MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



73 



23 September, 1919.] 



MR. H. O. HOWELL, F.O.A. 



[Continued. 



are asking him questions which as an accountant you 

 might ask me. 



Mr. Cautley : I do not want to throw any cold water 

 on Mr. Howell. I know the good work he is doing, 

 but my point is that it will be years before he arrivee 

 at any practical result. 



Chairman : I think you are asking a theoretical 

 question which any accountant would answer in the 

 same way as Mr. Howell has answered it. 



11,252. Mr. Cautley: I think Mr. Howell has told 

 us that the farmer ought to make up his accounts in 

 tin- same way as a man in an industrial business would 

 make them up. That is where I differ from him, and 

 I want to test Mr. Howell and show that in our 

 present state of practical knowledge it is impossible. 

 You will not admit that? No. I admit it is difficult. 



I I,2o3. And almost impossible: 1 I would rather not 

 answer that. 



11.254. Mr. Ashby: You have been asked some 

 questions about the representative character of the 

 farmers who supplied you with these accounts. Have 

 you any definite opinion as to their representative 

 character '( No, I have not. 



. 1 ,255. Would you look at paragraph 2 of your 

 report. The total number of tenant farmers there is 

 J2(i and of owner occupiers 95, and of home and 

 similar farms 83? Yee. 



11.256. That is to say, that the number of owner 

 occupiers and of the homo and similar farms greatly 

 exceed the total number of tenant farmers ? Yee. 



11.257. Therefore, taking the whole group as it 

 stands it is very unrepresentative of conditions both 

 in England and in Scotland? Yes. 



11.258. We have only roughly about 13 per rent. 

 of owner occupiers in both countries which includes 

 as a matter of fact owner occupiers of home farms. 

 'I luii is an extremely important point, but I will not 

 deal further with the representative character at the 

 moment. Turning to some of your other figures, 

 taking the acreages you have accounts from 113 tenant 

 fanners in England representing an acreage of 42,154. 

 That is au average roughly of 373 acres each which is 

 rather high, is it not? Yes. 



11.259. In Scotland the number of tenant farmers 

 is 13, with an acreage of 5,211, which gives the 

 average size of the farm as about 401 acres? Yes. 



11.260. That again is rather high. Have you any 

 idea as to how much the actual acreages vary from 



;n craves. Ymi would have more 300-acre farms 

 for in- in lOU-acre farms in England, would 



you not ? Yes. 



11.261. Taking the tenant farmers of mixed farms, 

 if I mi<;Iit speak of those for the moment, from 1 

 to 100 acres, there are eight with an acreage of 609 

 acres. Between 101 acres and 300 acres of tenant 

 farms, mixod farms, there are 31 with an aggregate 



_;o of 6,116 and from 300 to 500 acres the same 

 class of farms there are 26 with an aggregate acre- 

 age of 9,900. 



11,362. Chairman: These are the figures you have 

 promised to send in to us? Yes. 



11.263. Mr. Ashby: The cases i have called your 

 attention to are sufficient for my purpose for the 

 moment. Now will you look at the Table in para- 

 graph 3. The amount of profit of tenant farmers 

 per acre in England is 69,242. If you turn to 

 Table A the valuation increase there is 55,677? 

 Yes 



11.264. That leaves you a difference of cash profit 

 of 13,565 in the case of tenant farmers in England 

 and Wales? Yes. 



1 1 .265. Pursuing the same procedure in the case of 

 nant farmers of Scotland there is a cash profit, 



but the valuation increase exceeds the total profit? 

 -Yes. 



11.266. In the case of owner occupiers in Scotland 

 there is a^ain a cash profit?- Yes. 



1 1.2H7. In the oase of the home farmers in England 

 the valuation increase is vastly in exceas of the total 

 proh 



11,268. As a matter of fact it ia nearly 40,000. 

 As regards the home farms in Scotland you have again 

 a cash profit. So that as a matter of fact in nil 

 es, CM i-pt in the case of tho Knglish owner 

 <x> npiers and tho English home farms, you have a 

 cash profit? Yes. 



