104 THE FUTURE 



of the landowner who does not regard himself as 

 co-trustee of the source of national wealth and 

 health, but treats his estate as an amenity. And 

 between the two stands the farmer, whose system 

 of quantitative efficiency is well calculated to yield 

 him the largest possible income for the least amount 

 of capital invested and the smallest amount of super- 

 vision, but in a densely populated country like ours 

 is directly opposed to national interests. 



The student of all the factors that go to make 

 up this great problem with which we are dealing 

 will be unable to escape the conclusion that in the 

 last resort our agriculture as at present carried on 

 is anti-national. But the fault lies at the door of 

 the pseudo-economists on whose advice our farming 

 industry was jettisoned, and left to save itself if 

 it could. If agriculture in those years was not quite 

 ruined, it is because the farmers chose methods 

 of production in which they would have a chance of 

 holding their own against foreign competition let 

 in by the urban population in search of cheap food 

 at all hazards. 



For years we have not had a national policy, 

 but have followed a procedure dictated by the 

 narrow urban outlook. In regard to food supply 

 the cry was to have cheap food regardless of where 

 it came from — whether it came from countries with 

 which we might one day be at war, or over routes 

 which might one day be closed by an enemy. We 

 have paid a high price for our cheap food. 



Possibly — and this is a subject our working-men 

 would do well to ponder — for the moment the 

 object of the urban manufacturer was achieved of 

 having an over-supply of labour drawn from an 

 overcrowded population in the town, so cheaply 



