August 17, 1916 
LAND & WATER 
II 
The Future of Agriculture 
By Sir Herbert Matthews 
A GREAT many people are settling in their own 
minds what is to be the future of Agriculture, 
however small may be their qualification for 
dealing \vith so momentous a problem. There 
is no lack of theorists ready to prescribe not merely 
remedies for the ills from which the industry has been, 
or is, suffering, but preventives for all future troubles. 
Let us hope that the patient may not be handed over to 
them for experimental purposes. Lord Selborne, the 
late President of the Board of Agriculture, realising the 
necessity of early inquiry, set up a Departmental Com- 
mittee of e.xperts to consider the settlement and employ- 
ment on the land in England and Wales of discharged 
sailors and soldiers. The personnel of the Committee , 
was excellent, and with the exception of Major-General 
Sir Charles Crutchley (who was put on to watch the 
interests of potential settlers, and not as an agriculturist), 
the opinions of each member on agricultural questions 
deserve most careful consideration. 
The Committee's Report 
The Committee divided their inquiry into two parts, 
first the settlement of ex-service men, on which they pre- 
sented a unanimous report. The second part dealt 
with employment, and although there appears to be no 
clearly defined difference of opinion, we are given a 
Majority report signed by the chairman and five others, 
a Minority report, signed by Mr. Edward Strutt, Mr. Leslie 
Scott, M.P., and Mr. C. H. Roberts, M.P., and a note by 
the chairman, in which he practically acquiesces in the 
conclusions of the Minority. At a first glance it is not 
easy to see why all the members could not sign the 
Minority report, for all the arguments of the Majority 
point to conclusions similar to those expressed by the 
Minority.; but the reason for their refraining from doing 
so seems to be expressed in their paragraph 181, in which 
the Majority state that the discussion of measures worthy 
of consideration for increasing the home production of 
food is outside the scope of the reference to the Committee. 
The Majority considered the question of employment 
under these heads : 
(i) The shortage of agricultural labour which will exist 
at the end of tlie war. 
(2) How to meet any serious amount of unemployment 
which may occur on demobilisation. 
(3) Employment occasioned by an extension and develop- 
ment of the agricultural industry. 
To meet this shortage they suggest four possible courses : 
(i) Continuation of child and women labour used during 
the war. 
(2) Employ more labour-saving machinery. 
(3) Attract mdn not employed in agriculture previous to 
the war. 
(4) Reduce employment by putting more land down to 
grass. 
As regards the first two, the Majority rightly antici- 
pate but small relief, and against four the whole tenor 
of their report is a protest. On No. 3, however, they 
propound four sentiments : (i) a satisfactory wage ; (2) 
adequate housing ; (3)- more village amenities ; (4) 
reasonable prospect of improving their position in life. 
Probably everyone will agree with the majority so far as 
I, 2 and 4 are concerned, while on 3 everyone will agree 
that these are admirable sentiments but unfortunately 
they are merely admirable sentiments, and we are not 
told how they are to become tangible and permanent 
realities. 
The Minority are more constructive, and it is at this 
point that they were obliged to part company from the 
Majority, for though they agree with the sentiments ex- 
pressed here, they think it essential, and the chairman 
apparently agrees with them, that a minimum wage must 
be giiven if any appreciable number of non-agriculturists 
are 1|) be induced to enter agricultural employment. 
Of course, the suggestion of a minimum wage introduces 
a principle that is repugnant to many people. One may 
have every sympathy with this antipathy, and yet be 
rt-ady to accept it as the lesser evil. The late Sir Robert 
Giffen, apropos of another problem said : " What may 
be tco.iomically unsound may be politically expedient," 
and nj reasonable person can question the vital import- 
anpe to the nation of producing the largest possible quan- 
tity of necessary foodstuffs within the shores of the 
United Kingdom. If we reduced our dependence on 
sea-borne food by even 20 per cent., it may make all the 
difference between victory or defeat in the future, 
but to reduce this dependence we must increase the area 
of arable land, and so automatically increase the number 
of men employed on the land. It will be impossible, 
however, to induce any number of non-agriculturists to 
engage in agricultural production imless they can be 
ensured all the four factors to which we have referred 
as " sentiments." Of these by far the most important 
is " the satisfactory wage." Given this the other three 
will follow in due course. 
Now to ensure this all-important factor, it is necessary 
that the employer shall find it advantageous to employ 
more men. Whether he be owner or tenant no man can go 
on indefinitely producing food on philanthropic Hnes. It 
must be commercially profitable, or he must sooner or 
later sell out in favour of rich men who will simply use 
their land for sporting purposes, or the letting down of 
land to grass must continue. Nearly twenty years ago 
the present writer said in an article in the Morning Post : 
" Laying land down to grass is probably the right policy 
for the individual, 'but it is disastrous to the nation." 
A writer in a contemporary* has only recently made this 
" momentous discover^." He thought " that pecuniary 
self-interest of the landlord and farmer would lead them 
so to administer their land as to produce the best possible 
result in the interest of the nation." Now he has realised 
" that the landlord can get a larger aggregate rental 
and the farmer a higher percentage on his capital if the 
land is used so as to produce a small quantity of food- 
stuffs and even a smaller gross total of cash proceeds." 
What a pity that it requires a European holocaust to 
teach such elementary facts ! 
Commercial Principles 
Whether land is held under present conditions of 
tenure, or acquired by the State, exactly the same rule 
will hold. If it does not pay commercially to cultivate 
arable land, it will be let down to grass, the farmer will 
probably earn a higher percentage on his capital, he will 
employ less labour, and the nation will suffer. The only 
alternative, if a larger arable area is to be retained, is for 
the State to farm the land, and sell the produce at a loss. 
The nation may gain in security, but at what a cost ! 
Think of the opportunities for peculation, and what an 
opening for departmental red tape and circumlocution in 
unavailing efforts to prevent it. 
The Minority prefer the re'cention' of existing conditions 
of tenure, but they point out that if a minimum wage were 
introduced in the farming industry without corresponding 
measures to insure the ability of the industry to stand the 
increased cost of labour, farmers might lay still more 
land down to grass, and so dispense with still more 
labourers ; for though the State may enforce a minimum 
wage it cannot force farmers to employ more men than 
they choose. Moreover, farmers might be tempted to 
keep a smaller permanent staff, supplemented by tem- 
porary labour in busy seasons. This is a risk incidental 
to any minimum wage system, but it can be minimised 
greatly if the industry is subject to a policy which ensures 
such stability to the industry as will give a real sense of 
security to the farmer. " A weekly wage at not less than 
a given rate is of little good to a family if the wage- 
earner is from time to time off work altogether." (Par. 
43.) In the paragraph 44 the Minority sum up the 
position truly and concisely : 
" We must, therefore, reconcile the interests of the farmer 
and the State ; we must realise that just as the minimum 
wage is the key to tiie problem of how to attract the largest 
• The AVai Statesman, 31st July, 1915. 
