“AN UNECONOMIC UNIT”

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25766, 30 March 1949, Page 4

“AN UNECONOMIC UNIT”

PROFESSOR HUDSON ON LONDON IMPRESSIONS OF BRITISH PEOPLE London was described as “a huge uneconomic unit, with an unwieldy mass of people who must surely be a drain on Great Britain and possibly on the rest of the British Empire,” in an address by Professor E. R. Hudson, director of Canterbury Agricultural College, Lincoln, to the Workers’ Educational Association last evening. It took days to transact business which douid be done in a day in Christchurch, he said. There was a terrific loss of time for everyone moving about such a great city. “I don’t think the economy of any country is suited to such large cities,” he added.

Evidence of growing congestion in England was apparent even before he set foot there, Professor Hudson said. The south-east coast, which he remembered as a row of little towns and villages, appeared now as an almost unbroken chain of buildings. Up the Thames the land was packed with buildings and Tilbury was so busy that his ship had to wait in the stream 24 hours for a berth. Meanwhile an ocean-going vessel passed at seemingly five-minute intervals. Most striking first impression of London was the little allotment gardens on open spaces where nearby residents could grow their own vegetables. For many it was their first experience of growing anything, and to dig their hands in the soil and contribute something in primary production gave them infinite satisfaction. / Although there were hoardings urging increased production everywhere, it was clear that many people could be doing more essential work than the jobs in which they were engaged. Great work was being done in the historic universities; but there seemed to be a good deal of dead wood there, nevertheless. British Traditions A realisation of the great British traditions made him appreciate just how shallow New Zealand’s roots were after 100 years’ development, said Professor Hudson. From these traditions the British drew their strength and stability; but he noticed an inclination to look back rather than forward, even allowing for the harrowing days of the second world war. Great riches and great poverty still existed side by side. The housing of 80 per cent, of the people was not good. “As a people they filled me with admiration and exasperation,” Professor Hudson said. There was a tendency in London to take the attitude that Britain was the centre of the world and London was the centre of Britain, so why think about anything else. In the university cities no one seemed to care if the visitor did not know which were the famous colleges. One had to read the domestic college notices to find out. “One thing frightened me. That was the high cost of the distributive services,” he continued. “In the field of production a good job is being done; but the distributors are getting too big a slice of the cake.” British farming was prosperous at present. The use of farm labour was lavish by New Zealand standards, possibly because labour Lad nearly always been the commodity most readily available. The farmer lived comfortably and many did not participate actively in the daily work. These elements could do a lot more work. The attraction of the English village was found more in the works of nature than of man, Professor Hudson said. Generally speaking rural workers lived in sordid conditions. Holland and Denmark appealed to Professor Hudson for their culture and simple but productive life. America and Americans impressed him immensely, he said. They were an attractive and generous people, and whatever was said to the contrary, he believed their efforts to help Europe sprang from a genuine desire to assist the less fortunate. There was more interest in New Zealand in America than in Great Britain, first because of war-time associations, and second through observation of social experiments here. “The conservative American says New Zealand has gone completely bad and is just one jump behind Russia. The more progressive or left-wing element is deeply interested but a little sceptical, saying: ‘lf you can give all these benefits and still retain the incentive for endeavour we will be convinced.’ ”