Land Problems and National Welfare 



(2) This is really a corollary to (i). Taking 

 the same area, but supposing two white crops 

 in succession instead of one, we should then 

 get 2,300,000 quarters more, or a total of 

 14,500,000 quarters. 



(3) I shall now approach the problem some- 

 what differently and consider the acres that 

 were formerly under wheat in England. 



I do not suggest for one moment that it 

 would be profitable or wise for us to return to 

 the whole area devoted to wheat when it was 

 fetching fabulous prices. I believe that we once 

 had some 9,000,000 acres under wheat, and, con- 

 sidering our total area, it is obvious that a large 

 proportion of that land was never at all suitable 

 for wheat growing. But the converse is true 

 to-day that we have much land under grass 

 which would do better under wheat, and which 

 would come under wheat again if the farmer 

 thought 40S. or 45s. per quarter could be 

 maintained. 



My point is that it would really pay the 



farmer to bring much of this land under wheat 



at a much lower price than 45s. ; for myself, I 



would put the price at 35s. or even at 30s. per 



quarter. Taking the cost of production on an 



average mixed farm at £^ per acre : 



4 quarters at 30s. ;^6 o o per acre. 



Value of the straw i 10 o 



£7 10 o^: 



Leaving a margin ol £2 10 o for profit. 



84 



