.December 7, 1916 
LAND & WATER 
23 
something that is \-ery new because it is very old. liven 
tUe.rise in wages, complicated as;,it is by the rise in prices, 
is a sort of symbol of the positive side of war ; the side 
that makes it something very different from mere des- 
truction. Tiie case is of course much stronger than this ;- 
for the patriotism of the artisian is the key not only to 
his content but to his discontent. Even in the ex- 
ceptional cases where he is merely angry, it -is almost 
wholly a patriotic anger ; founded on his conviction, 
right or wrong, that profits are being secreted at the e.x- 
pense of the whole national scheme. The Industrious 
Apprentice is not now being industrious for himself, 
or even merely for his (iuild, but for his nation and 
for the oxerwhelming millions of normal Europeans 
everywhere ; the nation is the one great window upon the 
history of the world. 
One thing is substantially certain ; that whatever 
industrial system rises in the new England, it will be 
English. It is notable that e\en the most advanced, 
and what the conventional would call audacious, 
of economic reformers • no longer talk the cant of cos- 
mopolitanism. One of the most re\olutionary and 
imaginative of these groups chooses the name of 
" National Ouilds." I will wager that twenty years ago 
the name would have been " International (iuilds." 
Nay, the sort of Socialism which specialised in using the 
very word " International " as a sort of substitute for 
the word " God " has now contributed not only its n^st 
famous but its hercest members to the formation of a 
'• National Socialist Party " which might almost ''-be 
called Jingo. 
Whatever we have to fear in the future, we ha\e not 
, to fear that hideous spectre of humanity, stripped 
of all its human loves and loyalties. \Vc have not to 
fear that sort of Catholicism which is not so nuicli 
a union of all beliefs as a union of all unbeliefs ; nor 
shall we be called upon to accept as the Parliament of 
Man, the Federcition of the ^^'orld, the sort of cosmo- 
politan club which consists at the best of exiles and at 
the worst of spies 
Effect of War on Agriculture 
By Christopher Turnor 
A S a nation our organisation, if we can be said 
/^ to have an organisation, was on a peace basis. 
/ % Our systems of finance, industry, and food supply 
^ .m-were all based on the supposition that the world 
would never again be troubled by a great war — cer- 
tainly not by the greatest war in all history. When 
it came upon us with its astounding suddenness all our 
views had to be reformed, and at a moment's notice 
we were forced to begin organising our population. The 
result is that the total output of our factories is higher 
than it was before the war, and this in spite of the with- 
drawal of millions of men. 
In this general increase in, the output of war materials 
one industry stands out as a striking exception to the 
rule, agriculture, the industry that provides home- 
grown food. Though in the early stages of the war the 
truth of it was scarcely recognised, few to-day would 
deny that food is a material of .war ; in fact some have 
even reached the stage of understanding that the carry- 
ing on of a great war is as dependent upon an organised 
agriculture (i.e., food supply) as it is upon the 
military organisation. Alas ! that this truth was not 
understood from the very outset — or rather that the 
('io\ernment did not realise it years ago in days of peace 
as other European Governments did. This really is the 
key to the present situation as far as the food supply 
of the nation is concerned. If the Government had fully 
realised the strategic and economic importance of a 
secure food supply over which they had complete con- 
trol we should to-day find ourselves in a very different 
position. The effect of the war upon the agricultural 
industry would have been very different. If the Govern- 
ment had understood the vital national importance 
of land and of the industry of food production we should 
presumably have seen the Government classing farms 
as munition factories and taking the necessary measures 
to secure their effective working. 
But in times of peace our greatest and most \ital 
industry was neglected. And so in time of war. Men 
born and bred on the land quite naturally appealed 
to military authorities as the best raw material out of 
which to turn the finished soldier, so that without weigh- 
ing the consequences all effort was directed towards 
getting e\'ery possible man from the land. If during 
the last fifty years we had been developing the rural 
population as Germany has developed hers the industry 
could ha\e stood the drain better, for there would ha\e 
been a greater residuum of men over military age to work 
on the land ; there would have been a larger population 
of country-bred women to replace the men of fighting 
age that it was expedient to take foi" the army. 
The Prime Minister announced that it was essential 
to maintain the supply of home-grown fowl— and farmers 
were promisc<l ofiiciaily that essential skilled men would 
not be taken from the farm. .Ml tiniity words — essential 
skilled labourers were taken from tjie farm. Then they 
were promised a greater supply of labour-.saving ma- 
chinery— the promise was not made good. To-day 
the number of steam plough plants has been greatly 
reduced. In June, igi6, a minimum staff for each farm 
was agreed upon by the War Office and the Board of Agri- 
culture. Even before this arrangement came into force 
many farms were staffed below the minimum, and 
in practice the scale has not been strictly adhered to. 
Not only has agriculture suffered from many cases 
of excessive withdrawal of men by the military 
authorities, it has also lost many men who have gone 
into other work, tempted by higher pay. 
This could have been obviated only by the mobiliza- 
tion of the whole manhood and womanhood of the natiorr, 
and the allotting to each individual his own sphere of 
national service. Such a mobilization of the nation 
was naturally distasteful to the whole race of politicians — •■ 
it would constitute a certain interference with the in- 
dividual against which our pre-war doctrinaires are 
still battling. And yet such a mobilization would have 
enabled the Government to weigh the importance from 
the national and war point of view of the different in- 
dustries, and to have arranged to leave the vital in- 
dustry of food production sufficient man-power not 
only to maintain but increase its output. 
Owing then to the Government's attitude towards 
the land, how has the war affected agriculture ? It may 
be stated briefly and it is a sad record. In 1915' more 
wheat was grown than in 1914 — partly owing to the 
high price which wheat was making and partly owing 
to the appeal of the Board of Agriculture to farmers to 
grow more wheat. 
But this increase of wheat was at the cost of other 
arable crops— it did not mean that more food was pro- 
duced, for the official report shows that the area under 
grass increased by 10,000 acres. Yet it is arable land 
that produces the greatest amount of food per acre. 
Professor T. H. 'Middleton's recent report* upon this 
subject should be read by every one. 
In igi6 the area under wheat was less than that of 
1915 by 254,000 acres, and for 1917 the shrinkage will 
undoubtedly be still greater. Further in 1916 the area 
under " bare fallow "• — i.e., growing no crops whate\-er— 
was greater than the pre-war average by 112,000 acres. 
But sfill more serious than this decrease in the annual 
output is the shrinkage in the capital value of land from 
the agricultural point of view. Owing to lack of labour 
the standard of cultivation is becoming lower — the lane' 
is being let down. 
We shall have to pay for this. The Prime Ministei 
recently appointed an Agricultural Reconstruction 
Committee, which is I believe to report on what altera- 
tions iji the system of agriculture will be necessary to 
* The rcccnl tlevclopmcnt of (Icnnan .Agriculture. By T. H. 
Mitldktin. C.B. W viiian and Sons, 4^1. 
