 1902 the price of these articles was on the increase, and accordingly that the price of bread went up. Sir Michael Hicks- Beach did not introduce his Budget until the middle of April, or, to be precise, on April 14th, 1902, and the table shows that in nineteen places out of the twenty-four enumerated there was not only no increase im- mediately following the introduction of the Budget, but that there was no increase up to the August. In only four cases was there an in- crease of a halfpenny the month following the Budget ; whilst, in one case, the increase did not take place until August. We do not mean to say there was no increase in any other districts— because, of course, our enquiries vrere necessarily limited — but what we do say is, that in the largest towns in the country (where the effect, of course, of any duties AAOuld be soonest felt) the increase, as above shown, was practically non-existent. Does anybody really suppose that, whereas a Is. duty per quarter on all corn sent us produced no effect, a 2s. duty on foreign corn to be sent us (v/ith none at all on Colonial corn) is going to raise the price of bread here? If anyone supposes anything of the sort, it must surely be because his judgment and feelings are warped by political bias ; inasmuch 158 APPENDICES. as the most recent and satisfactory argument is quite against him, as indicated in the foregoing figures relating to the corn duties of 1902. III.— MR. CHAMBERLAIN AND THE RURAL POPULATION. We give below the first speech* which Mr. Chamberlain delivered before an agricultural audience in support of his proposals. That audience was the largest, of an agricultural character, ever got together under one roof to listen either to Mr. Chamberlain or to anj other statesman or politician. It numbered between 10,000 and 12,000 persons, of whom a very large proportion v\-ere agricultural labourers. The foregoing part of this book was written before the speech was delivered. There is nothing, we think, in the latter, outside the proposals already discussed by us ; but the rural public would — we venture to urge — do w,dl to read and to consider well Mr. Chamberlain' s own words and to dishelieve ahsoJutely the statements and opinions of his ojjjtonents where those statements and opinimis conflict with tlie speech. The speech is the thing : and not what opponents say regarding it. Mr. Chamberlain, on rising to speak, had a great reception, the audience rising and cheering enthusiastically. When the cheering had sub- sided, Mr. Chamberlain said: — " I am liore to-day, as the cliairman has told you, in pur- suance of a promise made during the last autumn, that when I had placed my proposals for a change^ "^ ^^^ *Sj^RecJi~d('livered in the Vuh- of Portland's Biding School, Welbeck, on August 4,th, 1904. APPENDICES. 159 taxation before the populations of the great towns I wonld take the earliest and the most convenient opportunity of submitting them to an agricultural audience. (Cheers.) And now to-day, by the kindness of your chairman, there are gathered together in this hall a larger number of persons interested in agriculture and living by the cultiva- tion of the soil than have ever been gathered before under one roof. (Cheers.") Before I sit down I hope to make clear to you what it is that I propose, and what will be the effect of my proposals upon those who have to gain their living by the cultivation of the land ; but I should think I paid you a very poor compliment if I did not remember that you are not only farmers and labourers, but that you are also Britons (cheers), citizens (cheers) of a great Empire, and that I may as readily appeal to your patriotism and to your national sentiments as to those who live in the towns. (Cheers.) "The first object that any statesman must have in pro- posing reform — his first object — must be the good of the country as a whole. (Cheers.) Nothing that interferes with that can properly be submitted to a British audience ; and let me say that anything which is for the good of the country as a whole is good for all its parts. (Cheers.) You cannot confer a benefit upon the manufacturing popu- lation without helping forward the agricultural popula- tion at the same time. The artisans in the towns and the labourers in the villages are, after all, closely connected. They are the best customers one to another, and the benefit of one is the benefit of both. (Cheers.) The Geneeal Position. " Now what is the general position with which we have to deal? For 60 years we have been living under a system proposed to our fathers and grandfathers xmder totally different circumstances from those in which we live. Tliis system was supported by promises which have never been fulfilled (cheers), and it has pirodiiced results which nobody anticipated. It seems to me that in these circaim- stauces it is not unreasonable that we should ask that this system should be reconsidered. (Cheers.) What is it? W'^ allow foreigners to send to us everything they make 160 APPENDICES. and everytliing they grow (which we can make and grow) without asking from them a single penny of duty, without a=;king them to pay one farthing towards the expenses of the country; and at the same time these foreign nations which derive so much advantage from our generosity have refused to allow anything that we make or anything that we grow to come into their countries withoiit paying a heavy and