MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



69 



12 August, 1919.] 



THE HON. EDWARD STKUTT, C.H. 



[Continued. 



1605. The average profit before the war on farm land 

 was 9s. or 10s. an acre, was it not ? I should be verv 

 sorry to farm it at that rate. 



1(306. That is the figure according to the Costings 

 Committee? I do not know anything about that Com- 

 mittee. I am afraid it would be ridiculous for a 

 farmer to farm at a profit of only 9s. or 10s. an acre. 



1607. Could you give us any idea of what sort of 

 straw you got- 1 I do not value the straw in these 

 figures, because the cost of rotation is not included. 

 You cannot grow wheat_one year after an.-.ther, and 

 therefore you have occasionally to grow crops that will 

 give you no profit at all. The cost of r nation, 1 

 think, would be something over 1. 



1608. This, I suppose, would be heavy Essex land 



three horse land ? No, not three horse ; this would be 

 two horse land. 



1609. In paragraph (9) it seems to me a rather 

 extraordinary item that there has only been an extra 

 cost of 6s. 2d. per acre on grass farms!" The figures 



have given are based on the estimate of 150 per 

 cent, increase on wages; it is not anything more than 

 that. 



1610. What sort of farm is that: is that a milk 

 farm? No, it is entirely a grazing farm; in the case 

 of a milk farm it would not be anything like that. 



1611. If we are to get back to the 1872 standard 

 I suppose we .should have to plough up a good many 



of these heavy and badly drained acres again? Yes, 



I think we should. 



1612. With regard to piece work, do you not think 

 that the agriculturist would have to be rather a 

 mathematician to work out what lie would receive 

 from piece work nowadays, having regard to the 

 existing ratee of wages? Yes, that is one of the diffi- 

 culties in working piece work. 



1613. It is not slackness on the part of the labourer 

 so much as indecision with regard to the price? I 

 think that is it. 



1614. You speak of land rushing back to gnus.-. 

 Could not the agricultural committees stop thatr 

 Vou cannot make a person cultivate land at a loss. 



1 ';!">. Could not the State take control as they did 

 during the war? As Chairman of the Executive 

 Committee, we have taken a good many farms in hand 

 and cultivated them, but I am sorry to say we hav 

 not done it at a profit verv far from it. 



1616. Do you think that the output is more depen- 

 dent upon the increased efficiency of the farmer than 

 upon the number of hours worked by the labourer? I 

 quite agree with you that the efficiency of the farmer 

 is a quite important point. .One difficulty is to get 

 all the farmers thoroughly efficient. 



1617. I t<*jk down your words with regard to 

 guaranteed price,. Yon said just now, in answer to 

 .Mr. Anker Simmons I think, that you did not know 



whether the guaranteed prices would speed the farmer 

 up. You did not agree with him. Your words were: 

 " For some reason or another, I do not know why " 

 I did not agree with Mr. Ajiker Simmons that the 

 higher you put the guarantee, the less you help the 

 farmer up. 



1618. You say that everything is rising in value 

 just now. Therefore I suppose the profits would lie 

 higher next year than they are this year? No. We 

 had a very fine crop last year- 1918. The seasons 

 affect things very much in agriculture. In 1918 I 

 suppose, in the East of England, and in the South 

 of England also I believe, we had the best crop that 

 we have grown for years, whereas this year we have 

 a very poor outlook in front of us. 



1610. Do yolu agree that there is a conflict between 

 the national interest and the farmer's own profits ?--- 

 Yes, I think there is. because the farmer's own in- 

 terest is to put the land down to grass, whereas the 

 national interest is to keep it arable. There is a 

 conflict between them in that way. 



1620. Mr. ,7. M. Ifr.nderson : This land to uhirh 

 you refer is in Essex ? Yes. 



1621 Hatfield Peverel is not very far away, ig it? . 



No. 



1622. Does it include any pant of the farm at 

 Witham? These are my brother's farms we are talk- 

 ing about. Some part of it runs nearly into Witham. 



1623. My friend here was not quite right in his 

 figures according to me. Taking your 285 acres of 

 wheat, together with your expenses for 1918, it brings 

 out 12 10s. an acre. You said your yield was five 

 quarters to the acre. Does not the best wheat land 

 in Essex give 6 and 7 and 8? Sometimes an odd field 

 will, but you do not get that taking the average of 

 your farm. You may get 7 quarters occasionally from 

 an odd field. 



1624. Five quarters an acre would give you 18 15s. 

 as against 12 10s.? I thought it was 14 lls. 9d., 

 and not 12 10s. There is 4 profit for 1918, that 

 is all. 



1625. I was speaking of the group you put as 

 No. 1. 



1626. The Chairman : May I point out to you, Mr. 

 Henderson, that group No. 1 is for 3,550 acres. It 

 is the revenue expenses, and it does not include super- 

 intendence or interest on capital, and a variety of 

 things of that sort. 



1627. Mr. J. M. Henderson: 4 an acre on 285 

 acres is 1,150 profit? I have no doubt you have 

 done the sum accurately. 



1628. You do not see your way to give us your 

 receipts in respect of this group or of this particular 

 farm. I do not blame you for objecting to do it if 

 you do not wish to do it? I have given you the profit 

 on wheat 4 an acre. That is what you wanted, 

 is it not? 



1629. There are some other things beside that. 

 There is straw and all sorts of things? I do not 

 think you should put in the straw owing to the cost of 

 rotation and the way we value our manure. We do 

 not value the straw; we put the manure in at 5s. a 

 ton all round. You cannot buy it at anything like 

 that. 



1630. Do you not put down anything for bye- 

 products, fruit and so on? I am afraid not. We 

 have about 5 acres of orchard, but we do not go in for 

 fruit growing. 



1631. I am afraid you are rather frightening us 

 with, a lot of costs as to tlw expense of the future, 

 but you do not see your way to give us the actual 

 income in the past, or an estimate of it for the 

 future? You see, Mr. Henderson, it is like this: I 

 think you may take it that, generally, farmers were 

 not making a large profit before the war. If they 

 had been, there would have been a great rush for 

 farms. This is comparing expenses before the war 

 with expenses as they are to-day, and what they will 

 be in the future, so that I do not see how the income 

 affects you at all. 



1632. I want to see the other side of the account. 

 1 would not mind my costs going up 1,000 if I was 

 going to make 1,500 by it? How am I going to 

 make 1.500 by it? 



1633. That is what I would like to see? We admit 

 ! have made money during the war when prices 

 have been up, but as soon as they go down we shall 

 begin to lose money. For example, if during the 

 high prices we buy a horse at 50 and sell it for 30 

 when prices go down again, we are beginning to lose 

 money. 



1634. But you have only given us one side of the 

 account, and you have put that in such a form that 

 you say: "There it is; that is the expense." But 

 when we ask you : " What is to come in on the other 

 side," you say: " That does not matter."? I will 

 tell you with the greatest pleasure when I have done 

 1919. 



1635. It will be too late for our purposes then? 

 That is what you want to know. It is no use giving 

 you profits For a time when it is of no use to you, 

 it would only be misleading. I am prepared to show 

 you at the end of 1919 what the profits have been. 

 What 1 say is that the past can have no effect from 

 your jK>int of view. 



1636. Mr. Thoni'is He.inlr.rxun : You are ruling, 

 Sir William, that questions relating to Mr. Strutt's 

 receipts are out of order? 



F, I 



