MINUTES OR EVIDENCE. 



16 September, 1919.] 



Mi:. L. N. GOODING. 



[Continued. 



the average profit for the 10 years 680. I have 

 deducted the schedule " A " assessment from the 

 average profit foi 10 years. 



9554. The deduction to be drawn from these figures 

 is that in the case of a mixed soil farm there is a 

 fair living to be, got, whereas ill the case of the other 

 farms it is not a paying proposition at all ? That is so. 



9555. You say these accounts have been audited by 

 an accountant? Yes. 



9556. In farm " D " you show in the summary of 

 profits an average profit for nine years of 1,088? 

 Yes. 



9557. You explain that by calculating interest on 

 a hypothetical capita!:'- Farm ' D" should have tin- 

 schedule " A '' assessment deducted which is 431. 



9558. It is not deducted? It should have b e ; 

 that is an omission. 



9559. Mr. Smith : There is one farm here that y. u 

 speak of which has been let to a new tenant since 

 1915 at a rental of 150 per annum? Yes. 



9560. Do you know whether he has been losing 

 money or making money since he took over tin- farm? 

 I could not say. 



9561. On these figures shown here he would have a 

 difficulty in making a living, would he not? I sho' Id 

 think he probably has. 



9562. In the average profit for six years of 402 is 

 there anything allowed for rent in the figures you 

 give? V. Inch farm are you referring to? 



9563. Farm " C " on page 6. There is an omis- 

 sion there in the printing. Schedule '" A " assess- 

 ment of 250 should have been deducted for the rent. 



9564. That would reduce the profit? That v.ould 

 reduce the profit to 152. 



9566. If a man has to pay 350 a year rent, he 

 would be losing money every year on those figures? 

 Yes, unless lie m .ide more profit than we did. I 

 would like to point out that in this case these are 

 pre-war figures up to the year 1914. During the last 

 four years there have been more profits made in 

 farming. 



9566. You would agree that in these years you have 

 mentioned here 19; 9 to 1914 there are two of 'the 

 worst years th.it farmers have experienced within the 

 last 20, are there* not? No, I do not think so. 



9567. Not the years 1911 and 1912? In the year 

 1911 there was an excessive and prolonged drought 

 and in the year 1912 there was excessive rain, was 

 there not? They were two very bad years; I do not 

 know that they were the worst within the last 20 

 years. 



9568. At any rate they were quit" exception;il 

 years. I suggest to you that the year 1912 would 1 e 

 one in :#) of its k'nd? Tt was a very wet year. 



9569. The yeir 1911 in which there was an exces- 

 sive drought would also be a very exceptional year. 

 You state that wheat cost 83s. lOd. a quarter to grow 

 without allowing for any interest on capital? Yes, 

 that is so; all these estimates arc without making any 

 allowance for interest on capital. 



9570. Do you know the small holdings in the Swaff- 

 liam district? 1 know where they a'e -ituited: I 

 have never been on to them. 



9571. The land there would be similar to some of 

 your own land, would it not? No, it is better-class 

 land than ours. 



9572. It is very light land, is it not? There is 

 sunn- light land, but the small holdings I should say 

 are better land than ours. 



!>"i73. If it were described as exceedingly light 

 land, would you agree? I have never been on to 

 tli" Swatfham small holdings and, therefore, I cannot 

 Mjr, 



9574. Kxceedingly light land would compare with 

 wime of the land you have been speaking of and with 

 which yon are connected? I should call .some of our 

 land exceedingly light. 



'l"'"5. If it has been stated that the cost of growing 

 an acre of wheat is 7 11s. 9d., and that the land 

 produced 1 quarters to tlf acre, that i.s rather a big 

 difference from some of your own figures, is it not, 

 which work out at about 16 an acre at that same 



26831 



rate? No, not on the light land; thu growing of 

 wheat on light land as shown in my previous evidence 

 \vas 11 4s. 4d. an acre. 



9576. What would you say on similar land? I 

 should say th.it none of the land I am farming on 

 this farm "A " would be suitable for small holdings; 

 the small holdings as a rule are on better-class land. 



9577. You would not call exceedingly light land 

 better-class land, would you ? I should not call it 

 exceedingly light land probably, but I could not say 

 without seeing it 



9578. Therefore, you might not agree with the 

 description that has been given of it? That is so. 



9579. Is there any of the produce of this farm that 

 goes into the house for domestic consumption? Very 

 little, but anything that has been sent in has been 

 charged at market prices; it is entered up every 

 month. 



9580. It is really accounted for in these figures, 

 is it? Yes. 



9581. You could not tell us in what way? I always 

 charge everything up to the estate or to the hall 

 Departments at the end of every month at market 

 prices and credit the farm with it. 



9582. I see you give some figures showing the 

 average profit for 10 years in the case of farm 

 " A " which works out at 260 a year? Yes. 



9583. On the other side you give some further 

 figures showing that is only a fictitious profit and 

 that actually there is a loss when you make the legiti- 

 mate charges which ought to be made against the 

 farm? Yes. 



9584. You agreed, I think, in answer to a question 

 of Mr. Parker's, that the capital per acre which is 

 needed to work a farm has increased since 1914 ? 

 Yes, it has increased. 



9585. Can you explain why you take your maximum 

 figure of 10,000 now, and carry it back over the 

 whole of the preceding 10 years? I have not exactly- 

 done that. I have put this little account in here to. 

 show the position of the farm to-day. I take it that 

 the profits made in the past are really no criterion of 

 the profits which may be made in the future. What I 

 wanted to slow you was that if a man went into 

 that farm to-day he would want CIO, 000 capital, ami 

 he would have to pay a rent of 344, and to pay 

 the rent and interest on his capital he must do con- 

 siderably better than we have done. He would have 

 to make 844 a year to make both ends meet. 



9586. If you take the capital required as of to-day 

 you have also to take the returns as of to-day. If 

 you were to tako the last four years since 1914 that 

 would give you a far better average than the average 

 you bring out of 260? It would. 



9587. Therefore, I suggest to you that it is a most 

 unfair proposition to carry that 10,000 capital back 

 over the 10 years, when 10 years ago possibly the 

 capital needed was only about half that sum and the 

 rate of interest less? I do not know about that, 

 because the profits this year, as far as we can sec at 

 present, are likely to be nothing. The expenses .ire 

 very much higher then they were last year, for 

 instance. 



9588. When these charges have been made that does 

 not show this year to be different from any other year, 

 because every year up to the last of the 10 when these 

 charges have been made against the farm there has 

 been no profit, there has been a deficit, and I am just 

 wondering how far these figures may be compiled on a 

 similar basis to that which you have taken with regard 

 to this capital of 10,000, carrying it back over the 

 10 years, when 10 years ago the capital was not more 

 than 5,000, perhaps, and the interest probably only 

 SJ- per cent. I suggest to you that this Summary of 

 Profits, therefore, is not of much value? I think it 

 shows the position of a man entering the farm to-dav, 

 which. I take it, i.s what you want to get at. 



9589. I suggest to you that if you take the capital 

 which would be required to-day, you cannot go back 

 to these years from 1909 to 1914 and compare the 

 position now with the position at that time, and 

 particularly so if you take out those two very bad 

 years 1911 and 1912, which were exceptional vcartt 

 KIII], in so far as their characteristics were concern**!. 



B 4 