constantly increasing duty and a large con- tribution towards their expenditure. (Cheers.) \\ ell, ladies and gentlemen, it sc3n:s to me that it is on the face of it a one-sided and unfair proposal. (Cheers.) The wonder is it has endured i?o long. Tliere is, however, a reason for that, as there is for most things; and the reason is thnt for a lon,:^ period after this system was adopted it did us no sub3*-antial harm. For a long period foreign nations had not sufficient capital, they had no stilled labour, they had not the machinery that would enable them to compote Avith us. During the 30 years after the introduction of our eo called free trade the great development had not taken place in the agricultural indus^ry abroad; the great "West of America had not been cultivated; and there was no very large importation of foreicrn products into this country. All that has altered within the Inst 30 years; and within the last 30 years fo'-oic^rers h?.v3 gained what they wanted, viz., capital and pkill and machineiy. They have first been enabled to make fr.r fhemselves all they wanted, and to shut us out of their mr.rlr-ets; and then they have had a surplus which they h^ve dumped into this country to the very great injury of o-'ir m.anufacturers and of our workpeople. (Cheers.) And what has been the result? The result has been that these foreign protected countries — Germany, France, the Unfted States of America — have progressed much more quickly than we have. We have been falling into a back place, we have lost the supremacy which we previously enjoyed, and we have had to take up a secondary or even a third- rate position; with every prospect that if this system con- tinues we shall sink into the position of a fifth-rate Power. As this progresses more and more, it is difficult for our farmers and our manufacturers to gain any profit and for our workmen and ourlabourerstofindanyemxiloyment. Well, APPENDIOj£S. 161 the Government has taken note of thia abate of things; and they propose to you a policy Tvhich is known as the policy of retaliation. They say in effect to the foreigner, ' If you will not allow us to send our goods free into your country, if you will not reduce or remove the taxation which you put upon them, wo will impose taxation upon the goods that you make. (Cheers.) We are tired of keeping always the open doer for you while you slam your door in our faces. What is sauce for the goose is eaucti for the gander, (Cheers.) We will mete out to you the measure which you have meted to us, and, if we have to fight with you, to compete with you, we will compete with your weapons.' (Hear, hear.) The Agricultural Labourer. " Well, ladies and gentlemen, that policy of the Govern- ineut is a very good policy aa far as it goes. (' Hear, hear,' end a laugh.) But where does agriculture come in? ('Hear, hear.') The policy will help the manufacturer of this country to recover and to maintain his position, but how does it help the farmer, and how does it help the labourer? Yet, if you look, it is the farmer and the labourer who have suffered more than any other classes from the system to which I have referred. (Cheers.) Now, it is important, in the first instance, to make this clear to you. I do not want in a groat m.eeting like this to trouble you with many figures, but j>erhaps you will forgive me if I give you a few. Our opponents tell you that you have nothing to complain of. Mr. Morley, at Manchester, recently, said that owing to free trade the farmer was able to hold up his head, and that the labourer was in a superior position. I am very glad to hear it. I should be still more glad if it were true. (Loud laughter.) If that were the case I should not be wanted here. (Laughter and cheers.) If you are well you need not call in a doctor. ('Hear, hear.') But is it true? (Cries of ' No.') Are those the facts ? In the last 30 years the acreage in corn in this country had lessened by three Diillions of acres, the green crops have lessened by three-quarters of a million ; and much land has gone out of cultivation. What is of much more importance, an L 162 APPENDICES. euormoua amount of land has passed from arable to pasture; and although that may not matter much to the farmer it matters a great deal to the labourer (' hear, hear '), l>ecause there is le^ labour required upon the land. The stock of the country has on the whole diminished by something like two millions of head; and the farmers' capital, according to Sir Eobert Giffen, has diminished by something like 200 millions sterling, Wliat is the consequence of all this? The consequeneo- is that there has been less labour for the working man to do, and the number of people cultivating the land has decreased by 600,000 in the last 30 years; and if you go back for 50 years it has decreased by something like a million ! "What would you say if something of that kind was told you about any other business? If you were told that the returns had diminished, that the capital had been lost, and that the number of workpeople had been decreased, would you see in all that any evidence of great prosperity? I think you would be justified in saying that under such circumstances a change had become necessary. ('Hear, hear.') But that is not all. It is said that we enjoy a system of free trade. What is free trade intended to give to us? It was certainly not intended to produce the results to which I have referred! I