(iv) The existing Wages Board system was continued.

THE DESTRUCTION OF A POLICY

The gradual destruction of this policy began in the House of Lords.  They allowed themselves to be swept away by the popular cry against Government interference with industry, and cut out the power of control of cultivation.  The Prime Minister had said that this was an absolutely essential part of the Bill, and of the Government’s policy, but the Government quietly and characteristically accepted the Lords’ amendment and the Bill was passed.

Then troubles began.  Other industries began to ask why the Government satisfied agriculture and not them, and as the Government could not plead their control of agriculture in justification, no real reply was possible.  Also the cold fit came on as regards national expenditure.  The Bill for the corn subsidies threatened to be very high.  Though Europe was starving, it could not buy, so cheap American grain flooded our markets; but cost of production here was still at its peak, and, for oats especially, the amount to be paid to the farmer threatened to be large.  It was realised that it might cost 25-30 millions to implement the guarantees for the first year, and perhaps 10-12 millions a year later.  In short, the guarantees had to go.  Instead of four years’ notice of any change, a Bill to repeal the great Act was introduced five months after it had been passed.  And it was unfortunately part of the bargain with the farmers who received for the single season perhaps six or eight millions less than they might have been entitled to under the Act, that the Wages Boards should be abolished—­and they were.  There remained of the original structure only the depreciation of the value of all agricultural landowners’ property by about one-twentieth, owing to the extra compensation for disturbance.

Every one felt that they had been had, and they had been.  The industry which had lately been talked up and made much of was dumped into the dustbin.  The farmers had lost their guarantees on the strength of which, in many cases, they had bought their farms dear or planned their rotations.  The labourers, who particularly needed the protection of Wages Boards during a time of fall in cost of living and unemployment, had lost all legal protection.  The landlords, willing enough to give what was asked of them if any national purpose was to be served, found that their loss brought no corresponding national gain.  Agriculture retired as far as it could from any contact with perfidious Governments, to lick its wounds.