he cost of reproducing them。
But making the investigations was not all。 After these came the writing of the work itself； whereof the articles only formed the foundation。 This occupied the best part of another year of most incessant and careful application； for here every fact must be checked。 It was the very antithesis to that involved in the position of novels； where the imagination has free play。 Here I may add that of the recorded results of these hundreds of interviews and statements made upon the individual authority of the persons seen； or from observation of the matters investigated； not one wrong。 The manager of the Great Eastern Railway took exception to some of the carriage rates quoted by an informant； for which I was not responsible。 Also one gentleman who had invited me to inspect his farm spoke of “minor inaccuracies and blemishes” in the account I gave thereof。 In nearly twelve hundred closely printed pages that； I am proud to say； is all。
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 Post is not received with enthusiasm in every agricultural quarter （the town papers seem all to be much in favour of it） is that the farmers and their scribes believe that if it were conceded the concession would be used as an argument against their getting Protection on food…stuffs！
That is why so many of them oppose or belittle every useful reform： “it might stop their getting Protection。” Therefore they never will unite to demand palliatives； but prefer to hanker after the unattainable！
Subsequently I had a most satisfactory interview with this Minister in his private room at the House of mons； from which I emerged full of hope that the matter was really in a way of being put through。
A little later Mr。 Hanbury died suddenly； and nothing more has been heard of the Goods Post from that day to this。28 To my mind he was a great loss to the country； as in him departed a man open to new ideas； one； too； animated by a sincere desire to advance the cause of agriculture。
27 A Cash on Delivery postal service has at last been instituted。 — Ed。
Nearly two years later I received the following letter from the late Lord Onslow； who in his turn had bee Minister of Agriculture。
Clandon Park； Guildford：
November 13 ＇1904＇。
Dear Sir； — I have read with much interest not only your book on Rural England； but your speeches and letters to the Press on rural subjects； and I thoroughly appreciate how much you have done to educate public opinion on rural matters。
I know； too； that in your opinion the Government have shown themselves supine in dealing with these questions。
Difficulties there are which perhaps are not within your knowledge； but there are two primary ones which take the heart out of any official reformer。 One is the absolute impossibility of getting more than one or two important measures through the House of mons in any Session； and then only by the use of the Closure； while measures to which only one single member is opposed cannot be brought on。
The other is the state of the national Exchequer and the falling off in the power of the Government to borrow