PRODUCTION 73 



vear, but what will they be next year or the year after ? 

 In fairness ti) the farmer, the long period of agricultural 

 depression must be borne in mind, during which period 

 thousands of farmers went bankrupt and the capital 

 of the industry was lowered by some ^(^ 1,000,000 ,000. 

 The urban critic must never lose sight of this fact. The 

 farmer had to play for safety — his own personal safety — 

 not the nation's. W ho can blame him ? 



Hard experience had taught him that a land-ignorant 

 nation cared little whether its primary industry flourished 

 or decayed : the cult of the day was cheap food. Cheap 

 food and cheap human beings, have we got rid of this 

 pernicious doctrine ? The war gave it a nasty knock ; 

 but can we honestly say to the farmer it is dead, never 

 to rise again ? 



That the land of the United Kingdom was not pro- 

 ducing what it should, during the greatest crisis with 

 which this nation has ever been faced, was not the fault 

 of the British farmer. It was the fault of a long line of 

 Governments which systematically neglected our land 

 resources. But it is easy to blame Governments ; in 

 the last resort the fault lies with the town voters, who 

 hold the controlling power, and who in their blindness 

 could not understand the importance to the nation 

 of a flourishing agriculture and a highly developed 

 land. 



Then the war came and forced the Government and 

 the nation to turn their attention to that neglected source 

 of food supply — the land of the United Kingdom. 



The Government set up committees to enquire into 

 our home-grown food supply and its potential expansion. 

 The findings of all were the same — that our land could 

 and should produce more than it did. They reported 

 that a great increase in cereal production was essential, 



