Land T'roblcms and National Welfare 



their hearts. I am glad to see that Professor 

 Hevvins, in writing to the " Morning Post " after 

 the general election of January igio, said that in 

 his opinion many votes were lost in the northern 

 counties because the voters were generally 

 interested in questions of reform, and sufficient 

 prominence was not given in the Unionist pro- 

 gramme to the various social reforms needed. 



Secondly, there are Tariff Reformers who 

 proclaim that a tariff will so benefit all our 

 industries that agriculture will enjoy in its 

 turn great advantage through the improved con- 

 dition of our manufactures. 



As one ever on the outlook for the promul- 

 gation of any doctrine injurious to the interest 

 of agriculture, I strongly protest against this 

 view. It is one that has been put forward by 

 several leading Tariff Reformers, and yet very 

 little consideration is sufficient to show that 

 it is unsound. In the first place our cities are 

 large enough, in all conscience, and afford 

 already so huge a market that the home pro- 

 ducer is at present able to supply only one half 

 of the foodstuff required. 



A few pages back I pointed out how the 

 McKinley tariff had benefited farmers through 

 encouraging the creation of factories in the 

 middle western states, but there the conditions 

 were very different ; there were no markets 

 available for the farmer at all. But in England 



222 



