THE ENGLISH LAND PROBLEM.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 295, 22 January 1910, Page 8

THE ENGLISH LAND PROBLEM.

To the Editor. Sir, —Under this diction you hav ' this morning 'jivcn lis about as ma'\v errors and nis--Lattnients us could wvii 1)0 crammed into a short article. In deed, when oil!" thinks of your undoubi"ii sincerity and belief in vour idea?, the lliing becomes positively humorous. \s you very npt'y remr.'k, "There inn-=t !» i something wrong somewhere.'" Vou ! tell us that "fi'Scu! reform would no: materially a.ssis l ; the English farmer.'' It is precisely the onlv thing that will, short of such a revolution as won!! .sweep away not only landlord* lmr mortgagees, land-tax, poor rates and all the many charges with which Ja:i 1 in England is burdened. Rent is only one of those, and as I have previously shown vou. n-.en who have not to pay rent —as your correspondent. Mr. Bates —are unable to pop;' with what is cnlle I free trade, "out which is m> more free trade than one side of a pair of scissors is a pair of seizors—and that is win" fny trade is and always has iieen for England. if you will read Cobden's life an"; speeches, you will note tint one of his main arguments to indue 1 his countrymen to adopt free trade W 1 s the statement, which he made with vo much confidence, that as soon as Great Britain had a a opted this new gospel ■>? | peace, all other nation would soon "Allow her example. Where is the on-' which has not built up high tariff wails against her? Lord John Bussell assured the farmers that it would lie impossible for "the farmers of the. Genness?" | and Susquehanna!] valleys to compete | =ucee=sfa!lv with them," because of the heavy cost of transit. That was before the era of steam ships. For many years, since the widening of the "Weiiand and Soult St. Marie canals, wheat <can be carried from Chicago to English port= for under a penny per bushel. Back In file 'seventies, I had a tenant on a finejarm in South Devon who thon did, what all other farmers up to that time continued to do—-grow wheat for the_ market, although his orchards :n ordinary years would pay his rent :n oider. I made a calculation and found that he paid more in tolls alone in drawing his wheat to Plymouth, Hi miles awav, than the cost of delivering my Canadian cousin's crop at the same place. I promptly sold the place and he bought it and th P mortgage he had on it gradually ruined him and he went through the Court. While hj? rental lie had saved money, being an excellent farmer, ion s,i v "the English farmer must stand or fail on his merits.'' i'7> and the S'co's farmer arc the finest -,!^r ; - ouituralists in the world, and if onhcommon honesty were accorded tho;,i they would be :<l| nyht. But; it is not. our correspondent,"Mr. Maunder, te : |s us the reason of his depression. He says that the consumer must be considered and not the producer, and the remark you make is to the same effect: "An increase in the price of breadstuff* Will not be tolerated r oy the British pui>. lie." This is the whole ease in a ni! rshell; the people who eat bread are much mora prosperous than those who grow it. and they very selfishly determined to sacrifice the farmer on the altar of the cheap loaf, cheaper than it can be produced i.n their own land. But a Nemesis has followed the cruel policv. When free trade came in Great Britain grew about five-sixths of all its broad corn; now only about one-sixth. While I was last in England a Royal Commission sat to inquire as to the stock of breadstuff* usually held in the country, and as to tile probable effect of a European war on thei.-. Their report showed that at times theee was not above a fortnight's supply in the country, and that the average was about six weeks' consumption. It was advised that large granaries should be induced by a system of Government subsidies, so* that the supply should never fall below the requirements of thre e months, but it was objected that to subsidised corn dealers was contrary to the principles of Free Trade, and the matter was allowed to drop. Th e money was spent in subsidising those fast Ciinard and other •teamers, which it is hoped will be able to keep up the supply, together with the splendid lot of cruisers now afloat and to be built. But the fact remains that unless we can keep command of the seas always, Free Trade has brought the country to that pass that.'t of the Homeland are liabi ed like rats in a hole, int. a peace which the enemy i r.< Tn order that th e people'may buy their bread' at about a halfpenny" a loaf less than it can be grown for in the country, hundreds of millions of money have to be constantly spent on fleets and munitions of war. What the condition of England would be were the Germans for instance, to be strong enough onlv _to put a stop to the importation (if corn. is a problem of the most dreadful possibilities. And when one reflects-that the peculiar views which Mr. Maunder sometimes ventilates in your columns are held by a very considerable portion if not a majority of the Liberal Fartv.' on the sinfulness of preparation foe war. one wonders what the future of the Motherland we all loy 0 * 0 dearly is to lie. Has the time com:, when for (initially since, of which selfishness. as dicatcd by the love of free trade, is one of the greatest, are to be visited on (he Empire' Probably the present elections will have much to do in answering that question. T had promised to remark on your very extraordinary vi-<\vs as to the condition of the English farm laborer, views which nn c opines hrrbeen handed down from a former gen".-, at ion, so out of date are they: Iml f j tear I have already tried your patience J and occupied your space too much. An other time, perhaps.— 1 nm. etc.. i!. ENnOTIT.

[We have already jrivorf reasons for tire views we hold that land reform more than fiscal reform i s what is needed to remedy the existing -ocial and eeonomic tronhles of IJritaiii, and that fiscal reform, even should it he attained, is not likely to materially improve the •of. of tli" l.ritish farmer. We do not propose, therefore, to traverse the same ground ajrain, as a reply to the point.; raised !>y Mr. Enroth would neeessitate. Our views are entirely nf variance with' those of Mr. Enroth on this subject, and to further pursue the controversy in the cireiimsfances would he quite unprofitable. "Mr. Enroth has state,] his ease: We have stated ours, and now we must leave the matter to the judgment or our readers.—Ed.]