Page:EB1922 - Volume 30.djvu/116

82

residence in a town, and the strength of this feeling was made manifest by the widespread movement that grew up after the war for the retention and extension of the allotment gardens.

Of course, the close of the war necessarily led to the displace- ment of many of the allotments which had been formed on land that could only be temporarily allocated for the purpose. Much of it had only been handed over on private agreements and was resumed for building or other industrial purposes. Recreation grounds and park lands could not be permanently alienated from the enjoyment of the general public. Even land which had been occupied under the D.O.R.A. powers of the Board, and of which, possession could be retained until March 23 1923, had often to be given up because its retention would have involved enormous claims for compensation when the land was immediately required for building purposes. Widespread as was the demand for security of tenure in allotments it was impracticable either to gratify it now, or to repair the want of foresight when the great towns were growing, by making allotments at the expense of the community on land which had already acquired a building value of 1,000 an acre or upwards. It might still be possible to provide for allotments on such land while it was vacant and awaiting development, but only on condition that the occupiers would have to be prepared to move on at comparatively short notice when building became imminent. Many authorities in 1921 were exercising with considerable forethought their powers to acquire land for allotments, and were acquiring land con- veniently accessible outside the zone of immediate development. Round many cities and towns a belt of allotment cultivation could be seen to be extending, though the cultivators might actually live at some considerable distance in the thickly popu- lated inner area.

Incidentally the Agriculture Act of 1920 gives an allotment- holder compensation for disturbance on similar lines to that enjoyed by occupiers of larger buildings.

The growth of the allotment movement may be measured from a very full inquiry that was made of the numbers at the end of 1920. According to an early return in 1890 there were then 448,586 allotments in England and Wales of under one acre, to which should be added certain railway allotments estimated as 39,115 in 1886.

At the end of 1920 the numbers in England and Wales were as follows:

Land managed by county councils under Act of 1919

Land entered upon by councils under D.O. R.A

Land occupied by councils and used tem- porarily under D.O.R.A

Other land used as allotment. ....

No. of

allotment

holders

329471 198,299

56,456 598,157

Acres 46,963 14-369

4.HI 95-754

Totals 1,182,383 161,227

Owing to the fact that in six cases the allotment land was let to associations of allotment-holders, the gross total of holders should be increased to about 1,330,000. It should be noted that one-half in numbers and considerably more than half in acreage of the allotments in England and Wales were still provided in 1921 by private owners.

Control of Agricultural Prices. The pressure of the war and the increasing difficulty in obtaining supplies necessitated a resort to the fixing of prices for agricultural commodities, which materially affected the business of British farmers during the critical years from the beginning of 1917. The Food Controller was appointed in Dec. 1916, and the Act under which he was appointed gave him very complete powers to fix the prices of commodities and to take over stocks, to control distribution and otherwise deal with all articles of food produced within or enter- ing the country.

As might be expected, considerable discussion and differences of opinion arose as to the methods to be adopted in dealing with agricultural produce. From the crudest point of view the Food Controller might be taken as the agent of the vast majority of consumers, anxious therefore to reduce prices, whereas the

Departments of Agriculture would be regarded as the guardians of the interests of the agriculturists. Such an opposition of interests was, however, rarely allowed consciously to weigh. The divergences of opinion grew from the fact that the Agri- cultural Departments were more seized with the necessity of increasing production, and apprehensive of the way in which restrictions upon price might so interfere with the business of the farmer as to limit the total output of food. It may be useful to put on record some of the results of the control and the effect they had upon the course of production.

During the years 1917-9 control was exercised over the prices of all the main articles of agricultural produce grain, meat, milk, cheese and butter, potatoes, eggs, fruit, certain vegetables, wool and hay, though in the two latter cases the control was exercised by the War Office and not the Food Controller. Two ends have to be satis- fied in the control of prices of agricultural produce. Primarily the public have to be protected from excessive rises of price, due primarily to the scarcity and then to the speculation and repeated dealings amongst the middlemen that inevitably follow. The farmer himself, the prime producer, is rarely in a position to take advantage of the public need and, in the current slang, " to profiteer." The conditions of the farmer's business are such that he is waiting on the price that is offered to him in the open market. Most of his output consists of perishable materials which must be sold forthwith, and he is rarely united into associations that are capable of exercising any pressure to refuse to sell below an agreed price. The rapid enhancement of prices that follows scarcity is as a rule the work of the dealers between the producer and the consumer, and the farmer is but a passive recipient of the share that accrues to him through the competition of dealers for his produce.

The second end to be attained in price control is the encourage- ment of production. It is possible to fix a price in the interests of the consumer which may be regarded as leaving a fair margin of profit to the producer, but which is followed almost immediately by a re- striction in supply. High prices are of course an evil from the point of view of the consumer, but in times of scarcity it is more important to get the food in quantity than to get it cheap. It becomes neces- sary, therefore, to fix such a level of prices as will encourage the producer to make a special effort to increase his output, and to this end it is never possible to base the price upon the average cost of pro- duction of the article. It is necessary to stimulate the produc- tion of the poorer farmers, whose skill may be inadequate or who are working under comparatively unfavourable conditions. As a consequence it follows that the prices will be such as give excessive profits to the more favourably situated producers. This is specially marked in dealing with agriculture an industry which in the main is carried on by individuals working upon a comparatively small scale, an industry in which the processes are not standardized and for which accounts showing the actual cost of production are very rarely available.

Considerable feeling was at times engendered against the farmers in Great Britain on the ground that they were making very large profits out of the public need and the restriction of supplies, but looking at the question broadly, these excessive profits accrued in- evitably to the men who by their skill or their situation were capable of comparatively cheap production.

From time to time attempts were made to establish systems of differential prices, according to districts. This was tried, for exam- ple, with milk, on the ground that the south-western counties could, as a rule, produce milk at a lower price than the mass of the country. Again, in 1918 differential potato prices were established by districts, according as they were regarded as adapted or otherwise to potato- growing on a large scale. Speaking generally, these differential prices proved to be comparatively ineffective and were the cause of great discontent and opposition amongst the producers. The main difficulty lies in the definition of districts within which the con- ditions of production are equal. County boundaries do not represent uniform conditions of soil and climate. The object could only be rightly attained by the scheduling of individual farmers into differ- ent classes and that is administratively impossible.

As a rule, the method of control adopted was to fix a maximum price beyond which the article must not be sold, and to enforce this maximum price by the action of inspectors. It was found in all cases of real scarcity that the maximum price became a minimum, and that the control amounted to the fixing of a flat rate of price for the article all over the country. Maximum prices having been fixed, there are then two alternatives: the Government may become the sole buyer of the commodity, or it may still leave distribution to the ordinary channels. It was found by experience that the Govern- ment can only become the sole buyer when it also controls the con- sumption of the article. The main examples of this type of action during the war period were wool and wheat. In the case of wool the Government held the whole stocks, both of foreign and home-grown wool, and made its allocation from these stocks to the manufacturers for defined purposes. In the case of wheat the Government assumed control of all the flour-mills and instructed them to accept delivery of the farmers' wheat at the fixed prices.