■ii:;! 
 
 S3 
 
 1 
 
 1-2 , 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
Cornell University Library 
 S 3.L2 
 
 The present condition of agriculture and 
 
 3 1924 000 290 381 
 
 Hntt QlolUge of AgricuUttre 
 J^t (f^otnell BIniuecaitg 
 
 ffiibrarji 
 
a 3 
 
 THE PEE8ENT CONDITION OF AGEICULTUEE 
 
 AND SOME OF THE CAUSES THEREOF. 
 
 REPORT 
 
 BY A COMMITTEE OF THE LAND UNION, 
 WITH SUGGESTIONS. 
 
 The opening of the year 1922 finds the agricultural industry 
 faced with a situation which is probably unprecedented. 
 
 There have been previous periods of depression in agriculture as 
 in all other industries, notably that of the " eighties," but never has 
 the agriculturist had to face so sudden a fall in prices and change in 
 conditions as that which has taken place within the past twelve months. 
 
 Taking the three principal corn crops, we find that the average Prices of 
 price of wheat for the week ending December, 1920, was 86s. 9d. per 
 quarter ; for the corresponding week in 1921 the price was 45s. 3d. — 
 a fall of 41s. 6d. per quarter ; barley has fallen from 72s. 7d. to 44s. 5d., 
 a drop of 28s. 2d. per quarter ; while oats fell from 42s. 9d. to 28s. 4d., 
 a decline of 14s. 5d. 
 
 The drop in value of live stock has been phenomenal, many graziers Live stoci?^ 
 having lost £10 to £15 per head on bullocks, after keeping them for 
 six months, while sheep have frequently shown a loss of £2 to £3 
 per head. 
 
 A 
 
S3 2 
 
 Taking wool, there is an qven more depressing tale to unfold, 
 and the changed position here cannot be described as anything but 
 disastrous. In 1920 prices of the higher grades of wool had risen to 
 3s. to 4s. per lb. ; in 1921 these! suddenly dropped to the neighbour- 
 hood of Is. — an average declinie of 2s. to 3s. a pound, which may 
 be fairly taken as representing a difference of anything from 12s. to 
 16s. per sheep. In fact, taking! the position all round, the price of 
 wool for all breeds is less by some pence per pound than the pre-war 
 figure. 
 
 It will be seen from these figures that the drop in prices of the 
 chief agricultural products has been not less than 50 per cent, in most 
 cases and very much more in some. 
 
 This fall has been so rapid and so out of proportion to the fall in 
 the cost of production that many farmers have only been able to carry 
 on by paying current expenses out of capital. This they are bound to 
 do unless their farms are to go out of cultivation. This point is 
 more fully referred to later on. 
 
 [Ik As regards milk production, it may be said that this has on the 
 
 whole proved the most satisfactory of the farmer's enterprises, but 
 even so the comparatively high wholesale prices obtained for milk in 
 1921 as compared with those of 1914 have been considerably discounted 
 by the high cost of artificial cattle food, and the heavy drop of £20 to 
 £30 per head in the price of cows sold to the butcher when past 
 milking. 
 
 Retail Prices. The wholc positiou is very liable to be misunderstood by the 
 
 general public, because the fall in retail prices paid by the consumer 
 does not correspond with the reduced wholesale prices received by 
 farmers as set out in the preceding paragraphs. 
 
 If the 50 per cent, fall in wholesale prices extended to retail food 
 prices generally, it would be a welcome boon to the country, and the 
 reduction in the farmer's receipts would be largely compensated for by 
 reduced costs of production. Also the labourer's position would be 
 much better than it is now. A comparison of a few fundamental and 
 
 auction. 
 
