92 



ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 



29 October, 1919.] 



Mi 11 (}. HOWKLL, F.C.A. 



[Continued. 



16.210. At the moment you could not say what the 

 position is so far as the profits in South Lincolnshire 

 are concerned P No, I cannot say as to that. 



16.211. Have you heard that th<< profits in that 

 area are retry high indeed? I have heard that, but 

 I hare no information beyond that casual informa- 

 tion. 



16.212. If we were to get information which would 

 reflect an average position ir tin' country it would lx> 

 ecrential that these farms should be included as well 

 a* some of tin- others? Yes, I agree. I ii"ti. , that 

 we hav<> had 11 accounts {nun Lincolnshire. That in 

 shown in Tublo No. 1. Kloven accounts is quite a high 

 average for any county. 



16,21.'). Of course Lincolnshire is a very large 

 county ? Yes. 



16.214. You hare not heard, I suppose, of farmers 

 in that district having made statements that the 

 industry has been so prosperous that they are making 

 an income now of 20,000 a year? I have not heard 

 that. 



16.215. You, of course, have to rely upon purely 

 voluntary returns from farmers? Yes. 



16.216. Would it be a fair assumption to say there 

 would be a tendency on the part of farmers who have 

 made large profits not to send in returns, and for 

 others who have done only moderately well to send 

 them in? I would not like to express an opinion as 

 to that. 



16.217. If there was an absence of returns from a 

 place like South Lincolnshire, that would rather bear 

 out that assumption, would it not? If that were so, 



16,218. South Lincolnshire is spoken of as the 

 garden nl Knirland, so far as farming is concerned? 

 Mind you. I wish to say that at present I do not know 

 vln'tli.T thi'if are accounts from South Lincolnshire 

 or not. 



16,21!>. I understood you to say that the possibility 

 of some of the smaller farms showing a higher rate of 

 profit was due to the fait that the lalxiur had |nu- 

 liahly not liven i harmed up to the fnrm?- V 



16.220. Is there any information to show hether 

 the produce of the farm which is consumed in the 



'..ild i- charged up? I think in the majority of 

 cases it is not in the accounts I mean the farm has 

 rot had credit for the produce consumed in tin- hoiise- 

 hold. 



16.221. On some farms that would represent a fairly 

 substantial amount? It would, no doubt. 



16.222. And would have to be set off against the 

 fact of labour probably not having been charged? 

 Yes. 



16.223. From your knowledge of accounts, K 1 ' 1 "'- 

 rally speaking, household consumption of farm pro- 

 duce is not entered up? That is so. In e:n h case 

 we tried to get it entered up as a separate credit to 

 the farm, hut we could only get it in a very few 



16.224. Dr. Douglas: In connection with < 

 growing, have you any figures that would serve as 

 data for ascertaining what proportion of the cost of 

 production is referable to the different elements of 

 production labour, manure, seeds, and so on? Not 

 fiom these accounts only. 



16.225. I know it does not appear in these 

 accounts, but otherwise have you any such data? 

 No, I have not. 



(The Witneis withdrew.) 



