M.—AGRICULTURE 217 
The economic betterment of rural workers can best be measured by 
recording that their weekly wages now stand at some 75 per cent. above 
the pre-war level, while the cost of living index-number remains in the 
region of 40. Remembering the immovable attitude of the administra- 
tion, and also the public apathy of forty to fifty years ago, and knowing 
the terrible situation that faced their predecessors yet a century earlier, 
the present representatives of what is justly one of the most famous 
agricultural counties in England, must surely feel encouraged by these 
tangible signs of support to continue their efforts to escape from the dark- 
ness of depression into the light of returning prosperity. 
Let us now leave the subject of direct financial impacts and benefits, 
resultant upon State action, to be weighed according to individual opinion, 
and consider the repercussions attributable to higher policy which involve 
economic and fiscal adjustments often extraneous in character. The 
precursors of marketing reform on the grand scale emerged in the shape 
of the Horticultural Produce Act of 1926 and the ‘ Rings’ Act of 1927 
(both of which attempted to strengthen the position of the farmer in regard 
to the sale of his produce), extension of the C.O.D. system, and the 
setting up of the ‘ National Mark ’"—all these supplemented the Empire 
Marketing Board’s policy of concentration upon the business functions 
of the producer. The cost of that Board during its short life (at first a 
million per annum, subsequently reduced to half that figure) was small 
compared with the incipient value of its work, which clearly paved the 
way for the far more ambitious operations of the Agricultural Marketing 
Acts. By the latter legislation our internal policy was completely altered, 
and over-riding powers were conferred upon proved majorities to transfer, 
withhold, process, or otherwise dispose of, ‘ regulated products ’ in order 
to control output, with the economic suggestio falsi that, if fully successful, 
such a price-raising system would merely readjust profit margins between 
farmers and intermediaries without raising prices to consumers. When, 
however, it became apparent that unrestricted supplies from overseas 
were effectively paralysing the original (1931) Marketing Act, its successor 
was passed which gave to the Board of Trade full powers quantitatively 
to control imports of any agricultural commodities already subject to the 
provisions of the former Act. 
The delicate ‘ gentlemen’s ’ (but, not necessarily, economists’) agree- 
‘ments, soon sought with the Scandinavian group of countries, and with 
certain South American producers, in the hope that their exports might be 
cut down to the required figures—generally expressed as percentages 
(circa 60-90) of some basic year or average of years—were not always easy 
to conclude. Trade agreements or Ottawa pledges will have prevented, 
in the case of certain articles—e.g. milk, meat and dairy produce—the 
introduction until this, or even the next, winter of such undertakings 
with some foreign Countries and with several of our own Dominions and 
and Dependencies. With import duties also imposed, in 1932, upon a 
Majority of agricultural and horticultural commodities, including one on 
foreign wheat at 2s. per 480 Ib., and 10 per cent. ad valorem on foreign 
flour, our Free Trade principles, zealously guarded since 1846, were 
jettisoned and ‘ the people’s food ’ was taxed indeed. 
