THE STATE AS FARMER 127 



countryside, are involved. But the active 

 cultivation of the bulk of the land itself can 

 be attended to without delay and to the 

 detriment of no one. But on this point it is 

 necessary to be clear. When I say to the 

 detriment of no one, I mean that all that 

 anyone will lose will be the injurious power 

 of dictating to others, lording it over them, 

 treating them as of another order from 

 themselves. 



At the present moment the supporters of 



a duty on wheat must be in something like 



a dilemma. They want us very properly to 



be free from the necessity of leaning upon 



Canada, the Argentine, and Russia. But they 



could scarcely blame us if at this crisis we 



decided to plough up their parks for wheat. 



Let us consider this point. If there is any 



truth in my contention in earlier pages that 



the true method of farming is to make it as 



far as possible self-contained and as little as 



possible dependent upon outside help either 



in feeding stuffs or in fertilisers, it will follow 



naturally that wheat and all the cereals will 



have their appointed places in the national 



scheme. If a real pinch were to come we 



