MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



57 



12 Auyust, 1919.] 



SIR. H. G. HOWELL, F.C.A. 



[Continued. 



largu number of investigations with comparatively 

 little trouble, and I have no doubt we shall arrive 

 at tlie same point here in due course. 



1302. But you agree that a very large number of 

 instances is required. That was the only point I was 

 asking? Yes. 



1303. In determining the cost of any crop there is a 

 very large element of valuation, is there not; that is, 

 the valuation of the result of preceding crops and the 

 effect of operations upon succeeding crops;' Thi-re i.s 

 an element of valuation, yes. 



1304. And that will vary in different climates and 

 soils, will not it? Yes, it will. 



130o. With regard to so-called unprofitable crops, is 

 not it often the case that the coat of such a crop should 

 rather be regarded as appertaining to the production 

 of other crops? Yes, that is so. 



1300. It is not necessarily unprofitable from the 

 point of view of management aa a whole; but it 

 should be made a charge against other crops? To be 

 clear, may I ask if you are referring to a root crop 

 a turnip crop, as a example. 



1307. In some cases, or the use of clover, and so on? 

 In such a case you would endeavour as far as pos 

 lible to apportion the cost over the crops that would 

 obtain the advantage of those costs. 



1308. The advantage of tb.6 manurial and cultural 

 residues ? Yes. 



130'J There might also be a crop which from a 

 strictly financial point of view would be unprofitable, 

 but which would be necessary or very desirable in view 

 of other conditions of farming? Yes. 



1310. The production, say, of certain classes of root 

 crops unsuitable for the locality, but necessary for cer- 

 tain times of the year? Yes. 



1311. All that would simply be a matter of book- 

 keeping and spreading it over the different crops or 

 departments to which it related? Thait is so. 



1312. There is one other point, a small one, but 

 it lias been referred to more than once, and that is 

 the remuneration of the farmer. If you allow 

 nothing for the farmer's work in overseeing his work, 

 does not that create a certain inequality of calcula- 

 tion between the man who oversees all his work 

 directly, and the man who either from farming on a 

 different scale or for other reasons employs paid 

 management for that purpose? Yes. 



1313. Should there not he something to equalise 

 the basis in the two instances ? It depends what 

 particular purpose you have in mind. 



1314. I mean to get at the cost of production? 

 No; in getting at the cost of production I do not 

 think you should attempt to equalise. You ascertain 

 tile facts in both cases. 



1315. Yes; but the fact is that Farmer A devotes 

 his whole time to looking after his whole farm, 

 whereas Fanner B, either for his whole farm or part 

 of his farm, or for a separate farm, employs a. paid 

 manager who does nothing else than that. If you 

 allow nothing for Farmer A's supervision of the land 

 which he occupies, are not you concealing an integral 

 fact or failing to give effect to it? No, I do not quite 

 see that. 



1316. I do not want to argue the point at all? 



1 am not attempting to argue it. 



1317. I put it to you there is an inequality in the 

 two conditions? There is inequality in the result of 

 the balance of income over expenditure in those two 

 farms; but I dp not see that there is inequality in 

 regard to the costings of those two farms. One costs 

 more to work than the other, and the owner of that 

 farm, say, with a bailiff, expects to get less as a net 

 result from the farm than the other man. 



1318. You would not regard his t'wn services as 

 something that you ought to put down in a separate 

 account? No, not in order to get at costs. 



Mr. Lennard : Before Mr. Howell goes, might I, on 

 a point of order, raise the question whether the 

 Costings Committee has any of these American pub- 

 lications which would be of service to the Commis- 

 sion ? It eeenis to me that information about changes 

 in the costs of production during recent years in the 

 United States would be a very valuable supplement 

 to our information. 



1319. Chairman : Have you such information from 

 the States, Mr. Howell ? We have some of these pub- 

 lications. Mr. Ashby, I believe, knows of the exist- 

 ence of others. 



1320. If you have got it, would you be so kind as 

 to send it here and let us see the papers which Mr. 

 Leonard desires to have. If you do not have it, would 

 the Board of Agriculture have it? Yes, they would 

 p.robably have others; or if they have not I would 

 suggest your wiring to the States to get what you 

 want. 



1321. Have you got what you want by wiring? 

 No, we wrote, but we have not nearly all that they 

 have published on this subject yet. 



Chairman: We are much obliged to you, Mr. 

 Howell. 



(The Witness withdrew.) 

 The Hon. EUWAKD STBUTT, C.H., Called and Examined. 



1322. Chairman : You have been kind enough to give 

 us a precis of your evidence? Yes. 



1323. Chairman: Would you allow me to put that 

 in without reading it? Certainly. 



The following precis of evidence was handed in by 

 the Witness: 



1324. (1) I understand that the Koyal Commission 

 wishes to be informed as far as possible of the cost 

 of the production of crops on Agricultural Land, and 

 what the position of the occupier at the present 

 moment and in the near future is likely to be com- 

 pared with what it was in pre-war times, especially in 

 respect of the expenses of cultivation of arable land. 



132o. (2) We may assume that it is the wish of the 

 country that the land of England should be cultivated 

 in the best possible manner, whether it is arable or 

 gram, and that the gross produce should be consider- 

 ably larger than it was before the war. 



It is Imped that the larger part of the grass land. 

 which has IMTII ploughed up during the war, should, if 

 possible, remain in arable cultivation and that po. 

 as time goes on some land which is especially suitable 

 my yet further be converted from grass to arable. 



There is little doubt that during the hustle of the 

 war, a proportion of the grass land ploughed up was 

 unsuitable for the purpose, and only the urgent neces- 

 sities of growing corn at all costs would have justified 

 the breaking up. This would probably in many cases 

 revert again to grass, and it is wise that it should do 

 so. 



There is, however, a danger that owing to the in- 

 creased cost of production and the fear that prices will 

 not be sufficient to pay this cost a great deal 

 of land which is quite suitable as arable will be laid 

 down again to grass. There is no doubt a widespread 

 fear among farmers that herein lies their salvation 

 and they are justified in this by the high price which 

 grass land fetches in the market compared with arable 

 unless the latter is of very first-rate quality. 



1326. (3) It is hoped that this Commission may see 

 their way to make recommendations which would 

 give the farmers confidence in the future and enable 

 them to continue arable cultivation with prospects of 

 a reasonable return on their capital and a reward for 

 the time and energy they are putting into their busi 

 ness. Farming, especially arable farming, is a ri*k\ 

 business, and it is important that the rate of interest 

 should be sufficient to attract capital. 



