1920.] Agricultt'rk dukixg Two Great Wars. 



239 



market. Consumers were satislied ; but producers who were 

 accustomed to supply high- class beef, mutton or lamb, suffered, 

 and their flocks and herds were depreciated. 



Other illustrations might be given of the preference given 

 to consumers. Often, no doubt, the application of the process 

 must have been exasperating to farmers. But there will be 

 few who, when they look back on those times, will not recognise 

 that it was the only principle to adopt. Its general operation 

 certainly affords one of the most striking contrasts in the story 

 of agriculture during the French and the German wars. 



Contrasted Labour Conditions. — Another vivid contrast is 

 offered b}^ labour conditions at the two periods. During the 

 French war agricultural labour seems to have been plentifiil. 

 Without an abundant supply, the work of reclamation and 

 improvement could not have been eftected. On the other hand, 

 throughout the whole of the German war, the scarcity of 

 agricultural labour narrowly restricted the increase of food 

 production. So great did the strain become that by the middle 

 of 1918 it approached to breaking point. The drain upon the 

 manhood of the country for the naval, mihtary and air services, 

 and for the manufacture of munitions, exceeded anything that 

 was experienced in the French war. As an illustration, the 

 military forces engaged may be taken. At neither period was 

 the nation prepared for war. In 1793, when revolutionary 

 France put ovei: a million of men into the held, our land forces 

 amounted to 43,000 men in Europe, and 10,000 in India. In 

 1914 the total Regular Army of the United Kingdom amounted 

 to something hke 250,000 of aU ranks, with which to stem the 

 rush of the disciplined milHons of Germany. At both periods 

 we warmed to our work. In 1813, our Regulars and embodied 

 ]\Iilitia in Europe and India numbered 381,000. In the German 

 war, if we measured our victories in trench warfare by the yard, 

 we numbered our forces by the miUion. By the end of 1918, 

 a total of 5,750,000 men of all ranks had passed into the 

 armies of the United Kingdom. In this number and in the 

 naval forces were included something like a third of the most 

 able-bodied agriculturists of Great Britain, and there were 

 many more who were drawn away from the land into other 

 forms of civilian employment. With this reduced supply of 

 skihed labour, the increased output of food which farmers 

 succeeded in making was at once a notable achievement and 

 a valuable contribution to victory. 



Nor is it only in point of numbers that labour conditions have 

 changed. During the French war agricultural wages were 



