loO 



KOYAT- C(MM!>IN 



\<; UK Tl. TI'liK. 



Anyuti, I'.H'.t.; 



MR. J. o. VIMKK. K.s.s. 



,HU'd. 



9749. Tou go to the farm two or three times a 

 week P Yes. 



3760. That would bo one reason why you did not 

 charge anything in the estimates for your own labour? 

 There is something in that. I think what you 

 mean is this: I have a man there walking about 

 looking aftiT others and that I ought to be there 

 doing it myself P 



;CM. What I felt was that you had a practical 

 man there who was really a good manager, ami th.it 

 he took the management and responsibility largely 

 off your shoulders, and that you live in some other 

 way, and that it would not therefore be fair to 

 charge for your own supervision. I thought that was 

 what was in your mind, perhaps? I think if 1 w as 

 a tenant farmer living on the place I should li.u.- a 

 man of similar stamp to what I have now. The oply 

 difference would be that he would do a little more 

 manual labour than he does at present, and there- 

 fore you might take a fraction off not much 

 because the present man does dirty his hands a little, 

 so to speak. 



a:."i2. How long has he been with you? He has 

 been there about 50 years by the look of him. 



3753. Ho is what you call a good sort, or he would 

 not have been there so long? -That I cannot say. 



3754. In the running of this farm it would not bo 

 possible really to run it as a paying proposition with- 

 out cereals, would it? No. but you could do with 

 less because it is an excellent farm for wintering 

 sheep. 



3755. Do you mean on turnips?. Yes, or anything 

 else you like. It is a very good farm indeed for 

 wintering sheep. 



3756. It would not be any good for a grass farm, 

 would it? No. 



3757. It really is an advantage in farming from 

 the farmer's point of view, as well as from the point 

 of view of the nation, that cereal growing should be 

 encouraged? No, that does not follow growing 

 something other than grass? 



3758. Yes? That might mean growing turnips. 



3759. You would not have the whole of the farm 

 growing turnips? Yes, I should grow turnips or 

 something else if corn did not pay me. 



3760. You have come to the conclusion, after a 

 long life, and having taken a keen interest in tho 

 matter from an agriculturist's point of view, that 

 tin- position of the agriculturist is absolutely hopeless 

 without a guarantee from the State? Until after 

 things become normal, and no one knows how long 

 that will be. 



3761. Looking at it now, for instance, if prices 

 dropped below a certain scale you feel that to keep 

 the thing going it is necessary that the Government 

 should give a guarantee to farmers? I think my 

 answer to that is this: There are a good many 

 farmers on the lighter lands in Cambridgeshire, and 

 I am told also in Norfolk, who will not make ends 

 meet this year because the crops are so bad. 



3762. And they want a standby, really? Yes, as 

 I said before, speaking as an agriculturist. What 

 my views are in other respects I am not here to say. 



3763. I am only asking you from the point of view 

 of getting rorn grown. We have to decide to do one 

 of two tilings. We have to decide whether we can 

 do without any additional corn growing. That is 

 one, thing, but if we must have corn grown we must 

 decide upon the best means. That is why we want 

 your views. You say tho farmers must have some 

 sort of guarantee that they will not be let down? 

 Ye. 



3764. Mr. I'.irkrr: You in- me very miieh 

 when you said that you attributed a large part of 

 vour success as a farmer to proper account keeping P 

 -Yes. 



3765. I gather from what you have said that you 

 would be in favour of advocating universal account 

 keeping by farmers, and perhaps you would go a 

 htfp further, that farmers should not ! allowed to 

 pay Income Tax on double their rent, but only on 

 the amount of their profit as shown by a trading 



profit and loss balance sheet? In answer to your 

 question I would like to point out to you what I 

 wrote on this subject ten years ago. I think you 

 know all this. I wrote this ten years, ago with 

 regard to Schedule B. 1 said that 1 should abolish 

 Schedule B at that time in the interests of the <>th. r 

 taxpayers of the country, and I should abolish it now 

 in the interests of the farmers themselves, because 

 if a farmer is not able to return under Schedule D 

 - that is. on his profits in all probability he will he 

 paying taxes which he ought not to pay. Schedule B 

 always has been an anomaly in our Finance Acts, 

 and I should like to see it abolished. 1 had at the 

 time letters from persons, some of whom are in the 

 Government now, quite approving of what I said. 

 I have also taken the view that for all purposes 

 under Schedule D the three years' average is an ab- 

 solute, nuisance to business men, and I think more 

 so in the case of farmers. It certainly in the. 

 case of a farmer should be a single year of aooose 

 ment. I think that would assist them very much 

 and encourage them more to try to keep proper 

 accounts! As I have already said, I have seen cer- 

 tain farmers' accounts, and I have helped farmers 

 to make up their accounts, and from what I have 

 seen of their system of account keeping I should say 

 that you could not expect farmers generally to keep 

 accounts in the scientific way if I may say so- that 

 I keep my own accounts. But with some such 

 encouragement as I have indicated I am sure that 

 farmers could keep accounts to the satisfaction of 

 the Surveyor of Taxes, and I should like them to be 

 assisted in the respect that they should return under 

 Schedule D, and that they should he assessed under 

 the single year of assessment. 



3766. Mr. Bobbins: With regard to your estimate 

 of 4 or 5 an acre at which you put the value of 

 the lowered fertility of the soil, you include in that 

 4 or 5, I suppose, the cost of cleaning the land? 

 I do. 



3767. The lowered fertility would be due possibly 

 to two reasons? If it is foul it would he included 

 in the loss of fertility, but I mean both. 



3768. It might cost you 50s. an acre to clean it 

 quite apart from the loss of fertility? Yes. One 

 member of the Commission put it at a few shillings, 

 but it is a great deal more than that. 



3769. Have you any experience of piecework? 

 Not much practically nothing during the last few 

 years. Before the war we did try to do hoeing by 

 piecework, and perhaps hedging, and so on, but not 

 to any very great extent. 



3770. Mr. Smith : On page 5 you give us the two 

 tables of figures, one relating to the period of 

 years up to September, 1914, and the other up to the 

 29th September, 1919. You have no figures of cost 

 for the intervening years? Do you mean 1914 to 

 1919? 



3771. Yes? Yes. I have got them. 



3772. You have Jiot submitted any? No, and I 

 am not going to. I gave the reason for declining to 

 supply those figures at the beginning of my evidence. 



3773. I understood you to say you considered that 

 period to be a very abnormal one? Yes, owing to 

 the exceptional circumstances which arose out of the 

 war. 



3774. Would it he fair to assume that the figures 

 were not unfavourable to yourself:' Yes. What I 

 have stated I think shows that. 



3775. Do I understand that you do not agree that 

 the results of those four years would be favourable 

 to yourself? Yes, I do agree they were favourable 

 to myself. 



3776. I notice you stated also in answer to a ques- 

 tion which was put to you that there had been a 

 fair living profit for farmers for the eight years 

 before the war? Yes, I should say there was a fair 

 livinn profit; it was about a 10 per cent, profit. 



3777. And before then the circumstances might be 

 termed bad? For about ten years before then the 



