CAN BRITAIN FEED HERSELF?
Is it impossible for this nation to produce food for 40,000,000 of
people?
We cannot produce _all_ our food. We cannot produce our own tea, coffee,
cocoa, oranges, lemons, currants, raisins, figs, dates, bananas,
treacle, tobacco, sugar, and many other things not suitable to our
climate. But at a pinch, as during a war, we could do without most of
these.
Can we produce our own bread, meat, and vegetables? Can we produce all,
or nearly all, our butter, milk, eggs, cheese, and fruit?
And will it _pay_ to produce these things if we are able to produce them
at all?
The great essential is bread. Can we grow our own wheat? On this point I
do not see how there can be any doubt whatever.
In 1841 Britain grew wheat for 24,000,000 of people, and at that time
not nearly all her land was in use, nor was her farming of the best.
Now we have to find food, or at any rate bread and meat and vegetables,
for 40,000,000.
Wheat, then, for 40,000,000. At present we consume 29,000,000 quarters.
Can we grow 29,000,000 quarters in our own country?
Certainly we can. The _average_ yield per acre in Britain is 28 bushels,
or 31/2 quarters. That is the _average_ yield on British farms. It can be
increased; but let us take it first upon that basis.
At 31/2 quarters to the acre, 8,000,000 acres would produce 28,000,000
quarters; 9,000,000 acres would produce 31,500,000 quarters.
Therefore we require less than 9,000,000 acres of wheat land to grow a
year's supply of wheat for 40,000,000 persons.
Now we have in Great Britain and Ireland about 33,000,000 acres of
cultivatable land. Deduct 9,000,000 for wheat, and we have 24,000,000
acres left for vegetables, fruit, cattle, sheep, pigs, and poultry.
Can any man say, in the face of these figures, that we are incapable of
growing our own wheat?
Suppose the average is put too high. Suppose we could only average a
yield of 20 bushels to the acre, or 21/2 quarters, we could still grow
29,000,000 quarters on less than 12,000,000 acres.
It is evident, then, that we can at anyrate grow our own wheat.
Here I shall quote from an excellent book, _Fields, Factories, and
Workshops_, by Prince Kropotkin. Having gone very carefully into the
facts, the Prince has arrived at the following conclusions:--
1. If the soil of the United Kingdom were cultivated only as it
_was_ thirty-five years ago, 24,000,000 people could live on
home-grown food.
2. If the cultivatable soil of the United Kingdom were cultivated as
the soil is cultivated _on the average_ in Belgium, the United
Kingdom would have food for at least 37,000,000 inhabitants.
3. If the population of this country came to be doubled, all that
would be required for producing food for 80,000,000 inhabitants
would be to cultivate the soil as it is _now_ cultivated in the best
farms of this country, in Lombardy, and in Flanders.
Why, indeed, should we not be able to raise 29,000,000 quarters of
wheat? We have plenty of land. Other European countries can produce, and
do produce, their own food.
Take the example of Belgium. In Belgium the people produce their own
food. Yet their soil is no better than ours, and their country is more
densely populated, the figures being: Great Britain, per square mile,
378 persons; Belgium, per square mile, 544 persons.
Does that silence the commercial school? No. They have still one
argument left. They say that even if we can grow our own wheat we cannot
grow it as cheaply as we can buy it.
Suppose we cannot. Suppose it will cost us 2s. a quarter more to grow
it than to buy it. On the 23,000,000 quarters we now import we should be
saving L2,000,000 a year.
Is that a very high price to pay for security against defeat by
starvation in time of war?
A battle-ship costs L1,000,000. If we build two extra battle-ships in a
year to protect our food supply we spend nearly all we gain by importing
our wheat, even supposing that it costs us 2s. a quarter more to grow
than to buy it.
