

nOYAL COMMISSION ON AORICULTUBB. 



6 Angml, 1919.] 



SIR HENKY REW, K.C.B. 



['/,/. 



probability of the man in time netting a return. 

 No man would take a chop or a factory and sink a 

 lot of money in it unless he could be sure of recovering 

 dome Unit- 



796. I'o you not know the farmers linil it pays them 

 not to tnke loaves!' I do not know about pay 

 1111; tin-in ! ti-T. Init 1 know as a fact they are re- 

 in. taut to take leases. 



726. Does not that show that your statement cannot 

 be quite accurate."- No, I nm not sure that it does. 

 1 think, as a general statement, that if capital is to 

 !> attracted to an in<! : \\:int security nf 



tenure in the industry, and some means of gi'ving 

 security of tenure to the person who embarks his 

 capital' in a particular spot. I think that must be 

 true. 



7-7. Then, according to your view. the. farmer is 

 foolish not to take a lease? I do not know whether 

 lie is foolish from a purely business point of view. 

 1 should nay it looks foolish. 



You will agree he can get leases in England? 



\ 111' 



I believe so. 



729. I believe in Scotland they do take a great 

 many leases P Yes, I believe that still continues in 



><otland. 



730. In other words, I suppose a freehold would bo 

 better still than a lease? So far as security of tenure 

 is concerned, yes. 



731. What I want to make clear is this. Of course 

 we know that some farmers demand a security of 

 tenure on one side, as it were, that is to say, that they 

 cannot be turned out, but they can leave at a 

 moment's notice. You do not mean that form of 

 security of tenure? I was not thinking of any parti- 

 cular form of security of tenure, except at the moment 

 of my answer I was thinking particularly of a lease. 



7:!2. You are not a member of the Costings Com- 

 mittee, are you? Yes, I am. 



733. Do you consider it possible to ascertain the 

 cost of agricultural produce? I know, of course, all 

 the difficulties; but I do not think they arc in- 

 able, provided, of course, we got the real help of the 

 |xx>ple in the business. 



I will not ask you these questions, if \ve are 

 going to have the Chairman of the Costings Com- 

 mittee. or anybody else, who can answer them letter 

 than you. If not, I must ask you them:- I will 

 answer any questions which are within my scope; but 

 if there are any questions as to the dct'ails. he will 

 have them more in his mind than I, because I am 

 only a member of the Committee. 



735. Wo are going to see him, are we? Yes. 



736. It was suggested that the guaranteed prices 

 would put money into tli. -,f ;he landlord. Do 

 you agree, with that? I am not quite sure. I think 

 it probably would, under existing conditions, in cer- 

 tain cases. 



7M7. 1V> not tht- landlords, at any rate, take an 

 op|>osite view, seeing they are selling their lands all 

 over the country? I am 'not sure that that is proof. 

 Th'-rr> may be mnny reasons at the present time. 



738. It is a little inconsistent, is it not? I do 

 not think it is necessarily so. There may be many 

 s for their Belling land. That may 'be one, of 

 (Oiirse. 



I have only two other questions. You stated 

 thnt the reports on cattle in the country on the 

 4th June showed an increase? Yes. 



740. Are not those returns made under quite dif- 

 ferent conditions?- V.. 



741. Is there not a penalty on any farmer who 

 not make n return now? That is so. For the last 

 two years they have been compulsory, but were volun- 

 tary before. 



712. \Vre IK. t a g'>od ninny of the returns wrong? 

 That is so; but it has made MTV little difference 

 indeed. as n matter of fact, to the comparability of 

 the returns. People who perhaps have not dealt with 

 > lir*1iiloi on a large wale. may hardl some 



of the things which appertain to dealing with figures 



on a large scale ! example, I have over and over 

 again tested a oolhx tion ..t tiguros on a large scale, 

 .sin h tut the agricultural returns, and have t 

 what llu> results were on a 60 or <0 per cent, sample 

 of the whole, and the results have been practically 

 tln< same as a 100 per cent., sample. You will find 

 that ovor and over again aa a truism of statistics. 

 My point is this, that although on the face of it 

 have been a certain numlH>r more of returns, 

 although not a very great proportion, yet in th,> 

 previous returns the officers colhvtmg the returns had 

 in each ca*e to make an estimate for the holding for 

 which he failed to get a return, and the err. 

 that estimate was very little compnra lively on indi- 

 vidual estimates; and lumping them all tog. 

 wa> negligible. 



7 -13. Did not the returns formerly apply t'> a hold- 

 ing of three acres, and now they go dawn to a hold- 

 ing of one acre? No; there has been no change since 

 the very first two or throe years. 



744. Mr. Aihby: You stated just now that the 

 average capital of English farmers before the war 

 would be about 8 to 10 per acre? Yes. 



7I.">. Would you also agree that the margin of 

 profit per acre was comparatively small say 1 per 

 acre, or less? Less, I should think. 



746. Would you agree, from vour experience on 

 the Wages Board, that the average expenditure per 

 acre before the war was somewhere about 7? The 

 figure, I think, is 7 9s. 3d. ; and the receipts per 



would be about 8. Would you agree with the 

 margin of about 1? Yes. 



747. Mr. Cautley says that the prices of the 

 requirements which the farmer lias to buy have gone 

 up 200 per cent., which would make thnt 7. 1:21 ; 

 and that the prices of farm products have gone up 

 roughly 100 per cent., which would make tha- 

 16. Therefore, on every acre a farmer farmed 

 last year, he lost 5. Does that not follow? Yes. 



748. If that had been going on for two years, ho 

 would have lost the whole amount of his pre-war 

 capital. Does that not follow? Yes. 



Mr. ''until''/: 1 should like to contradict Mr. 

 Ashby, as he is rather misrepresenting me. I said 

 ho would have lost it if it had not been for the 

 prices fixed under the Defence of the Realm Act. 



749. Mr. Axlitn/: Excuse me, the prices fixed under 

 the Defence of the Realm Act arc those prices which 

 you state have only risen 100 per cent.; and I want 

 you, Sir Henry, to put this quite plainly: that it 

 the farmer has lost the difference between 100 per 

 cent, risn in prices of farm produco and 2fXI per 

 cent, rise in the prico of farm requirements, ho has 



:m amount equal to his pre-war capital I- 

 it follows. That is why I demurred from accepting 

 the perci'!' any evidence at all of what the 



farmer was making. 



750. Have many farmers gone bankrupt during 



the war? No. 



751. And you would ngreo that they have on the 

 whole improved their financial position:* -I think 

 there is evidence of that; that farm profits, (ho last 

 year or two. have lx>en greater than tliey were before 

 the war. taking the country as a whole. 



7.12. As to the reason for that, is it not true that 

 the total expenditure on the farm does not increase 

 with the increase in prices, because the amount of 

 supplies bought does not remain the same? For 

 instance, the enormous amount of recruiting in 

 agriculture during the ,war diminished the supnlv 

 of labour : and while wages rose, the total c<. 

 laliour did not rise in tno same proportion. 7s that 

 not true? Yes, that is true as a general proposition ; 

 but it was alsn home out tiv Midi evidence as we had 

 on the Farming Costs Committee. Therefore it 

 follows that to apply a percentage increase of wages 

 to tli.' individuals ns representing the increased labour 

 bill is not accurate. 



Is it not also true that the. actual supplies 

 available for purcha.se of fertilisers, nnd so on, \vere 

 low.. i than in pro-war times? Yes, that is also truo; 



