March i, 1917 
LAND & WATER 
•13 
Agriculture and Parliament 
By the Editor 
IN a recent article, " Land Without Labour ," 
we wrote " People are beginning to ask whether 
there must indeed be a serious shortage of food 
in these islands before an administration arises 
to deal serviibly with agriculture." And further on, 
" it would be less than justice to the present Govern- 
ment and to its predecessor if it were not mentioned 
that the political troubles and trials of British agriculture 
]ia\e their origin in traditional Parliamentary apathy 
and not in personal prejudice or partisan animosity. " 
I'^rom certain comments that ha\'e reached us it appears 
that these necessarily condensed sentences may have gi\'en 
rise to somewhat erroneous impressions. 
It was not intended to lay blame upon any particular 
;-.dministration, or even on a series of administrations, 
for the neglect of Britain's fundamental industry, for 
if blame attaches to anyone it lies on the shoulders of 
the present and last generation of agriculturists them- 
selves. The saying that " a country gets the sort of 
Government it deserves " is broadly true, and it is no 
less true that an industry so widespread, so politically 
powerful, and having so much influence over other 
interests as agriculture has, will also get as much or 
as little intelligent Parliamentary attention as it 
deserves. If it is too inert or too dull to use its latent 
power, ofher and smaller factions will impose their will 
and their legislative experiments upon it. If it does 
realise its strength no Government could withstand any 
reasonable demands it may put forward. 
If the foregoing assertion be true it may well be 
asked how it is that this power has been so inert ? To 
answer this cjuestion fully means delving deeply into the 
past, and we can only touch upon it lightly here. If 
we retrace history far enough it will be found that Parlia- 
ment was composed entirely of agriculturists, with perhaps 
a small number of lawyers. There was no such clash of 
intei^ests between town and country as we have seen 
during the last century, nor was there the same clear ■ 
dividing line between political parties as existed just 
before the outbreak of war. The rank and file of 
Members of Parliament followed individuals as leaders, 
rather than allied themselves to policies or interests.- The 
entry of industrial elements into Parliament was so gradual 
that any conflict of interest was not realised for a long 
time ; not indeed until a series of Reform Acts had so 
extended the franchise that the composition of , the 
legislature had been entirely altered, the proportions of 
population between urban and rural areas been com- 
pletely reversed, and the landed interest, as a separate 
entity, become lost in the House of Commons. 
This long immunity of the land from attack not only 
resulted in apathy among those landowners who still 
held seats in Parliament, but also practically atrophied 
their individual knowledge of the industry, while those 
among them who did realise the danger of this 
Parliamentary neglect yet held the view that they could 
not press the claims of agriculture, lest they might be 
accused of attempting to further their own private 
interests. The sneer of the Socialists — that the agri- 
cultural party has always been over represented — is 
without foundation, for, though it is true that Parliament 
has always had among its members a fair number of 
men who owned land, yet these have for several decades, 
with very few exceptions, held their seats as representatives 
of every industry save agriculture, with the consequence 
that they have too much ignored, not only the welfare 
of their own landed property, but also the interests of 
those among their constituents who were owners or 
occupiers of agricultural land. This nice delicacy of 
feeling has never swayed urban representatives, and 
their clamour has occupied the whole attention of 
Parliament for more than half a century. 
The truth of this charge of neglect on the part of 
land-owning Members of Parliament is proved by the 
tentative way in which agricultural organisation iirst 
developed. The earliest form of association was a mere 
gathering of farmers or owners for discussion upon 
practical ciuestions of culti\ ation. It was taken for granted 
that, with " the Squire " in Parliament, their political 
interests were safeguarded, and that all they had to do 
was to improve their methods of production. The 
idea that some machinery was required to spur their 
Member into doing his duty by them never entered the 
heads of these worthy farmers ; such a suggestion would 
have been looked upon as little less than profane. 
For many years the more intelligent have been 
endeavoui-ing to organise landowners and farmers 
into combinations, with a view to spurring Parliament 
into a proper recognition of the importance of their in- 
dustry, but although their efforts have met with some 
measure of success they have always found that the real 
apathy lay — not in Parliament, nor among the politicians, 
but in the agriculturists themselves. Any political 
party is always ready— only too eager in fact — to 
fraternise with a combination that is really homogeneous, 
and that is able either to bring the jmrty to heel, or to 
pro\-e a reliable ally. No party is prepared to anovc a 
finger for a cause or an industry, however \ital to the nation 
it may be, unless there is e\idence that it will be a source 
of profit to the party. 
An Agricultural Party 
The real solution is for agriculture to have its own 
party, and the industry is large enough, and potentially 
strong enough, to control the largest party in the State. 
If the present distribution of seats be analysed, and leav- 
ing Ireland out of the question, it will be found that 
some sixty divisions are entirely agricultural. Another 
sixty or seventy are predominantly agricultural, and a 
further hundred or so contain a sufficient agricultural 
vote to hold the balance of power. This calculation of 
course includes in the term " agricultural " all classes — 
landowners, labourers, and farmers — which is the only 
sound basis to work upon. 
One of the chief reasons why no real combination 
has hitherto been possible has been inherent in the in- 
dustry itself. Its units are so scattered: The members of 
most trades or industries are collected together in towns, 
and it is easy for tfiem to meet as frequently as may be 
necessary, and at short notice. A meeting of farmers, 
on the other hand, means a considerable sacrifice of time, 
and some expense for each individual ; while it is almost 
impossible to get emergency meetings together. More- 
over there are so many totally different kinds of farming, 
that comparatively few questions are of sufficient general 
importance to arouse interest in all the farmers even in 
one district. Still less seldom are all farmers concerned 
in the same matter at the same time. 
The other, and perhaps the main cause, is that the 
industry is split up mto three sections, and the belief 
is common that there is no identity of interest among 
any of the three. This is a very superficial view, but 
neither farmers nor labourers are specially gifted with a 
wide horizon. Therefore, because an owner wants as 
much rent as he can get and a tenant wants to pay 
as little as he must : or because an employer does not 
want to pay higher wages than necessary, while the 
employee wants all he can get, the majority jump to the 
conclusion that their interests must be antagonistic. 
The real fact that t-lrere can be no rent or wages and no 
profit for the farmer unless the business of farming be 
profitable, is often forgotten. 
This contorted \'iew has been sedulously preached by 
politicians for party purposes. It was given a tremendous 
impetus by the action taken by farmers in opposition 
to Joseph Arch's Labourers' Union in the early 'seventies, 
and no serious effort has been made to counteract it 
except the noble attempt by the late Lord Winchilsea, 
in i8q ;, to create a National Agricultural Union composed 
of all the three classes. In spite of his early death, and 
the scanty financial support accorded him, this mo\ement 
met with enough success to prove the possibility of bringing 
all into line, and of welding them into a great political 
force ; but an enormous amount of educational work is 
required to bring about final success, and carefully 
