46 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDEN  Ell 
January  16,  1896. 
involve  the  ruin  of  others,  and  jeopardise  the  honour  and  well¬ 
being  of  the  nation  as  a  whole.  The  potential  consequences  of 
the  deprivation  of  supplies  from  other  lands  for  the  two  “  short 
years  ”  would  make  those  years  long  years  of  suffering  and  misery 
to  thousands  ;  while  if  we  had  to  rely  on  our  own  soil  alone  for 
food  produce  over  a  much  longer  period,  gaunt  famine  would  stalk 
through  the  land,  with  pestilence  and  a  great  harvest  of  death  in 
its  train.  It  is  better  to  look  facts  in  the  face  than  to  shirk  them, 
no  matter  what  their  nature  may  be. 
“  But  such  a  thing  can  never  occur  as  our  being  shut  in  and 
thrown  on  our  home  resources.  We  are  too  rich,  too  strong,  too 
brave,  even  unconquerable  by  any  nation  or  combination  of 
nations  ”  may  be  urged,  and  is  urged,  against  the  very  possibility  of 
reverses  to  cripple  our  commerce.  Granted  our  national  wealth 
and  strength,  our  power  and  determination  in  great  emergencies, 
and  recognising  and  applauding  a  bold  spirit  of  self-reliance,  we 
have  still  to  remember  that  the  richest,  strongest,  boldest,  bravest, 
and  most  self-reliant  nations  of  the  past  are  far  from  being  in  that 
position  now,  and  some  are  only  a  name.  “  True  patriotism,”  says 
the  rector,  “  suggests  our  being  prepared  at  all  points.”  We  may 
be  well  prepared,  or  might  be  by  determined  effort  and  willing 
sacrifice  in  some,  but  we  are  not  so  prepared  in  “all.”  We  may  be, 
and  are,  strong  in  the  power  of  destruction,  but  we  are  not  strong 
in  our  methods  of  production — of  wresting  from  the  soil  anything 
like  the  bulk  and  value  of  food  it  is  capable  of  producing. 
Whether  in  peace  or  in  war  we  have,  with  all  our  boasted  self- 
reliance,  to  absolucely  “  rely  ”  for  the  necessaries  of  life  on  distant 
lands  to  a  greater  extent  than  has  any  other  nation  under  the 
sun.  That  is  a  fact,  and  no  mere  shrugging  of  the  shoulders 
can  shake  it  off. 
The  fact  may  be  admitted,  but  unfortunately  a  large  number 
of  persons,  and  it  is  feared  the  larger  number,  who  have  it  in 
their  power  to  bring  about  a  change  for  the  better  do  not  seem  to 
know  it,  and  cannot  be  brought  to  believe  that  any  good  can  be 
done  with  the  land  that  is  not  done  now.  It  is  a  sorry  conclusion, 
and  neither  betokens  knowledge  nor  courage.  It  is  true  enough 
in  one  sense  that  a  vast  extent  of  land  is  not  profitable  on  existing 
tenures.  This  is  attributed  to  a  variety  of  causes.  Our  climate 
is  said  to  have  changed  for  the  worse  ;  the  average  staple  of 
British  soil  to  be  far  below  that  of  other  lands  ;  the  prices  obtained 
by  the  growers  of  grain  and  roots,  flocks  and  herds,  milk  and 
butter,  eggs  and  bacon,  fruit  and  vegetables,  to  be  lower  at  home 
than  abroad.  Not  one  of  these  allegations  is  true.  The  climate 
has  not  changed,  during  the  last  fifty  years  at  any  rate  ;  the 
average  yield  per  acre  of  agricultural  crops  is,  even  under  present 
culture  or  semi-neglect,  greater  at  home  than  in  any  kingdom  in 
Europe  (with  the  exception  of  Wheat  in  Holland)  or  any  State  in 
America  ;  while  if  the  prices  for  various  products  were  higher 
in  the  countries  where  they  are  grown  than  are  obtainable  here, 
those  products  would  not  be  sent  to  our  markets.  In  all  those, 
what  may  be  termed  concrete  conditions,  our  sea-girt  isle  still  has 
the  advantage.  True,  in  some  countries  the  cost  of  production 
may  be  less  than  at  home  ;  but  in  that  of  our  greatest  rival 
(America)  the  wage  rate  is  higher.  Rates,  taxes,  cost  of  transit, 
free  trade  may  tell  against  home  cultivators.  The  majority  of 
our  enfranchised  people  have  only  to  be  convinced  that  those 
“incidences”  are  unjust,  having  regard  to  the  national  weal,  to 
alter  or  at  least  modify  some  of  them  ;  but  it  has  to  be  seriously 
considered  whether  still  more  good  could  not  be  done,  still  more 
home  contentment  established,  and  still  more  national  safety 
insured  by  the  combined  efforts  of  a  vastly  greater  number  of 
thorough  cultivators  than  are  now  entrusted  with  the  management 
of  the  land. 
