the days of my life-第86部分

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！


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　at　the　low　rates　of　former　times。
I　am　in　accord　with　you　in　much　that　you　hold；　but　it　is　only　possible　for　the　Board　of　Agriculture　to　act　where　neither　legislation　nor　expenditure　is　necessary。
I　expect　to　be　in　London　most　of　next　week　and　the　week　after；　and　if　you　should　chance　to　be　ing　to　town；　I　should　much　like　to　discuss　some　of　these　subjects　with　you。
I　am；　yours　faithfully；
Onslow。
Here　is　my　answer　to　this　letter：
Ditchingham　House；　Norfolk：
November　15；　1904。
Dear　Lord　Onslow；　—　I　thank　you　very　much　for　your　letter。　。　。　。　Believe　me；　my　Lord；　I　quite　appreciate　the　difficulties　you　mention。　At　the　same　time　I　am　so　enormously　impressed　with　the　vital　importance　of　the　questions　involved　that　I　think　every　effort　should　be　made　to　educate　public　opinion　until　it　consents　to　sweep　away　those　difficulties　and　give　a　fair　trial　to　reasonable　reforms。　It　is　my　sense　of　the　supreme　necessity　of　these　reforms　that　has　induced　a　humble　person　like　myself　to　write　big　books；　take　long　journeys；　make　speeches；　indite　letters　to　newspapers；　etc。　—　all　gratis　work；　of　course　—　in　the　intervals　of　getting　my　livelihood　by　other　means。　But　as　you　wish　to　see　me　I　will　not　trouble　you　with　a　long　letter　on　all　these　matters。
Believe　me；
Very　truly　yours；
H。　Rider　Haggard。
To　the　Rt。　Hon。　the　Earl　of　Onslow。
In　due　course　I　had　a　long　talk　with　Lord　Onslow　at　his　private　house；　during　which　he　kindly　but　firmly　pressed　out　of　me　all　the　information　I　had　to　give　as　regards　small　holdings　and　other　matters。　In　the　end　he　asked　me　what　I　thought　had　best　be　done。　I　replied　that　it　would　be　well　to　begin　by　making　a　thorough　inquiry　into　all　the　circumstances　of　the　whole　business。　He　agreed；　and　we　parted；　nor　did　I　ever　meet　him　again　except　once　at　a　public　dinner。
Subsequently　he　appointed　a　mittee　to　investigate　small　holdings；　on　which　he　did　not　offer　me　a　seat。　Nor；　to　the　best　of　my　recollection；　was　I　even　asked　to　give　evidence。
Thus　did　I　keep　“pegging　away”　on　Nelson’s　principle　that　it　is　“dogged　as　does　it。”　Having　no　official　position；　of　course　I　could　only　work　from　the　outside；　but　I　am　sure　that　I　missed　no　opportunity　within　my　reach。　Thus；　to　take　an　example　almost　at　hazard；　I　find　the　copy　of　a　letter　written　in　some　acerbity　of　spirit　to　Captain　Kennedy；　who　was　the　Conservative　agent　for　the　Eastern　Counties；　in　reply　to　an　informal　invitation　to　me　to　contest　the　Wisbech　Division。
These　exertions　I　continued　down　to　the　time　of　the　fall　of　the　Conservative　Government；　which　I　implored　to　do　something　in　the　direction　of　extending　small　holdings；　if　only　for　the　sake　of　their　own　political　skin。　Needless　to　say；　they　took　no　notice。　The　only　answers　that　ever　reached　me　were　to　the　effect　that　they　were　not　going　to　“window…dress。”　Of　course　the　reasons　for　this　attitude　are　to　be　found　in　Lord　Onslow’s　letter　oreover；　I　did　not　confine　my　endeavours　to　prominent　members　of　the　Conservative　party；　of　whom　I　had　begun　to　despair。　This　is　shown　by　a　letter　which　I　addressed　to　Mr。　Asquith；　the　present　Prime　Minister；　who　at　that　time；　of　course；　was　in　Opposition；　a　propos　of　some　speech　he　had　made。　Almost　was　I；　never　much　of　a　party　politician；　driven　to　the　Pauline　attitude　of　being　all　things　to　all　men　if　by　any　means　I　might　e　slight　acquaintance。　I　remember　Lord　James　of　Hereford；　whom　I　knew　fairly　well；　introducing　him　to　me　one　day　when　I　was　lunching　at　the　Athenaeum；　on　which　occasion　they　both　expounded　to　me　the　reasons　of　their　strong　dislike　of　Protection。　Here　is　the　letter：
Ditchingham　House；　Norfolk：
March　19；　1903。
My　dear　Sir；　—　I　have　read　your　speech　reported　yesterday；　and　in　consequence　I　am　venturing　to　ask　your　acceptance　of　the　copy　of　my　recently　published　work　“Rural　England”　which　I　send　herewith。　I　hope　that　you　may　find　time　to　glance　at　the　book；　and　especially　at　the　chapter　headed　“Conclusions。”　Most　thoroughly　do　I　agree　with　what　y