have never, in the course of this discussion, said a word against the char- acter of Mr. Cobden. ('Hear, hear.') Mr. Cobden was a very able man. I believe he was a very sincere and a very honest man. I believe he said what he thought to he true. But he was not infallible. (Cheers.) There never was a prophet v.'ho was more unfortunate in his predictions tlian Mr. Cobden. (Loud cheers.) Mr. Cohden promised tliat the repeal of the Corn Laws would stimulate the demand for agricultural labour. Has it don© so? ('No.") It has thrown one-half of the agricultural labour of the country out of employment. He told you it would not throw 'a single acre' out of cultivation or lessen production by a single bushel ; whereas the production of corn in this coun- try at the present time is less by 60 millions of bushels. He said that the farmers' profits would not be affected; that the farmers would always get a fair price for their wheat. He did not ' antieiixite ' that it would fall below 45s. a APPEXDICES. mi quarter; and that you would have a 'natural protection' of something like ' 10s. 6d. a quarter,' due to the cost of freight and transport from foreign countries. What are the facts? The 'natural protection' which was to take the place of legislative protection has disappeared ; it does not amount now to more pence than Mr. Cobdeu thought it would shillings. The pric3 of corn has gone down till it is about 26s. a quarter, at which price it cannot be produced at a profit. Mark this ! At the same time, the price of bread has not fallen in anything like the same proportion.* (Cheers.) Now, in the face of facts which are quite different from those which were antici- pated, is it not time to ask for a reconsideration of the scheme? ('Yes.') Are you not justified in claiming the same justice for your industry which the Government has promised for manufactures? Is it possible that either the farmer or the labourer can be satisfied with the existing fftate of things? As to the farmer, I am pretty well aware of what answer he will make. In April, 1902, a duty, a moderate duty of a shilling, was placed upon corn. It had no effect upon the price of bread. It could not be eaid to have given any substantial advantage to the farmer. But he welcomed it ; and if he welcomed that, still more is he likely to welcome the much greater advantages that I promise to him. (Cheers.) I do not believe, however, that I have to preach to the farmer. It is rather to the labourer that I have to address myself. The Laeoueer's OproaTUNiTT. " And the first thing I say to him is this, that now, as never before, he is being consulted as to this matter. Free trade was carried into effect without any reference to the agricultural labourer. He had no vote. He was of no importance. Nobody thought it worth while to ask his opinion. But now he is in a different position. He has the vote ; he can make his voice heard ; he can carry elections in many counties. If he is not convinced, if I cannot convince him that what I am proposing is to his *Eeaders should particularly note that fact. L2 164 APPENDICES. benefit aud advantage^ then all I kava to say is that tlio reform I propose cannot be successful; and, indeed, if it does not produce something to his advantage it ought not to be successful. (Cheers.) I say to you, then, in the first place, that I think that more than, most men, I have some claim to be lieard by you.* (' Hear, hear.') I have bean oO years in politics, and during the whole of that time I have had a special interest in the condition of the agricultural labourer (cheers); and I have taken that interest because, of all the v/orking classes in the country, he is the least fortunate, because he in the general pro- gress has gained loss than any other class. I took an active part in securing for him the franchise; and when the franchise was obtained, I was happy enough to bo able to secure the support of Lord Salisbury, who was then at the head of the Governm.ent. (Cheers.) Lord Salisbury n-ave to the agricultural labourer free education for his children. (Cheers.) Was that no small boon? Why, there must be many of you who remember that 20 years ago the agricultural labourer with a family might have to pay anything from 6d. to Is. a week in order to secure that his children should be taught reading, writing, and arithmetic. And now a good education has been placed within the reach of every child of every labourer without a farthing of cost to himself.f (Cheers.) Well then, the next thing we did — I say ' we ' because it was with the approval and assistance of my friends, Mr. Chaplin (cheers) and Mr, Jesse Collings ('hear, hear'), and others who have always shown themselves to be friends or the labourers— it was with their assistance that we were enabled to obtain legislation which facilitated the acfiuitsi- tion of small holdings and allotments, and although the compulsory clauses of that legislation have not been fre- quently put into force, the result has been that at th.e present day 100,000 labourers at least have got allotments * I'liis is perfectly true. The Author Jias dealt with Mr. Chamhcrlain's honourahh and successful record in another part af this hool'. t Thp tvivfs af agricultural lahourers hart told vs — often with fears in their eyes — of what great value the. Fret Educa- Act has been in their respective homes. APPENDICES. ido who never liad allotiueuts before,* (Cheers.) We