But is it true that we cannot grow wheat as cheaply as we can buy it? If
it is true, the fact may doubtless be put down to two causes. First,
that we do not go to work in the best way, nor with the best machinery;
second, that the farmer is handicapped by rent. Of course if we have to
pay rent to private persons for the use of our own land, that adds to
the cost of the rent.
One acre yields 28 bushels, or 31/2 quarters of wheat in a year. If the
land be rented at 21s. an acre that will add 6s. a quarter to the cost
of wheat.
In the _Industrial History of England_ I find the question of why the
English farmer is undersold answered in this way--
The answer is simple. His capital has been filched from him surely,
but not always slowly, by a tremendous increase in his rent. The
landlords of the eighteenth century made the English farmer the
foremost agriculturist in the world, but their successors of the
nineteenth have ruined him by their extortions.... In 1799 we find
land paying nearly 20s. an acre.... By 1850 it had risen to 38s.
6d.... L2 an acre was not an uncommon rent for land a few years ago,
the average increase of English rents being no less than 261/2 per
cent. between 1854 and 1879.... The result has been that the average
capital per acre now employed in agriculture is only about L4 or L5,
instead of at least L10, as it ought to be.
If the rents were as high as L2 an acre when our poor farmers were
struggling to make both ends meet, it is little wonder they failed. A
rent of L2 an acre means a land tax of more than 11s. a quarter on
wheat. The price of wheat in the market at present is about 25s. a
quarter. A rent charge of 21s. per acre would amount to more than
L10,000,000 on the 9,000,000 we should need to grow all our wheat. A
rent charge of L2 an acre would amount to L18,000,000. That would be a
heavy sum for our farmers to lift before they went to market.
Moreover, agriculture has been neglected because all the mechanical and
chemical skill, and all the capital and energy of man, have been thrown
into the struggle for trade profits and manufacturing pre-eminence. We
want a few Faradays, Watts, Stephensons, and Cobdens to devote their
genius and industry to the great food question. Once let the public
interest and the public genius be concentrated upon the agriculture of
England, and we shall soon get silenced the croakers who talk about the
impossibility of the country feeding her people.
But is it true that under fair conditions wheat can be brought from the
other side of the world and sold here at a price with which we cannot
compete? Prince Kropotkin thinks not. He says the French can produce
their food more cheaply than they can buy it; and if the French can do
this, why cannot we?
But in case it should be thought that I am prejudiced in favour of
Prince Kropotkin's book or against the factory system, I will here print
a quotation from a criticism of the book which appeared in the _Times_
newspaper, which paper can hardly be suspected of any leanings towards
Prince Kropotkin, or of any eagerness to acknowledge that the present
industrial system possesses "acknowledged evils."
Seriously, Prince Kropotkin has a great deal to say for his
theories.... He has the genuine scientific temper, and nobody can
say that he does not extend his observations widely enough, for he
seems to have been everywhere and to have read everything....
Perhaps his chief fault is that he does not allow sufficiently for
the ingrained conservatism of human nature and for the tenacity of
vested interests. But that is no reason why people should not read
his book, which will certainly set them thinking, and may lead a few
of them to try, by practical experiments, to lessen some of the
acknowledged evils of the present industrial system.
Just notice what the Tory _Times_ says about "the tenacity of _vested
interests_" and the "_acknowledged evils_ of the present industrial
system." It is a great deal for the _Times_ to say.
But what about the meat?
Prince Kropotkin deals as satisfactorily with the question of
meat-growing as with that of growing wheat, and his conclusion is this--
Our means of obtaining from the soil whatever we want, under _any_
climate and upon _any_ soil, have lately improved at such a rate
that we cannot foresee yet what is the limit of productivity of a
few acres of land. The limit vanishes in proportion to our better
study of the subject, and every year makes it vanish farther and
farther from our sight.
I have, I think, quoted enough to show that there is no natural obstacle
to our production in this country of all the food our people need.
Britain _can_ feed herself, and therefore, upon the ground of her use
for foreign-grown food, the factory system is not necessary.