11.269. You say at the bottom of the table in para- 

 graph No. 4, that the valuation increase amounts to 

 1 9s. 7d. per acre? Yes. 



11.270. At the end of the statement of Financial 

 Results in paragraph 3 you say that the total profit 

 per acre is 1 6s.? Yes. 



11.271. Would you be surprised to learn that the 

 excess of the valuation increase over the cash profits 

 in the case of the English owner occupiers and of 

 the English home farms exactly accounts for the 

 difference of 3s. 7d. per acre between that excess in 

 the valuation and the total profit per acre? I take 

 your word for it that that is so. 



11.272. So that as a matter of fact you have on 

 the two classes of tenant farmers in England and 

 Scotland and the owner occupiers in Scotland and 

 the home farms in Scotland a plus difference that 

 is a cash profit of 29,000? Yes. 



11.273. But with the small number of English owner 

 occupiers and English home farms you have this posi- 

 tion that your valuation increase exceeds your total 

 profit to the amount of 55,000, so that if you rule 

 out the English owner occupiers and the English 

 home farms which after all are quite unrepresenta- 

 tive there are not more than three in 100, taking 

 the whole of the country together you reach totally 

 different results than you do by grouping all thi-M 

 figures together? Yes, that is so. 



11.274. I want to push that a little bit further. 

 Taking your total profits per acre that is including 

 the valuation increase you have tenant farmers 

 in England with about 373 acres each with a prc.iit 

 per acre of 1 12s. 10d., which is roughly 613 per 

 farm, and tenant farmers in Scotland with 401 acres 

 each with a total profit of 1,254. Owner occupiers in 

 England with about 450 acres each with 1 6s. 2d. 

 per acre total profit and an income of about 578. 



Chairman: Is that not rather a speech to the 

 Commission, Mr. Ashby? It is not asking a question 

 of the witness. He is going to give us further in- 

 formation. 



Mr. Ashby: A statement has been made in this 

 room by two Commissioners that there was no profit 

 on these farms except the excess in the valuation, 

 which is not true in the case of certain classes. 



Chairman : You can make a speech to the Com- 

 mission and point out why it is not true, but the 

 witness can only put the figures before you. 



Mr. Ashby: I am quite willing to hand my tables 

 to the Secretaries, and the witness can check them. 

 Perhaps that will he the better way. 



Chairman : If you will do that. 



Mr. Ashby: Certainly. (Ilunding documents.) In 

 the case of the tenant farmers in England and in 

 Scotland and in the case of the owner occupiers and 

 of home farms in Scotland there is a considerable 

 cash profit. The figures can be arrived at by anybody 

 who likes to take the trouble. 



11.275. Chairman (to the Witness) : Will you look 

 through these tables of Mr. Ashby's and tell us 

 whether you agree with them? I should have liked 

 to have had time to do more of this work before 

 sending in the report, but there was no time to sub- 

 divide the statements any further. 



11.276. I understand you are going to subdivide 

 them and Mr. Ashby's notes will be very useful to 

 you for that purpose? Yes. 



11.277. Mr. Batchelor: Do you know from the 

 information put before you with regard to the 

 accounts whether as a matter of fact there are larger 

 numbers of live stock and larger quantities of dead 

 stock on hand at the end of the valuation compared 

 with the beginning? I know as regards live stock 

 that there are larger numbers of live stock on hand 

 at the end than at the beginning, except in the case 

 of dairy cows, which show a decrease. As regards 

 dead stock I have comparatively no quantities at all. 



11.278. Will you look at Table F. I notice thai 

 1he rents of the English tenant farmers are 42,91(i 

 and the profits 69,242, which is considerably loss 

 than double the rent? Yes. 



11.279. Do you know if any of these accounts 

 were made up and used for lite purpose of satisfying 

 the Surveyor of Taxes that Schedule "B" was loo 

 high an assessment? I have been informed by a few 

 farmers that that was HO. 