have done more thau that. We have secured for the lioldcrs of allotments protection for their improvements. Again, in the last leAv years we have obtained for the labo;:ror coni- ponsation in the case of accidents connected v/ith his employment. (Cheers.) Vvhy do 1 remind you of all thisr Not to boast of it, but to say that, vs'hile we had very little assistance from these Eadicals who now ask for your votes, we have shown by our past history that we have some right to call ourselves friends of the labourers. (Loud cheers.; And it is as a friend of the labourer that I ask you to believe me when I say that if I thought the proposals I make to you v>-ould injure you in the slightest dejr''^-^ if I ui^ not b-alieve, as I do believe, that of all classes in the community you are the people who have most to gain, I would never have proposed them. (Cheers.) I am not content to stop with the legislation of the past, and I do not ask for gratitude for what we have done ; but I ask you, looking at the past, to believe me when I say that we have it in our power to do more for you in the future. (Cheers.) That is not, I submit, the position of our opponents. Tliey seem to think that you are now in a position that is so satisfactory, so enviable, that any change would be for the worse (laughter), and tliey accuse me (of all men), they accuse me, of an infamous desire to deprive you of this 'splendid' position, and to throw you back upon the times of famine and of misery in which your ancestors were some 60 years ago ! ! Well, ladies and gentlemen, they have a poor opinion of your intelligence if they think you will believe that story. (Cheers). It is quite true that the condition of the laljourer, and not only of the labourer, but of the artis;;n in the towns, was one of infinite distress in times of which we have been speaking. But why was it one of distress: That is a point to which I am going to call your atten- tion. * The Bwal Labourers' League has itself (free of co-f) helped over 14,000 men to secure allotments and small hold- ings; but the number, 100,000, might, in the author's opinion, be doubled. Mr. Chamberlain, however, as usital, errs on the side of accirraci/. 160 APPENDICES. A Tax on Coiix. " My opponents say that I am going' to reduce you to famine and starvation becaus3 I propose to put a tax of 2s. a quarter upon foreign (not Colonial) corn. I do pro- pose to put on that tax. (Cheers.) But if you will listen to me, I think I can show you that it will not injure you in the slightest degree, and certainly it will not bring you back to times when the duty on corn was not 2s. a quarter, but 20s. and even more. I want, however, to show you — this is my statement, and I am going to prove it — that the cause of the misery from which your fathers and your grandfathers suffered was not the price of corn, bi(f the lack of emphnjmeiit and the lowness of wages (cheers);* and the proof of that is that for 30 years after the Corn Laws were repealed there wag no substantial decrease in the price of bread. The reason for the improve- ment in the condition of the agricultural labourer and the workman was not the reduction in the cost of his food, but the development of trade, which was brought about by the progress of invention and by the discovery of gold in Australia and America and which raised his wages and increased his employment. (' Hear, hear.') Now let me once more impress upon you the fact that those who try to induce you to believe that everything depends upon the price of corn are deceiving you. (' Hear, hear.') Vi'Itat you have to find is emjiloyment (cheers) — p?en^^ of f/nploynient and tJie best wages you can get for that employment. (More cheers.) If you want an illustration, let me take it from two very different examples: — If the Eadioals are right when they come and tell you that even a small increase in the price of yoiir food would be ruinous to you, then the happiest countries in the world must be the countries where food is cheapest. And what countries are those? China (cheers)— China and India. (Eenewed cheers.) Well, ladies and gentlemen, in China and India, although food is cheap, wages are only a few pence a day; and I should be very sorry to see any of you *1? this M a simj'le hifforir fact and capable of prcof both from Cohdcn's fpeeches and other authorities, the j^iMic should bear it well in mind. It is a very important point in /his controversy. APPENDICES. 167 euiigratiug to Cliiua or to India with any idea that you could better your position. (Cheers.) But then look at the other end of the scale — look at America. In America the price of food and the cost of living are higher than in England. I do not know how much higher — probably 10 or 20 per cent. But then, as the agricultural labourer in America has wages of 4s. or 5s. a day, he has a miick larger margin than you have, and he is much better off. So that my point is this — and I bog you to consider it — namely, what you have to do if you want to imjJrove your position is to see what system, what policy, will give you most employment and most luages. (' Hear, hear.') Now, has free trade given you more employment? (Cries of 'No.') No, it has driven from the land half the labourers who used to work upon the laud, and where have they gone? They have gone to foreign countries, away from their homes and from the people whom tliey hold dear. They have gone