the days of my life-第96章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


The　work　was　well　received；　although　of　course　there　were　those　who　found　fault。　Everyone　has　his　own　ideas　as　to　how　such　a　thing　should　be　done；　though　those　who　try　to　do　it　are　few　indeed。　I　too　had　my　idea；　which　was　to　arrive　at　the　truth　out　of　the　mouths　of　many　witnesses。　I　desired　to　set　down　the　facts　as　they　were　at　the　beginning　of　the　twentieth　century；　not　as　they　had　been　in　the　past　or　would　possibly　be　in　the　future；　or　as　people　with　various　theories　and　political　views　would　like　to　see　them。　I　wished　to　preserve　a　large　body　of　incontestable　evidence　for　the　benefit　of　future　generations。　Since　that　day　things；　I　am　glad　to　say；　have　changed　a　little　—　not　very　much　—　for　the　better；　and　if　I　were　to　undertake　such　a　task　afresh　—　which　Heaven　forbid！　—　I　might　write　otherwise　on　certain　points。　But　I　tried　to　draw　a　picture　of　our　agriculture　and　rural　conditions　in　the　twenty…seven　counties　that；　with　the　Channel　Islands；　I　visited；　which　should　be　true　and　faithful　to　the　circumstances　of　the　time。
Some；　of　course；　were　angry　with　me　because　I　did　not　advocate　Protection　as　a　remedy。　Others　of　a　different　school　were　angry　because　I　pointed　out　that　Free　Trade　had　wrought　enormous　damage　to　British　agriculture；　and　that　this　same　Protection；　if　it　could　be　established；　would　go　far　to　repair　that　damage。　As　a　matter　of　fact；　I　began　my　travels　a　believer　in　Protection。　By　the　time　I　had　finished　them；　rightly　or　wrongly　I　came　to　the　conclusion　that　it　was　not　feasible　in　England　—　a　view　which；　during　the　last　ten　years　or　so　that　have　elapsed　since　the　publication　of　“Rural　England；”　little　has　happened　to　controvert。　Indeed；　I　still　hold　that　Protection；　or　Tariff　Reform；　which　is　so　widely　advocated　by　the　followers　of　Mr。　Chamberlain；　is　a　heavy　stone　tied　round　the　neck　of　the　Unionist　dog；　and　one　which　it　will　find　makes　swimming　difficult　in　our　political　waters。
I　elaborated　these　views　in　a　speech　I　made　some　months　after　I　published　“Rural　England”　at　the　Framlingham　Farmers’　Club；　which　speech　has　often　been　quoted　since　that　time；　when；　it　will　be　remembered；　Mr。　Chamberlain’s　proposals　were　very　much　before　the　country。
Well；　Mr。　Chamberlain’s　trumpet；　which　has　been　echoing　through　the　land　for　the　last　ten　years；　has　not　yet　shaken　down　the　Free　Trade　walls；　though　it　is　possible　that　by　the　time　these　lines　are　read　it　may　have　done　so。　I　cannot　tell；　nobody　can　tell　except　the　Great　Disposer　of　events。　I　can　only　put　things　as　I　see　them。　At　any　rate　the　point　that　I　believe　I　was　the　first　to　place　before　the　public　in　the　above　speech；　although　others　took　it　up　soon　afterwards；　is　sound　and　clear。　I　can　see　no　escape　from　the　conclusion　that；　if　food…stuffs　are　to　be　admitted　to　our　markets　practically　free；　while　other　imports　are　taxed；　our　agriculture　must　suffer　to　a　terrible　extent。　The　same　thing　applies；　if　in　a　less　degree；　to　the　admission　of　food…stuffs　without　impost　from　the　constituent　parts　of　the　British　Empire。　It　would　make　little　difference　to　the　British　farmer；　in　these　circumstances；　whether　the　corn　or　the　meat　came　in　free　from　India　and　Canada　or　from　Russia　and　the　Argentine；　if　at　the　same　time　he　had　to　pay　more　for　his　implements；　his　clothing；　and　every　other　article　of　daily　life；　and；　as　a　consequence；　a　higher　rate　of　wages；　while　he　only　realised　the　old　low　prices　for　what　he　had　to　sell。　For；　be　it　remembered；　the　British　manufacturer　peting　with　the　foreign…made　articles　would　certainly　raise　the　cost　of　his　output　till　it　equalled；　or　almost　equalled；　the　price　at　which　such　foreign　articles　could　be　profitably　sold　to　the　British　consumer。
At　first　my　hopes　of　any　tangible　result　of　my　labours　were　bitterly　disappointed。　Thus；　when　in　January　1906；　a　little　over　three　years　later；　I　wrote　a　preface　to　a　new　edition　of　“Rural　England；”　I　find　myself　saying：