But I hope my readers will buy this book of Prince Kropotkin, and read
it. For it is a very fine book, a much better book than I can write.
It can be ordered from the _Clarion_ Office, 72 Fleet Street, and the
price is 1s. 3d. post free.
As to the vegetables and the fruit, I must refer you to the Prince's
book; but I shall quote a few passages just to give an idea of what
_can_ be done, and _is being done_, in other countries in the way of
intensive cultivation of vegetables and fruit.
Prince Kropotkin says that the question of soil is a common
stumbling-block to those who write about agriculture. Soil, he says,
does not matter now, nor climate very much. There is a quite new science
of agriculture which _makes_ its own soil and modifies its climate. Corn
and fruit can be grown on _any_ soil--on rock, on sand, on clay.
Man, not Nature, has given to the Belgian soil its present
productivity.
And now read this--
While science devotes its chief attention to industrial pursuits, a
limited number of lovers of Nature, and a legion of workers whose
very names will remain unknown to posterity, have created of late
quite a new agriculture, as superior to modern farming as modern
farming is superior to the old three-fields system of our
ancestors.... Science seldom has guided them; they proceeded in the
empirical way; but like the cattle-growers who opened new horizons
to biology, they have opened a new field of experimental research
for the physiology of plants. They have created a totally new
agriculture. They smile when we boast about the rotation system
having permitted us to take from the field one crop every year, or
four crops each three years, because their ambition is to have six
and nine crops from the very same plot of land during the twelve
months. They do not understand our talk about good and bad soils,
because they make the soil themselves, and make it in such
quantities as to be compelled yearly to sell some of it: otherwise
it would raise up the level of their gardens by half an inch every
year. They aim at cropping, not five or six tons of grass on the
acre, as we do, but from fifty to a hundred tons of vegetables on
the same space; not L5 worth of hay, but L100 worth of vegetables of
the plainest description--cabbage and carrots.
Look now at these figures from America--
At a recent competition, in which hundreds of farmers took part, the
first ten prizes were awarded to ten farmers who had grown, on three
acres each, from 262 to 3463/4 bushels of Indian corn; in other words,
_from 87 to 115 bushels to the acre_. In Minnesota the prizes were
given for crops of 300 to 1120 bushels of potatoes to the acre,
_i.e._ from 81/4 to 31 tons to the acre, while the average potato crop
in Great Britain is only 6 tons.
These are _facts_, not theories. Here is another quotation from Prince
Kropotkin's book. It also relates to America--
The crop from each acre was small, but the machinery was so
perfected that in this way 300 days of one man's labour produced
from 200 to 300 quarters of wheat; in other words, the areas of land
being of no account, every man produced in one day his yearly bread
food.
I shall only make one more quotation. It alludes to the intensive
wheat-growing on Major Hallett's method in France, and is as follows:--
In fact, the 81/2 bushels required for one man's annual food were
actually grown at the Tomblaine station on a surface of 2250 square
feet, or 47 feet square, _i.e._ on very nearly one-twentieth of an
acre.
Now remember that our agricultural labourers crowd into the towns and
compete with the town labourers for work. Remember that we have millions
of acres of land lying idle, and generally from a quarter to
three-quarters of a million of men unemployed. Then consider this
position.
Here we have a million acres of good land producing nothing, and half a
million men also producing nothing. Land and labour, the two factors of
wealth production, both idle. Could we not set the men to work? Of
course we could. Would it pay? To be sure it would pay.
In America, on soil no better than ours, one man can by one day's labour
produce one man's year's bread. That is, 81/2 bushels of wheat.
Suppose we organise our out-of-works under skilled farmers, and give
them the best machinery. Suppose they only produce one-half the American
product. They will still be earning more than their keep.
