M— AGRICULTURE 263 



might perhaps be regarded with equanimity, especially if the grass were 

 of reasonably good quality. But wider issues are involved ; the effects 

 on employment and food production cannot be left out of account. 



In the second place, when one compares the amount of control to which 

 agriculture is subjected by the State and the amount of benefits, direct 

 and indirect, which it receives, one cannot fail to notice some disparity 

 between the two. The State is paying the piper fairly substantial sums, 

 but while it exercises a little restraint over some of his actions, its only 

 method of calling the tune is to offer special rewards for certain specified 

 melodies. Some people may say that the payments should be larger, or 

 different in form or in distribution ; others perhaps may think that with 

 so much foreign music available, it does not greatly matter what our piper 

 plays. But at any rate the fact is that the selection of the tunes is ulti- 

 mately determined only by individual choice. And one can hardly help 

 asking, somewhat anxiously, whether, if the system of payments, in their 

 various forms, is to be continued or extended, the freedom and inde- 

 pendence of the piper can be maintained. To drop the metaphor, if. it 

 be the policy of the State to preserve and support the farmer, at consider- 

 able cost, is he to cultivate and crop his land, to produce meat or milk or 

 other products, as he thinks best, without any dictation as to methods, 

 quantity or quality .'' I would emphasise that the question is not whether 

 the farmer should be supported and protected, but only whether there is a 

 possibility that, sooner or later, certain consequences may follow from that 

 policy. It is true, as I have said earlier, that it is difficult for a Govern- 

 ment to pass and to administer an unwelcome law ; but if Government 

 aid were made conditional on Government control, the farmer, however 

 distasteful he found it, might be induced to swallow the pill for the sake 

 of the gilding. 



It may be argued that the State, in return for its expenditure, whether 

 in the form of direct payments or of artificially raised prices, is entitled 

 to demand not only certain goods, but a certain standard of performance, 

 a view that found expression in Part IV of the Corn Production Act, 

 which gave ' Power to enforce proper cultivation.' In response to that 

 argument, it may be claimed that if the farmer is to be bound to produce 

 commodities of a kind, quality and amount determined according to the 

 kind and area of his land, he should be insured against any loss incurred 

 in the process. And that leads to the further question : if he is to be 

 insured against loss, is he to be left free to make unlimited profits, should 

 his efforts prove successful ? It is easy to follow out this line of thought 

 and to see complete control, including rents as well as wages, following 

 in due course, and, indeed, the ultimate incorporation of every agriculturist 

 in the Civil Service ! Titneo Danaos et dona ferentes ! Possibly this is 

 all merely academic speculation, but given the premise of State support, 

 the subsequent reasoning does not seem to be entirely fallacious. Whether 

 the conclusion, if it were ever reached, would be a desirable one, is a 

 matter for individual opinion. 



Thirdly, it may be noted that, while some of the State benefits, e.g. 

 rating relief, the fruits of education and research, etc., are bestowed upon 

 all, certain others, e.g. the wheat and beet subsidies, are, owing to natural 

 conditions, not universally available. This is a thorny subject — although 



