MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



73 



12 Attguit, 1919.] 



THE HON. EDWARD STRUTT, C.H. 



[Continued. 



you want to prevent him putting his land down to 

 grass, you must give him a guarantee. If you are 

 content to allow him to put his land down to grass, 

 the farmer will not ask you for a guarantee at all. 

 The guarantee is not for the sake of the farmer, but 

 for the sake of keeping the land arable and keeping a 

 population on the land. That was the idea in the 

 Report I signed. 



1721 Mr. \icholls : I want to ask you about this 

 guarantee of 3 a quarter, and whether you have 

 discovered what really -is in the mind of the farmer. 

 If he gets his guarantee of 3 from the Government, 

 do you think he would be willing for the Government 

 in the interests of the public to claim his corn at the 

 price at which they guaranteed it? No; I think that 

 would be the minimum, and the farmer would get the 

 market price, whatever it was, above the minimum. 



1722. The farmer wants help to prevent the price 

 of wheat falling below 60s., but if it goes up to 5 

 a quarter or more, he wants the whole of the profit? 

 He would want the present price at all events, but 

 the object of it is to give him a sort of security. 



1723. Have you thought whether it would be an 

 advantage, rather than let the land go back to grass, 

 to grow more lucerne and other things for stock 

 purposes? I think that is quite a good suggestion. 



1724. The poorer land would grow good lucerne? 

 It" you had asked me that question four or five years 

 ago I should have said that was a good thing and that 

 it ought to be done, but the last two winters have 

 .shaken my faith in lucerne. It has been killed off 

 by the weather of the last two winters; but if lucerne 

 were grown for six or seven years and then the land 

 was ploughed up for a year or two. I think it would 

 be a very good suggestion. 



1725. And further drainage? Yes. but drainage, 

 of course, is a very expensive thing just now. 



Do you think co-operation among the farmers 

 would be a great lever in the way of helping them 

 towards cheapening the cost of production? It is 

 going to bo a help, but it is not going to make all 

 the difference, I think. 



1727. Mi. I'm l.i r: You say in your evidence-in- 



chief that the farmer should have prospects of a 



nable return on his capital, and so on, to induce 



liim to put more energy and enterprise into his busi- 



ness? Yes. 



17'J~. [ think I understood you to say that you 

 charged your own capital account with 5 per cent.? 



You. 



I72!>. Do you consider that :> sufficient rate of in- 

 to charge on capital employed in such a risky 

 Ini-itiess MS farming;-- -No; I should want a very much 

 ^r interest than that. 



I73<). \Vhat would you consider a fair rate of in- 

 terest for the risk run: At present as I think you 

 know. a great many preference stocks have been 

 issued at 7 per cent, on first rate securities as far a.s 

 one can see. and I think any farmer would want at 

 least double that. 



17:11. Would you consider 10 per cent, an unfair 

 of interest to look for in such a risky business? 

 I hardly think that 10 per cent, would be enough to 

 tempt a capitalist. 10 per cent, would be the mini- 

 mum. As I say I think it ought to be double the 7 

 per cent. 



I7.TJ. You think it ought to be more like 15. we 

 will say to tempt the capitalist? Yes. 



1 ":!.'). With regard to the time and energy farmers 

 put into their busi liens. what return would you give 

 them what do you put that. at. Fn your account you 

 put siipc rinlemlem e at 10s. an ncre? Roughly, that 

 i, a lonnd (i^ure which I should put it at. It is 

 rather lower than -o;m people put it at. On a small 

 farm it would bo too small, but on a large farm it is 

 about right. 



!7:M. Tli lariin-i- in your opinion is entitled to look 

 for a return of from 10 to 16 per cent, interest on his 

 'apital and 10s. an acre for his superintendence? 



I GB. 



1735. I am not trying to get the receipts side of 

 your account, but you say the profit per acre on your 

 wheat was 4 in 1918? Yes. 



1736. And you got 5 quarters per acre?- Yes. 



1737. Are your returns at all comparable with the 

 returns obtained by your neighbours, do you know, 

 and with the returns generally throughout Essex? 

 The year 1918 that we are talking about was a very 

 good season in Essex, one of the best seasons we have 

 had for years, and there was no doubt a good crop of 

 grain, but I do not think the average would be above 

 four quarters. 



1738. Would it average 3 do you think? I think 

 that last year it might have averaged four quarters. 



1739. In Essex as a rule would you consider 3i 

 quarters to the acre good ? Yes, if you take the very 

 heavy land of Essex. 



1740. If 3^ is a good general average it would bring 

 the profit down from 4 an a-cre to a loss ot 

 2 16s. Od. ? Yes. Of course, part of the expenses 

 are higher; the threshing is higher in a good crop. 



1741. Compared with the general class of fanning 

 throughout Essex, your farm is very highly farmed on 

 very scientific principles? I do not know about it 

 being very highly farmed. A great many people 

 farm quite as well as we do and better j still I think 

 it is decently farmed, although I am not proud of it 

 at the present moment. 



1742. You get a much better return from your farm 

 than is the case generally throughout Essex, or even 

 throughout England? I think we ought to get a very 

 good return from our farm ; I think that we are our- 

 selves to blame if we do not. 



1743. You said the profit per acre of wheat on your 

 farm was 4. You have also told us that owing to 

 excessive cropping the quality of your land has de- 

 teriorated, and that it will cost something like o an 

 acre to get it back into its pre-war condition ? Yes, I 

 think it will. 



1744. Is it fair to say that the 4 an acre profit 

 that you made was really made out of your own 

 capital by letting the land down? You might put 

 some of it down to that ; not the whole of it. It has 

 been gradually going back the last 4 or 5 years; no 

 doubt part of it went back in 1918. 



1 7 15. No doubt a great portion of the 4 profit will 

 be wanted to put the land back into its forn\er con- 

 dition? Yes. I say it will cost about 5 an acre, 

 but of course that does not come off all in one year ; 

 it will come off over a course of three or four years. 



1746. Owing to the war you did 1 not fallow any 

 land? No, but it is not 3 horse land; we do not feed 

 turnips on the land for sheep. We generally have 

 one field fallow, not much. We grow some tares, or 

 something of that sort, for the cows. 



1747. If it were fallowed you would be entitled to 

 throw some of the cost of the fallowing on the wheat 

 crop? Yes; undoubtedly you must allow- something 

 for that ; we grow a good many roots you see. 



1748. What would you put the cost of that at? 

 JMween 20 and 30 an acre. 



1749. Mr. Rabbins: May we take it that you adhero 

 generally to the Report over your signature to the 

 Reconstruction Committee ? Yes. 



1750. With regard to the Report of the Milner 

 Committee .you say it is necessary to import food- 

 stuffs very largely from abroad. Do you think that 

 the reduction we have effected in the importation of 

 cereals is as far as we can go, or do you think that 

 we can do better than that? Yes, I think it is possible 

 we can do better than that. 



1761. Mr. tfniith : Yon state in paragraph 4 of your 

 precis that the situation is very complicated owing to 

 the shortness of labour ? Yes ; owing to the very wet 

 seasons and the shortness of labour, the land has got 

 out of order ; that is one of the reasons. 



1752. I suppose you have been working during the 

 last few years -very short-handed as regards labour P- 

 Y'es. In 1918 we were very short-handed indeed, and 

 we have not spent the money on the land that we 

 ought to have spent. 