Or set them to work, under skilled directors, on the French or the
Belgian plan, at the intensive cultivation of vegetables. Let them grow
huge crops of potatoes, carrots, beans, peas, onions; and in the coal
counties, where fuel is cheap, let them raise tomatoes and grapes, under
glass, and they will produce wealth, and be no longer starvelings or
paupers.
Another good plan would be to allow a Municipality to obtain land, under
a Compulsory Purchase Act, at a fair rent and near a town, and to relet
the land to gardeners and small farmers, to work on the French and
Belgian systems. Let the local Corporation find the capital to make soil
and lay down heating and draining pipes. Let the Corporation charge rent
and interest, buy the produce from the growers and resell it to the
citizens, and let the tenant gardeners be granted fixity of tenure and
fair payment for improvements, and we shall increase and improve our
food supply, lessen the overcrowding in our towns, and reduce the
unemployed to the small number of lazy men who _will_ not work.
It is the imperative duty of every British citizen to insist upon the
Government doing everything that can be done to restore the national
agriculture and to remove the dreadful danger of famine in time of war.
National granaries should be formed at once, and at least a year's
supply of wheat should be kept in stock.
What are the Government doing in this way? Nothing at all.
The only remedy they have to suggest is _Protection_!
What is Protection? It is a tax on foreign wheat. What would be the
result of Protection? The result would be that the landowner would get
higher rents and the people would get dearer bread.
How true is Tolstoy's gibe, that "the rich man will do anything for the
poor man--except get off his back." "Our agriculture," the Tory
protectionist shrieks, "is perishing. Our farmers cannot make a living.
Our landlords cannot let their farms. The remedy is Protection." A truly
practical Tory suggestion. "The farmers cannot pay our rents. British
agriculture is dying out. Let us put a tax upon the poor man's bread."
Yes; Protection is a remedy, but it must be the protection of the farmer
against the landlord. Give our farmers fixity of tenure, compensation
for improvements, and prevent the landlord from taxing the industry and
brains of the farmer by increase of rent, and British agriculture will
soon rear its head again.
Quite recently we have had an example of Protection. The coal owners
combined and raised the price of coal some 6s. to 10s. a ton. It is said
they cleared more than L60,000,000 sterling on the deal. What good did
that do the workers? Did the colliers get any of the spoil in wages? No;
that money is lying up ready to crush the colliers when they next
strike.
It is the same story over and over again. We cannot have cheap coal
because the rich owners demand big fortunes; we cannot have cheap houses
or decent homes because the landlords raise the rents faster than the
people can increase our trade; we cannot grow our food as cheaply as we
can buy it because the rich owners of the land squeeze the farmer dry
and make it impossible for him to live. And the harder the collier, the
weaver, the farmer, and the mechanic work, the harder the landlord and
the capitalist squeeze. The industry, skill, and perseverance of the
workers avail nothing but to make a few rich and idle men richer and
more idle.
As I have repeatedly pointed out before, we have by sacrificing our
agriculture destroyed our insular position. As an island we may be, or
_should be_, free from serious danger of invasion. But of what avail is
our vaunted silver shield of the sea if we depend upon other nations for
our food? We are helpless in case of a great war. It is not necessary
to invade England in order to conquer her. Once our food supply is
stopped we are shut up like a beleagured city to starve or to surrender.
Stop the import of food into England for three months, and we shall be
obliged to surrender at discretion.
And our agriculture is to be ruined, and the safety and honour of the
Empire are to be endangered, that a few landlords, coal owners, and
money-lenders may wax fat upon the vitals of the nation.
So, I say, we do need Protection; but it is the protection of our
farmers and colliers, our weavers and our mechanics, our homes, our
health, our food, our cities, our children and women, yes, our national
existence--against the rapacity of the rich lords, employers, and
money-lenders, who impudently pose as the champions of patriotism and
the expansion of the Empire.
Again, I recommend every Socialist to read the new edition of Prince
Kropotkin's _Fields, Factories, and Workshops_.