Can any man say, in the face of these figures, that we are incapable of growing our own wheat? Suppose the average is put too high. Suppose we could only average a yield of 20 bushels to the acre, or 21/2 quarters, we could still grow 29,000,000 quarters on less than 12,000,000 acres. It is evident, then, that we can at anyrate grow our own wheat. Here I shall quote from an excellent book, _Fields, Factories, and Workshops_, by Prince Kropotkin. Having gone very carefully into the facts, the Prince has arrived at the following conclusions:-- 1. If the soil of the United Kingdom were cultivated only as it _was_ thirty-five years ago, 24,000,000 people could live on home-grown food. 2. If the cultivatable soil of the United Kingdom were cultivated as the soil is cultivated _on the average_ in Belgium, the United Kingdom would have food for at least 37,000,000 inhabitants. 3. If the population of this country came to be doubled, all that would be required for producing food for 80,000,000 inhabitants would be to cultivate the soil as it is _now_ cultivated in the best farms of this country, in Lombardy, and in Flanders. Why, indeed, should we not be able to raise 29,000,000 quarters of wheat? We have plenty of land. Other European countries can produce, and do produce, their own food. Take the example of Belgium. In Belgium the people produce their own food. Yet their soil is no better than ours, and their country is more densely populated, the figures being: Great Britain, per square mile, 378 persons; Belgium, per square mile, 544 persons. Does that silence the commercial school? No. They have still one argument left. They say that even if we can grow our own wheat we cannot grow it as cheaply as we can buy it. Suppose we cannot. Suppose it will cost us 2s. a quarter more to grow it than to buy it. On the 23,000,000 quarters we now import we should be saving L2,000,000 a year. Is that a very high price to pay for security against defeat by starvation in time of war? A battle-ship costs L1,000,000. If we build two extra battle-ships in a year to protect our food supply we spend nearly all we gain by importing our wheat, even supposing that it costs us 2s. a quarter more to grow than to buy it. But is it true that we cannot grow wheat as cheaply as we can buy it? If it is true, the fact may doubtless be put down to two causes. First, that we do not go to work in the best way, nor with the best machinery; second, that the farmer is handicapped by rent. Of course if we have to pay rent to private persons for the use of our own land, that adds to the cost of the rent. One acre yields 28 bushels, or 31/2 quarters of wheat in a year. If the land be rented at 21s. an acre that will add 6s. a quarter to the cost of wheat. In the _Industrial History of England_ I find the question of why the English farmer is undersold answered in this way--