into the towns, already over- crowded; into insanitary conditions; or, they have gone to the workhouse. (' Shame.') Feee Teade and Laboukees' Wages. " The effect of free trade upon the labourer of this country has been disastrous. (Cheers.) But has it raised your wages? Yes, to a certain extent the wages of the labourer have been raised. But mark this — of all clashes in the community, that of the agricultural labourers is the one in which wages have been raised leasi ('Hear, hear') ; and that is the consequence of the system which I am condemning. I see from the great Blue-Book which was piiblished lately that, while the average wages for the live years ended 1902 in the case of all other industries had risen 17 per cent, above the wages 20 years ago, in the case of the agricultural labourer the increase was only 6 icr cent.! ('Hear, hear.') Now, I ask the labourers, 'Is it worth your while to give your vote for a system under which you are still the worst paid labourers in the United Kingdom, and under which your rate of progress has only been cue third of that of other classes?' What about the future? If that is the record of the past, have you any reason to expect that you will be better off in the 168 APPENDICES. fiiture? You cannot expect that your food will he cheaper. I suppose we have got to about the bedrock level in regard to the price of food. On the other hand, it may he much dearer. If you depend upon a single source of supply for all that you cannot produce your&elves, you will create a monopoly, and a monopoly will probably end in a rise in price. And if there should be any drought in America, or any such speculation as that which took place a year or two ago, which raised the price of corn temporarily by 10s. a quarter — if that be the case, the labourer will be the first to suffer, and to Mm it may mean great misery and great distress. But if the price of your food is not likely to be lowered, can you expect more emjjloyment? No. Every day sees more land carried from arable to pasture, and every acre that is transferred means so many more labourers thrown out of employment. (Cheers.) Can you expect more wages'? No; as long as the farmer can make no profit he cannot afEord to pay you more Avagea (cheers) ; and, therefore, let me say that the interest of the labourer in this question is the interest of the farmer. (Hear, hear.) If the farmer and the labourer would work together they would have more influence than they have now; they would not be for- gotten by the Government. (Cheers.) If the position of the labourer is to be improved, the position of the farmer must be improved with it; and the real point, therefore, is, will the proposals that I maJce improve the condition of the farmer, and, under those circumstances, will the farmer be able to improve the condition of the labourer? C Yes.') The Chief Products of Ageicultuee. "Now, then, what are my proposals? Remember, I have only put them before you as a sort of sketch plan for the purpose of discussion and consideration. I do not ask you to pledge yourselves to them. They have been sub- mitted to the consideration of the Tariff Commission, under the chairmanship of Mr. Chaplin (cheers), and it is quite possible that before they are finally settled they will undergo some changes and amendments; but I will take them as they are, as, at all events, a subject for dis- cussion, and I will take them as illustrating the changes that are likely to take place. The general principle is APPENDICES. 1G9 clear. I waut to extend to agriculture the same advan- tages that the Government promised to niauufaotiirea. I wantj in ordor to equalise the competition — or, at all events, to mako it more nearly equal between the foreigner and ourselves — I want to put a moderate duty on the chief products of foreign agriculture as well as on the chief products of foreign manufacture — (cheers) ; and I want to arrange this moderate taxation so that, without pressing upon any class in the community, it may give the greatest advantage to the farmer in regard to those branches of his industry which are at the present time most profitable and most capable of development. I propose to put a 2s. duty on foreign corn. (Cheers.) I do not believe — I speak to you frankly — I do not believe that that will raise by a single farthing the price of bread ; I do not think that it will raise to any substantial degree the price of corn (hear, hear), and I do not think, therefore, that the farmer is going to get a great deal out of that. But I attach more imvortance to a duty on jly.ir. (Cheers.) I propose to put such a duty on flour as will result in the whole of the milling of wheat being done in this country.