We  may  be  proud  of  our  preparedness  for  the  most  to  be 
dreaded  of  all  eventualities,  of  our  national  wealth,  our  powerful 
navy,  our  ponderous  stores  of  ammunition,  of  our  soldiers,  sailors, 
and  statesmen,  of  our  means  for  manufacturing  all  that  may  be 
needed  in  &  time  of  storm  and  stress  consequent  on  an  upheaval  of 
nations,  but  we  cannot  be  proud  of  our  capacity  for  producing 
within  our  shores  the  greatest  motive  power  of  all — food  for  our 
millions.  What  are  the  facts  ?  A  London  paper  emblazoned 
with  the  Royal  arms  lately  said,  “A  country  in  which  there  is 
little  or  do  store  of  grain  in  barn  or  warehouse  is  in  a  most 
dangerous  condition.  In  1800  we  had  10  acres  of  Wheat  to  every 
thirty-two  inhabitants.  We  have  now  10  acres  to  every  260.  Our 
present  consumption  has  been  estimated  at  480  lbs.  of  Wheat  per 
head — an  annual  necessity  of  33,000,000  quarters.  In  1894  we 
grew  in  the  United  Kingdom  only  7,220,000  quarters,  or  less  than 
one-fourth  of  our  total  consumption.  For  ninety  days  in  the  year 
we  live  on  bread  from  British-grown  corn,  and  batten  for  275  days 
on  the  aliens’  corn.  This  is  not  a  healthy,  because  it  is  a  precarious 
subsistence,”  significantly  adding  “  Germany  understands  this 
question,  and  treats  it  from  a  strategic,  not  from  an  economic 
point  of  view.”  So  ought  England  by,  in  one  way,  affording  the 
greatest  facilities  for  increasing  the  number  to  the  fullest  possible 
extent  of  actual  thorough  cultivators  of  areas,  small  or  large,  in 
accordance  with  their  means.  There  may  be  other  ways,  but  that 
is  a  simple  and  natural  way  ;  also  safe,  inasmuch  as  the  nation 
would  have  everything  to  gain  by  it,  and  nothing  to  lose. 
But  there  is  an  alternative  to  increasing  the  supply  of  home¬ 
grown  Wheat  in  that  way,  and  though  a  terrible  one,  sad  to  say, 
there  are  not  lacking  men  who  would  rather  welcome  it  than 
otherwise  on  the  ground  that  a  “  good  war  would  raise  prices.”  A 
“  good  ”  war  !  Such  men  would  take  care  to  make  themselves  safe, 
if  men  they  can  be  called,  instead  of  ghouls,  who  would  fatten  on 
human  blood.  But  there  is  also  an  alternative  to  this  heartless  pro¬ 
posal.  If  the  price  of  bread  were  to  rise  in  somewhat  the  same 
proportion  that  it  did  during  the  wars  of  the  early  part  of  the 
century,  when  the  home  supply  of  Wheat  per  head  was  some  eight 
times  greater  than  it  is  now  (as  it  would  if  our  imports  were  cut 
off),  that  in  itself  would  be  a  calamity,  as  it  would  be  equivalent  to 
a  tax  computed  at  £180,000,000  on  the  consuming  population,  thus 
weakening  the  nation  by  that  amount  in  a  case  of  extremity.  It  is 
clear  that  the  food-producing  power  of  the  land  ought  to  be  increased, 
and  this  whether  in  view  of  prolonged  war  or  peace  ;  in  the  case  of 
the  former  to  prevent  starvation,  in  that  of  the  latter  to  meet  low 
prices,  and  secure  a  margin  of  profit.  Only  the  fullest  yields  can 
do  this,  low  yields  under  the  circumstances  plainly  leading  to 
bankruptcy.  The  land  is  like  a  mine,  its  value  depending  on  the 
output  in  bulk  and  quality,  whether  the  prices  for  the  commodity 
extracted  be  high  or  low. 
If  the  international  jealousies  and  antipathies  leading  to  present 
disturbances,  of  which  no  one  knows  the  end,  were  to  emphasise  the 
cultural  shortcomirgs  that  are  so  apparent  over  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  acres  of  land  in  this  country,  that  in  itself  would  be 
some  compensating  advantage.  It  is  not  that  those  acres  are  not 
paying  under  grain  culture  only  ;  they  are  not  paying  under 
anything,  because  neither  the  essential  labour  nor  fertility  is 
invested  by  which  alone  anything  can  be  forthcoming  ;  but  where 
land  of  good  staple  is  thoroughly  worked  and  its  fertility  adequately 
sustained,  or,  in  other  words,  where  the  best  handwork  and  brain- 
work  act  in  combination,  its  produce  is  enormously  increased,  and 
when  this  produce  is  wisely  applied  something  more  is  obtained 
than  a  reasonable  rent,  in  fact  a  “  living,”  to  those  who  possess  the 
means  and  the  knowledge  to  treat  the  land  well.  As  was  observed 
by  the  writer  of  our  Farm  article  last  week  (page  44),  a  “  better 
proportion  of  land  to  capital  ”  is  the  great  need  of  the  times.  The 
larger  the  area  of  land  starved  by  lack  of  labour  or  means,  the 
greater  the  loss  individually  and  to  the  nation.  If  large  tracts  in 
the  hands  of  one  holder  cannot  be  managed  without  loss,  the 
alternatives  are  absolute  waste  or  sub-division. 
There  are  thousands  of  men,  if  they  had  plots  proportionate 
to  their  means,  no  matter  how  small  or  how  large,  who  could 
yet  benefit  by  their  culture  ;  and  the  greater  number  who  can  do 
this  the  greater  the  strength  and  safety  of  our  nation.  Every 
man  who  can  and  will  work  a  plot  of  land  profitably  Bhould 
