ISovembcr 16, 1916 
LAND & WATER 
II 
A Guaranteed Price for Wheat 
By Christopher Turnor 
BEFORE discussing in detail the question of a 
minimum wage and a guaranteed price for wheat, 
there arc certain fundamental questions affecting 
agriculture that must be considered. I start 
with the premiss that the nation is at last beginning to 
realise the importance of the land as the source of our food 
supply, and that it will in consequence ere long insist 
upon our land being put to its full use, instead of being 
only half used, as in the past. 
First of all, let Us briefly consider the present position 
of agriculture. There arc four classes interested in the 
land : the landowner, the tenant farmer, the labourer, 
and the investor. 
The investor has not so far figured largely as a separate 
entity,' but he has been there all along — lending money 
on mortgage to the landowner, and, to a certain extent, 
to the farmer to provide him with working capital for his 
farm. From now on he should play a more definite part 
and be ready to invest money in highly-organised syndicate 
farms, etc. This implies that any reconstruction of the 
industry, if it is to be effective, must make agriculture 
as attractive a sphere for investment as it formerly was 
in this country, and as it is to-day in most other countries. 
The Landowner 
In regard to the landowner Sir Herbert Matthews 
j)iiintcd out in L.\nd & W.vrKK of October 26th, that he 
only receives from i to 2 per cent, interest on his capital. 
But I think this interest can be shown to be always 
nearer i than 2 per cent. Or, to put it in another way, 
the landowner either receives a moderate rental for his 
land and no interest on the capital represented by build- 
ings and improvements ; or he receives a fair interest 
on his capital and no rental for his land : it must be one 
or the other, and certainly cannot be both. 
In face of this fact which anyone can verify for himself, 
it is astonishing that a large number of people fear that 
if the State should interest itself in the development of 
agriculture, the landowners would benefit unduly. As 
matters stand there is no ground for this behef, which 
arose no doubt from the confusion of thought existing 
in regard to rental. It is often asserted that a com- 
paratively small body of men every year draw £200,000,000 
in rents. This is quite true, but £160,000,000 of this 
sum represents rental of urban property and only 
£40,000,000 that of the agricultural land of the United 
Kingdom. Further, this £40,000,000 represents the gross 
and not the net rental, for some £23,000,000 must be 
deducted as outgoings; and when" this has been done 
there is left only about £17,000,000 as the net rental. 
The cultivated area of the United Kingdom is in 
round figures 47,000,000 acres. There are in addition 
15,000,000 acres of rough grazing. Estimating their 
value to be equal to 3,000,000 of cultivated land, we 
get a total of 50,000,000 acres. If the capital value of 
the agriciritural land of the United Kingdom is about 
£25 per acre, this would give a total of £1,250,000,000, and 
£17,000,000 would only represent not quite 1.4 per cent. 
In the United Kingdom the working capital of the 
farmer is about £7 per acre. In Denmark and Germany 
it is double that amount. Here we have one of the fjasic 
causes of the condition in which our agriculture finds 
itself, and it is interesting to note that in Denmark and 
in Germany the cultivated land produces about twice 
as much as it does here, and gives employment to twice as 
many workers per thousand acres. These two countries 
have reahsed that the two fundamental functions of 
the land are to produce the maximum amount of food, 
and to give healthy employment to the largest number 
of people. Another factor that has worked against the 
development of agriculture in this country is the great 
fluctuations in the price of agricultural commodities. 
These fluctuations have been far greater over a period of, 
say, 70 years than in either Germany or Denmark. 
At the present moment it is the fear of low and 
unremuncrativc prices which prevents the farmer 
from going in for measures that would increase his 
production. This fear must be removed if the desired 
increase in food production is to take place, and 
the remedy is undoubtedly to organise the industry 
as it is organised in other countries. 
Protection Without Tariff 
One word here to the large section who hold a tariff 
would provide the remedy. A tariff without organisa- 
tion would, in my opinion, do very little good to the 
industry, but high organisation without a tariff would 
do a great deal. We want protection for the industry to 
make good the losses it has suffered from years of penalisa- 
tion, but you can have full protection for agriculture 
without a tariff. 
As for the labourer, his wages in many counties have 
been disgracefully low, and opportunities for betterment 
too few. The housing conditions were often most un- 
satisfactory from every point of view. No wonder the 
best of the labourers left the country side, and this flight 
from the land was due far more to these bad conditions 
than to the attractions of the town. 
If, then, the State is now determined to encourage a 
great developiT^ent in the agricultural industry, if it is 
determined to secure a much greater supply of home- 
grown food, then as a first step it must accept the principle 
that (ill those who are actively concerned in developing 
the resources of the land shall duly benefit — that the 
expenditure of capital and energy in developing agri- 
culture is worthy of its fair reward, just as it is when 
expended in any other industry. In this new develop- 
ment of agriculture, landowner, farmer, labourer and 
capitalist must each receive his fair share. 
The landowner must receive an economic rent for his 
land and a fair interest on new improvements if he is to 
be encouraged to make them. If after taking into con- 
sideration the facts that the owner of land only receives 
1.4 per cent, on his capital, and that the rental of agri- 
cultural land in the United Kingdom only averages half 
the amount charged across the Channel, the State still 
fears that the landowner will receive the lion's share of 
the increment, it can take measures to check. this c\il, 
should it arise. 
The farmer must receive a remunerative price for his 
staple products, otherwise he cannot continue to produce 
them.. This is a business proposition of the most ele- 
mentary order ; yet it was not recognised as such during 
the period between 1875 and 1895 when the farmers 
lost heavily on practically everything they produced, and 
the town populations were actually living upon the agri- 
cultural capital and thus reduced it by £830,000,000. 
The labourer must be paid a fair living wage and be 
given every opportunity for advancement. Housing 
conditions must be improved. 
The capitalist must be made to understand fhat agri- 
culture — reorganised and working under favourable in- 
stead of unfavourable conditions — offers a good lield 
for investment. 
The' PRODUCER must receive a remunerative price jor 
his prodtice. This is the foundation upon which every- 
• thing else rests. This is no plea for the uneconomic 
bolstering up of the farmer ; no attempt at profitniongcr- 
ing ; it is an appeal to the Nation's commonsense and to 
its sense of justice. 
It is not suggested that the guarantee of a remunerati\'C 
price alone will do all that is wanted. The agricultural 
industry must be organised by means of a great develop- 
ment of the co-operative movement. Access to credit 
and capital must be provided, transport improved, and 
the whole standard of education raised in the farming and 
labouring classes. But all these things will be of no 
effect unless the farmer can be sure that it will pay him 
to grow the staple commodities required by the Nation. 
Now wheat is or should be the basic crop in the cultiva- 
tion of arable land. And the farmer fears that wheat may 
again fall to an unrcmunerative price. The high price 
of the present moment docs not overcome this fear. The 
farmer argues that the Russian and Roumanian wheat 