I　wish　I　could　add　that　I　was　able　to　point　to　any　tangible　fruits　of　its　publication。　This；　however；　I　cannot　do。　Personally；　I　have　made　every　effort　to　bring　the　reforms　urged　in　its　pages　to　the　benevolent　notice　of　those　in　authority。　At　some　private　cost　I　have　inflicted　upon　them　copies　of　these　expensive　volumes　and　been　favoured　in　return　with　polite　notes　of　thanks。　I　have　interviewed　certain　of　them　who　wished　to　receive　me。　I　have　neglected　other　work　in　order　to　travel　up　and　down　the　country　addressing　every　kind　of　meeting　and　explaining　my　views；　in　short；　of　would…be　agricultural　reformers；　I　may　say　almost；　that　I　have　“laboured　more　abundantly　than　they　all。”　Now　after　four　years　are　gone　by　I　must　with　humiliation　report　that　nothing　of　any　consequence　has　happened。
It　is　true　that　at　one　time　I　hoped　that　the　great　extension　of　parcel　post　privileges　which；　under　the　title　of　an　Agricultural　Post；　I　urged　so　earnestly　in　the　interests　of　small　holders；　would　pass　into　the　region　of　acplished　fact。　In　February　1903　I　wrote　a　letter　on　this　subject　to　Mr。　Hanbury；　and　I　give　an　extract　from　his　answer：
House　of　mons：　February　18；　1903。
Dear　Mr。　Haggard；　—　I　should　have　answered　some　days　—　or　weeks　—　ago；　but　I　have　been　in　munication　with　the　P。M。G。；　Henniker　Heaton；　and　others　on　the　subject　you　have　done　so　much　to　bring　to　the　front。　So　far　from　opposing　the　principle　of　your　suggestion　I　am　heartily　in　favour　of　it；　and　I　am　doing　what　I　can　to　see　it　carried　into　practice。　My　criticisms　are　criticisms　of　detail。　I　do　not　think　the　scheme　can　be　limited　to　agriculture　or　even　to　rural　districts。　It　must　apply　all　round。　Nor　is　it　practicable　to　pete　for　long　distances　with　the　Railway　panies。　The　coaches　of　the　P。O。　run　to　distances　of　50　miles　round　London；　and　at　present　it　costs　the　P。O。　less　to　send　parcels　by　that　way　than　by　rail。　But　the　arrangement　with　the　Railway　panies　as　to　parcels　expires　very　shortly　now；　and　it　remains　to　be　seen　whether　they　cannot　be　made　to　carry　them　very　much　cheaper　in　the　future。　The　weak　point　of　the　P。O。　service　as　regards　the　country　districts　is　that　it　distributes　the　parcels　sent　from　the　towns　to　almost　every　house　free；　but　does　not　do　so　much　for　collection　as　it　does　for　distribution。　The　result　is　that　the　flow　of　traffic　is　all　in　one　direction。　A　farm…house　or　cottage　a　mile　or　a　mile　and　a　half　from　a　P。O。　can　readily　receive　parcels　from　London；　but　to　despatch　one　to　London　involves　a　walk　of　a　mile　or　a　mile　and　a　half。
So　again　the　limit　of　11　lbs。　is　satisfactory　to　a　town　producer　or　a　tradesman；　but　it　is　not　at　all　what　the　small　farmer　wants。
Knowing　how　keen　your　interest　in　these　questions　is　and　what　good　you　have　done　already；　I　hope　we　shall　be　able　to　work　side　by　side　on　this　and　many　other　points。
Yours　sincerely；
R。　W。　Hanbury。
Of　my　answer　there　is　a　copy　extant；　from　which　I　quote：
Ditching　House；　Norfolk：
February　19；　1903。
Dear　Mr。　Hanbury；　—　It　is　with　great　pleasure　that　I　have　read　your　kind　letter　and　learn　from　it　that　this　Post　is　really　to　receive　your　support。　Under　these　circumstances　（although　of　course　there　will　be　endless　difficulties　and　obstacles　to　overe）　I　see　no　reason　why　it　should　not　pass　into　the　realm　of　acplished　fact。　If　so　I　am　sure　that　ing　generations　will　bless　your　name　as　the　Minister　who　brought　about　a　great　and　beneficent　reform　in　our　economic　conditions　and　gave　back　some　of　its　prosperity　to　the　land。　For　it　would　—　directly　or　indirectly　—　do　these　things。
I　agree　the　Post　could　not　be　limited：　all　trades　and　persons　must　share　its　benefits。　I　think　“Goods　Post”　would　be　the　best　name。
I　believe　the　Railway　panies　would　e　in　on　reasonable　terms　for　long　distances。　The　General　Manager　G。E。R。　told　me　straight　out　（after　I　had　shown　him　what　the　thing　really　meant）　that　they　would　be　glad　to　do　so。
I　agree　that　a　collecting　system　is　absolutely　essential。　Motors　make　this　easy。　It　（the　Goods　Post）　might　be　bined　with　some　“contre　remboursement”　or　pay…on　delivery　plan。　But　most　of　the　stuff　should　go　doubtless　to　co…operative　agencies　who　would　sell　it　on　the　markets；　crediting　each　producer　with　his　share。
Believe　me；　sincerely　yours；
H。　Rider　Haggard。
P。S。　—　I　am　convinced　the　reason　that　the　idea　of　an　Agricultural　Po