* (Cheers.) Froau that I expect tAvo advantages. In the. first 2)lnce, I expect more cmiiloyment. (Cheers.) Thia trade, which, to a certain extent we have lost, will be revived. There will not only be the milling of wheat in the great porta, but we may expect to see mills started again in the country towns, giving employment to a large number of labourers in the distiict, and to that extent benefiting the whole of the labourers. (Cheers.) In the second place, we shall keep in this country all the bran and other offal (cheers), and, as you know better than I do, that will have the effect of cheapening feeding stuffs. It must have that effect not merely on feeding stuffs produced in this country, but on feeding stuffs imported from abroad ; and in these circiimstances the farmer, the small owner, and the allotment-holder would be able to keep more stock, and breed and rear more stock, to increase their dairying operations, and to keep more pigs. All those branches of farming are at the present time the branches from which, * A iKirt'iridarly admirahle suggestion. l'"0 APPENDICES. I think, he derives the larger part of his profit. Then I propose to put a smaller duty of 2s. a quaxi;er ou every other kind of foreign corn — with one exception — barley, oats, rye, and so on. The exception is maize. Whether I am right or not, it is for those who are more learned in agriculture than I to say. But my proposal is based on this — namely, that in any scientific tariff wo must try to keep raw materials as cheap as possible; and therefore I myself should not propose to put any duty on maize, which is an important feeding stuff. Neither should I put any duty at all upon manure, whether it be natural manure or artificial manure. At the same time, I propose a duty of 5 per cent, on foreign meat and dairy produce. I propose a similar duty on foreign poultry, eggs, vegetables and fruit. (Cheers.) I believe that these duties will help especially the small farmer — the holder of small quantities of land — ^to make his cultivation more profitable. When I consider that, excluding meat altogether, we are actually importing at the present time something like ,£40,000,000 of dairy, vegetable and other by-prodticts of agriculture, I cannot help believing that if we are to keep even a portion of that trade for our own people, our own growers and labourers, we should do a great deal to make farming more profitable and to benefit the condition of the working man. " What will be the result of these proposals ? They may slightly raise the price of the articles affected. It does not at all follow that because they raise the price of the Taw produ6e — of whaat, for' instance — iliat they will necessarily raise the price of the mamifactured article — of bread — but they may raise it somewhat, although only to a very small extent; and that will, besides giving the farmer a slightly better price for his produce, help Iiiiu to increase his production and to cheapen the cost of it. I base my argument upon the experience of foreign coun- tries. It may be wise sometimes to take a lesson from the foreigner. The Case of FRANca. " I cannot help thinking that our neighbours in Fi'auce, for instance., manage these matters better than we do our- APPENDICES. 171 selves. What is the case of France? In France you have 5,000,000 people on the land. The majority of them are small holders who own their land. Let me say once more, speaking to the labourers, that one of my aspirations has been that the number of small holders of land should be increased.* I believe that these proposals will tend to increase it, and that it will bo to your advantage as farmers also if you mate the laboiirers partners with you. If you can give them the same interest as you have, then you will work together, then you will hz what you have never been — a power in the land. Well, with these 5,000,000 small holders in France — and I might come nearer home and say that with the hundreds and thousands of small holders in Ireland — the bogey of the dear loaf has no meaning whatever. They are not frightened by it, they do not believe in it. (Loud laughter.) If the canvassers who recently went round to the electors of Oswestry and told the wives of the labourers that if my proposals were carried their loaf would rise from 5d. to lOd. — if these people, I say, were to go round in the French villages — well, they would have a very warm reception. (Laughter, and 'Hear, hear.') Wherever small holders exist in any number there you will find that they, at any rate, arc not afraid. They do not believe that to give a certain advan- tage to the home prodiiction is going to be an injury to the home commerce. (Cheers.) But now let me go a little further into the case of France. They have 18,000,000 acres of land under wheat cultivation, and we have only about 1^ million. Those 18 millions of corn land have produced 18 millions of acres of straw, and having the straw and having the offals the farmer is able to rear a very much larger number of oxen and of dairy cows. The oxen and the cows tvirn the straw into manure; the manure is used to fertilise the soil; and the poor soils produce under this system an enormous amount of vegetables and fruit and all the by-products that are sent into this country to com- pete with the production of the farmers and the labourers of the United Kingdom, very much to their disadvantage. * Mr. Chamberlain was Chahmmi of the Select Com- mit tee on Small Holdings. 