M.— AGRICULTURE. 233 



food production, iieie the claims of property as such have over- 

 ridden those of industry, which alone can hi the last resort justify 

 property and at the same time enhance its value. The almost pathetic 

 cry on the part of so many landowners of ' Property, property, property ' 

 is a significant indication of the at least temporary decay of the squire 

 of former days, who, although perhaps a feudal autocrat, was an 

 integral part of the industrial machine, and was recognised and respected 

 as such by the other parts. 



And yet only sixty years ago English landowners were still the 

 acknowledged pioneers of agricultural improvement] The whole con- 

 tinent of Europe — including especially France, Germany, and Switzer- 

 land — were the confessed imitators of English agricultural methods as 

 initiated and perfected by ' Turnip Townshend,' Coke of Norfolk, Lord 

 Somerville, and the Dukes of Bedford. In France De Saussure, in 

 Germany Thaer, and later Stockhardt (a disciple of Sir John Bennet 

 Lawes), and in Switzerland Von Fellenberg, had preached the advan- 

 tages of English methods, particularly in the matter of crop rotation. 

 The name of the Squire of Eothamsted was a household word through- 

 out rural Europe, and was stimulating more scientific treatment of the 

 soil, while his own bucolic fellow-countrymen, mostly blind to his 

 genius and to their own advantage, were sinking into a condition of 

 static somnolence and smug contentment with the progress of the past. 

 The Germans especially, unlike ourselves, thoroughly believed in the 

 advantages of education and research, and their farmers, unlike ours, 

 greedily absorbed the teachings of science as applied to agricultural 

 processes, notably in the economic employment of feeding-stuffs and 

 fertilisers. 



The present-day poverty of the landowning class will, no doubt, be 

 urged, perhaps with some justification, in opposition to their adoptiot] 

 of tlie r6le which I submit is properly theirs, and which is not capable 

 of vicarious fulfilment, either by the State or by any agent or tenant. 

 Their very impecuniosity, however, may best provide the much-needed 

 driving power, especially if it be associated with knowledge. Coke of 

 Norfolk derived his stimulus from the refusal of a farm tenant to pay 

 what he considered an economic rent. He could boast eventually of 

 having increased his estate income tenfold. His tenants applauded his 

 enterprise and copied his methods. The increase of his rents, reflecting 

 as it did increased national wealth, was even recognised by economists 

 and statesmen as beneficial alike to the agricultural industry and to the 

 State. Some of his improvements no doubt needed initial capital 

 outlay, and this many a modern landlord may be powerless to provide. 

 But co-operation has proved to be to a large extent a substitute for 

 capital in those countries which have most developed their agricultural 

 prosperity, and become our most formidable competitors, even in our 

 own markets. To co-operative methods agincultural landowners must 

 turn to promote the enhanced well-being of themselves and the whole 

 rural community. Moreover, by the establishment of a system, not of 

 State-imposed minimum wages but of friendly co-partnership, profit- 

 sharing and practical human sympathy, untarnished by patronage, and 

 coupled with greater simplicity of living, they must identify and unify 



