AGRARIAN POLITICS. 95 



industry to sustain a measure of prosperity. This method is 

 wrong. It is not good for Agriculture that it should rest upon 

 a political basis. That is too insecure, and I think it will be 

 shown, as time goes on, that as soon as Agriculture becomes a 

 burden to the nation from the taxpayer's point of view, then 

 a change will take place. As a matter of fact, the state- 

 ment of policy to-day in regard to industry in general is that 

 there must be no subsidy. That is emphatic so far as 

 manufactures are concerned, and if it is put forward as the 

 nation's adopted policy in regard to industry, then sooner or 

 later it must be applied to Agriculture. If, after a number 

 of years, Agriculture is made prosperous by the application 

 of guarantees which may mean the payment of large sums 

 of money, then it is certain the country will readily respond 

 to agitation which may destroy the basis entirely ; and after a 

 certain measure of security had been obtained by virtue of those 

 guarantees, a sudden change would mean disaster. I know that 

 in the Agriculture Act there is a clause securing four years' 

 warning but this will not necessarily be maintained, and the 

 whole position is so unsatisfactory that it is not wise to look to 

 it as the one means of developing Agriculture in this country. 

 Nothing is more liable to change than the political situation. 

 We have had our views falsified by recent events, for now, 

 by a sudden turn of the wheel, we find ourselves in one particular 

 industry plunged back to the pre-war position, and if that can 

 happen in the case of the big issues now before the country, 

 then it can happen to Agriculture. 



In a very short time the warning thus given was fulfilled 

 and the insecurity of the " political basis " on which 

 Agriculture had been placed was amply demonstrated. 



After referring to the probability that the development 

 of the use of machinery in Agriculture would be an important 

 factor in the future, and expressing his belief that the 

 central position must be met by national ownership of the 

 land under such an arrangement as made it possible for 

 the land to be used in the interests of the people, Mr. Smith 

 continued : 



I cannot help feeling that Agriculture as an industry has in 

 the past been run on entirely wrong lines. There has certainly 

 been co-operation in the past but it has been entirely between 

 landlord and farmer, whereas it should have been between 

 farmer and labourer. To make any industry prosperous there 

 should be co-operation between what we may term the operative 