172 APPENDICES. VCheers.) That is one side of the (lucscicm— one side of The comperisxm with France. But let us look at the other. Does this system in France raise the cost of living? lie- member that the duties in France are much greater t];an anything I propose. The duty on corn in Franco to-day is ]2s. 2id. a quarter— more than six times as much as anything that I propose. The duty on meat is Id. a lb., which is more than double what I propose. Now, if the Kadioals were telling the Irutii — if what they say Were correct — the cost of living in France ought to ba enormous, and yet it is much lower than it is here.' (' Ecar, hear.') It is probably true that the French peasant pays a little more for his bread, but he gains so much on his meat, on his vegetables, on his poultrj^ on his eggs — on all thesa other things — that on the whole the cost of his living is much lower and his margin at the end of the v»-cok is much greater than that cf the labov.rer here. (' Hear, hear.') Now these duties I speak of were imponed in France in the year 1892, and the latest figures only come down to 1900. But in those eight years the price of wheat fell in France 20 per cent., while at the same time it only fell 11 per cent, in this country. The price of beef fell 10 per cent, in France and it rose 2 per cent, iu this country, and the price cf beef in 1900 in France was G.^d. a lb., while the price of the same beef in England averaged 9d. a lb. The Pkice cf Food. "Now what is the result of the foregoing figures? The result is tliis — that the duty, any duty, placed on the products of agriculture does not necessarily increase the price of food (' hear, liear ') ; and I will say more than that ; I will say tliat it never has in our experience, or in the (Xjierience of any foreign country, increased the 2^rice of food to a 2Jro2wrf.ionate or equivalent amount. (Cheers.) Bid if it does not increase the price of food it doei*, in all ca.eft, extend the production of food, increase the employment of labour, and cheapen the ultimate cod to the consumer. My proposals, therefore, I say, will bring to the labourer more employm^ent, and will not raise the cost of his living. Bat * Headers will find further farts on this iti(vrc':iiv.(j i-'ohd fif'vhere in this book. APPENDICES. 173 I am net satislicd v.-ltii that. I want to do sonietliing' more for him, and for all the pc-or in this country. (' Hear, lie.nr.') I want to redxice the cost of the living, and I believe ifc can be done under this system. Thp.se duties that I have spoken of will be paid in the main by tin foreigner (cheers); they will ba the foreigner's contribu- tion — and it is a very small oiio — to our national expendi- ture; but they will bring in a great number of millions a. year. 'What are we going to do with those miUions? We are not going to bury them ; we ara not going to spend tliera. ]!'e are going to vse them to reducz the cost of living and the cost of food for the people of this country. (Cheers.) There are politicians who tell you they are free-foodera. (A laugh.) I suppose they do not know what they are talking about. (Laughter.) There are no " freo-f coders " in this country. (' Hear, hoar,' and cheers.) The tasa,tica of food is very heavy, but these people seem to think fhat there is only one kind of food. They seem to think that you live by bread alone (renewed laughter). On the con- trary, every labourer will tell you, every class in the community knows, that wa have to live upon a good number of other things as well, and most of them ate heavily taxed. There are heavy taxes on tea, on sugar, on coffee, on cocoa — and on tobac-co. I do not know whether you agree with me, but I am rather inclined to agree with the gentleman in the " Picbnack Papers," who said tliat tobacco was meat and food to him. (Laughter.) Well, all these millions which come from the pocket of the foreigner we will give you back in reductions upon your tea and your sugar, and I hope upon your tobacco. (Cheers.) W© can afford to take off ild. a lb. en tea, a Jl. a lb. on sugar — which is half the tax — and, as I have said, something on tobaeco also. Now we will put tobacco on one side, and ask, Whait is the effect of the reduction upon tea and sugar alone? When the labourers go home from this m.eeting I wish they would take their wives into constiltation. I wish they would ask them, 'How m.uch tea do you use in the week? How much sugar? ' Tlie Board of Trade say that on an average every agricultural labourer's family 113.33 two-thirds of a lb. of tea and G lb. of sugar in the week. If that be true, the saving up.)n the reduction on tea and 174 APPENDICES. fcugar alone would ho 4atl. a week to every labourer's fr.mily ('hear, hear'), and althoug'h that is not a groat deal, / venture to sa]/ it is a great deal more than anybody else has ever promised you. (Cheers.) The watchword of the r.ew policy which I recoinraend for your acoeptance, the watch- word in the agricultural districts, is this :—' il/orc 'profit for the fanner, more employment for the labourer, and cheajjer food for his family.' (Cheers.) Anticipations. '■ I have one word more to say to tho i'armer. I have told him already that my Bclieme ia not a iinished and complete scheme. It is not a law of the Medes and the Persians, and it may he amended by subsc(iuent considera- tion, and there are certain things I have not taken into account in it. There is the question of local taxation, and there is the question of railway rates, in both of which respects the British farmer is in a worse condition flian the foreign competitor. (' Hear, hear.') Now, as regards railway rates, I can do nothing for you, but you can do everything for yourselves. But as regards local taxation, if it be true, as I believe it is, that iu competition Avith the foreigner you pay more thau he doea, then he has what I call an unfair advantage over you; and iu that case it is part of the general principle that I have laid down of fair play all around, that in any rearrangement of taxation full consideration should be given to this, and the farmer should no longer be handicapped as I think he is at present. (Cheers.) " Well, I think I have fulfilled the promise I made to you when I began. I have been perfectly honest and frank with you. I have told you exactly what I propose. I have told you what I think will result from the proposals that I make to you. I think that the rearrangement of taxa- tion which I ask the public to sanction will help the farmer in the bitter and strenuous competition which he has to meet from the foreigner in all parts of the world. I think that the particular proposals will stimulate his industry precisely where stimulus will bo most advantageous and profitable. If it does not materially raise the cost of the articles which he produces, if will enable him. to APPENDICES. 