212 SECTIONAL ADDRESSES 
exceeded {90,000,000, or an average of {6,000,000 per annum—-say, 
5s. for every acre of crops and grass in England and Wales : a very dis- 
proportionate share has, however, rightly been deflected to the arable 
districts. As will be indicated shortly, the actual sums expended in recent 
years, due to the incidence of meat and milk grants and the expansion in 
beet acreage, have been twice, or even two and a half times, this over-all 
average. 
Next come the annual State disbursements of ever-widening range, made 
through the medium of official and semi-official bodies, that represent an 
aggregate sum which would, in pre-war years, have elicited astonishment. 
Owing to the number of different heads under which the relevant votes 
fall, it is extremely difficult to determine the total sum thus expended, 
but at the present time it clearly exceeds {2,500,000 per annum, and 
ranges from capital grants for building extensions to the establishment 
of teaching posts and the provision of a complete system of agricultural 
scholarships, while, too, whether directed to the Outer Isles of Scotland 
or to the English countryside, it ameliorates the life of the peasant. 
The addition of the last-mentioned item will, in such a year as the last, 
bring the grand total of current payments—again exclusive of ‘ wheat 
deficiency grants —-to over {15,500,000 per annum, which large sum it 
must, however, be admitted, represents barely 2 per cent of the nation’s 
Budget. In 1913-14 the amount corresponding to the above-mentioned 
£2,500,000 was {900,000, which, like it, was expended through the 
Board of Agriculture, the Scottish Department of Agriculture, and the 
Development Commission. Drawn from a budgetary expenditure of 
less than £200,000,000, this figure is not only widely disparate to that 
recorded above, but, fantastically, apart from the de-rating contribution, 
it represented the then total National outlay upon the industry. 
In view of the fact that grants-in-aid may, from the standpoint of 
recipients, be very different from that of the taxpayer, it will naturally be 
asked what proportion of the above financial assistance has reached those 
actually engaged in farming operations. ‘The answer would appear to 
be as follows. The whole of the wheat and oats subsidy of 1921 was 
received by cultivators, as are now the ‘ deficiency payments ’ under the 
Wheat Quota Act, which, with scarcely any loss, balance the ‘ quota’ 
charges on flour. The sugar-beet subvention presents an extremely 
difficult problem, which the Greene Committee of Inquiry avoided answer- 
ing beyond saying that, in 1934-35, its cost was equal to {17 an acre. 
While boldly venturing into this controversial field, I should perhaps first 
refer to the suggestion, sometimes made, that, with an average net cost 
of production—always extremely elusive to determine—of some {13 or 
£14 per acre and cash receipts of {19 per acre (on a beet price of £2 per 
ton), the factories would, in the event of the subsidy being withdrawn, 
increase their contribution to the price from £2 to £4 per acre and that 
therefore, the gross value of this assistance can be reckoned as high as 
£15 per acre. A second possible method of evaluation rests upon the 
assumption that the difference between the cost of production and the 
average return of {19 represents the subsidy’s value. Such a differential 
would be some £5 or £6 per acre (including the value of by-products) 