175 'pioduce on a larger scale and to decrease the cost of the articles that he produces, so that his profit iviU be larger. (' Hear, hear.') To the labourer it will bring benefits propor- tionate to those it brings to the farmer. It will give him a better hope, a regxdar and fairly paid employment. I thin/: he may rest a-'-sui-ed that, while it is not likely in any case to raise the cost of food, it is quite certain that the general cost of living will be reduced. (Cheers.) The Colonies. " But before I sit down I have one other word to say. My policy is not merely au economic policy. It ia also Imperial. It is not addressed only to your pockets. It is addressed above all to your patriotism, (Cheers.) These changes that I propose will enable us to reciprocate the offers that have come to us from our colonists across the sea. (Cheers.) It will enable us to arrange a closer com- mercial intercourse with those who are not only our chil- dren, but also our best and ever most profitable cus- tomers. (Cheers.) We must always buy something — ^buy a large part of what we consume from abroad. We can never produce all our requirements at home. Would you not rather buy what you vv^ant from your friends, from those who stand by you in trial and stress (loud cheers), than from the foreigner, who is never very sympathetic, never very appreciative of the great work which the British race has undertaken in the world? (Cheers.) I do not believe there are many villages which have not some relative, some friend in one or other of the great Colonies under the British ting. And these distant con- nexions of ours have net forgotten the old home, the old people, the old flag. (Cheers.) They showed their feeling in the late war, when we were in difhculty and doubt. Tliey showed no hesitation in coming to our assistance (cheers); and when the foreigner, whose industry we have been building up during the last 60 years, sneered at our failures and rejoiced at our losses, these colonists of ours, these men of our flesh and blood, gave us their moral and their material support. (Loud cheers.) They poured out their blood. They gave us of their treasui'e. Tliey showed that we were one kin, one people, and one nation. 176 APPENDICES. (Loud cLe«ra.) They did that for you in war; thfy have not forgotten you in peace ! (Loud cheers.)* Now also tliey want to draw closer together to the Motherland. Now also thoy prefer to deal with you I'ather than with strangers. (Cheers.) They have proved their sincerity by offering to us preferences on everything that we produce and that we send to them. (' Hear, hear.') Tljey ask us to meet them half way. They ask us to grasp the hands which they hold out to us. (Cheers.) They ask us to contribixte to their prosperity without injuring ourselves. Tliey ask us to give them the trade that we now give to the foreigner. (■' Hear, hear.") In return they Avill do more for us even than they have already voluntarily done. They will take more of our manufactures; they will find work for the people in our towns — and remember that the people in our towns are the best customers for the people in the agri- Ciiltural districts. (' Hear, hear.') They will do all thia for us. They can supply us with all the corn and the meat that we require, and that we cannot produce for ourselves. They can supply it us as cheaply as the foreign markets from which we now obtain it. Wliile those foreign markets only take a few shillings per head from \is, these Colonics of ours take as many pounds. And what is to be yoiir answer? What do you say to these men who retain so lively a recollection of their connexion with the old country, who long for the time when we shall Ije indeed a united Empire? Will ycu sniib them? (Cries of ' No, sir.') Will you reject the offers that they make to you? Ladies and gentlemen, believe me here is the greatest of the issues of our time. Let us bind these folk of ours, let us bind them to us by ties of interest as well as by tics of blood and sympathy. Let us unite the Empire ; the great aspiration of the wisest and best of your statesmen. Let us enable the British race throughout the world to hold their own not unmindful of tlie traditions, the glorious traditions, of their past, and able to continue them through generations and the ages yet to come. (Loud and long-sustained cheers.) * There loc- no mi'^taJAng the I'cev, ai^preciative feeling of the huge audience at this expression, which was instantly rrspondcd to by a huge outhiuyf of enthusiastic^ cheering. I AT LOS ANGELES . _ _ T.Tf^RARV UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY A A 000 278 154