simple figures as between 1914 and 1922 makes the position very clear, 
 and also simplifies it by omitting the exceptional war-time prices and 
 wages. In 1914, before the war broke out, wheat was selling at 36s. 
 a quarter, the 4-lb. loaf was 5d. to 6d., and the labourer's average 
 minimum weekly wage in the arable counties was from 16s. to 18s., this 
 latter figure bearing out the old rule of arable farming that the labourer's 
 weekly wage should be equal to the price of a sack of wheat, that is to 
 say, that so long as that ratio exists the crop will just pay for the cost 
 of growing it on average land. It should also be mentioned that the 
 general rate of wages for unskilled labour on railways and in other 
 employments in rural districts was in 1914 about 24s., or, say 30 per 
 cent, above that paid to agricultural labourers. Now, in January, 1922, 
 a quarter of wheat sells at about 45s., the 4-lb. loaf is at 9d. to lOd., 
 and the labourer's wages from 30s. to 34s., whilst unskilled workers on 
 railways and elsewhere in rural districts are receiving about 60s. weekly. 
 These figures show that although the farmers are paying their labourers 
 about 40 per cent, more than they are getting for a sack of wheat, and 
 that they are therefore unable to grow the crop without loss, the 
 labourers are receiving little more than half the rate of wages being 
 paid to rail way men and others in the rural districts. And although 
 the labourer's wage still bears about the same proportion to the price 
 of bread as it did in 1914, other items in his family budget are at a far 
 higher level. Beer, for instance, is still at 1920 prices, notwithstanding 
 the heavy drop in the price of barley. Everyone acknowledges the 
 agricultural labourer's fine record, and it was hoped that his earnings 
 might be brought up to a level with those of other workers certainly not 
 more skilful or industrious, but so far from this being the case, there is, 
 as the above figures show, a far greater disproportion than existed 
 in 1914. 
 
 The general result already produced may be illustrated by the Farm 
 following figures from the accounts of a large light-land farmer in East 
 Anglia : — 
 
 Weekly wage bill in 1914 £73 
 
 Weekly wage bill in January, 1922 . , . . £103 
 
 but for 26 men and boys less in 1922 than in 1914. 
 
 This reduction in the labour employed is the inevitable consequence 
 of the situation here described and is imposed by hard necessity. It 
 
means that many of the poorer arable fields have gone out of cultivation 
 and that certain work cannot be done as it should be done, but money 
 cannot be paid out unless it is received and, except on very good land, 
 the corn crop will not now pay for the labour employed in growing 
 and harvesting it. 
 
 frieeofMeat- What has been said above about the corn crop can be repeated 
 
 with very similar deductions about the price of meat, and the cost 
 of producing it, and although other crops may replace them in special 
 localities, corn and meat must remain the principal products of British 
 farming. Also they are interdependent, as under the four-course 
 shift corn crops and fodder crops are grown in alternate years. Farmers 
 are now growing corn crops at a loss to provide straw for bedding 
 down their stock, and are fattening stock at a loss to provide manure 
 for the corn crop. A table from the market reports of January SOth, 
 1922, showing wholesale meat prices at Smithfield for that day and 
 for the same day in 1913 and 1921 is printed on page 17. 
 
 If the disproportionate increase in the cost of production was 
 limited to the wages bill, things would be difficult enough, but it extends 
 over almost the whole area of the farmer's outgoings. For whereas 
 the rise in the price of wheat from 1914 to 1922 is, as shown above, 
 only 30 per cent., the cost of feeding stuffs has risen by 80 per cent., 
 and of artificial manures by 50 per cent., as shown in the table on 
 page 16. Exact data are difficult to obtain as regards machinery and 
 implements, but it may be taken that these continue to be at least 
 double their cost in 1914, while as regards such items as shoeing and 
 labour on repairs to buildings, the cost is certainly one and a half to 
 two and a half times above the pre-war figure. 
 
 Railway transport is another item which has enormously increased 
 in cost, and still remains at practically the same high level it was raised 
 to m 1919 and 1920 ; the charge for the carriage of milk shows an 
 increase of quite 75 per cent., while there appears to be great differentia- 
 tion between the cost of transporting agricultural produce and other 
 merchandise. For example, as quoted by Mr. Fred Hiam in his letter 
 to The Times, of December 14th, 1921, the cost of sending coal from 
 South Wales to Ely, in Cambridgeshire, is 15s. 6d. per ton ; the charge 
 for sending potatoes a similar distance is 38s. 5d., while the rate for 
 potatoes from Ely to London (a distance of 70 miles) is 17s. 3d. Mr. 
 
Hiam also pointed out that the rail cost of conveying sugar- 
 beet a distance of 70 miles worked out at £20 an acre for 
 the crop, a sum largely in excess of the cost of the labour 
 expended on it. 
 
 Agriculture is very dependent on cheap transport, especially 
 in view of its competition with imported food. It is understood, for 
 instance, that it now costs more to send a quarter of wheat by rail from 
 York to London than by sea from United States of America to Liverpool. 
 It cannot be right or fair that whilst agricultural prices have 
 suffered this tremendous fall from the high level reached at the 
 conclusion of the war, railway charges should remain nearly 
 at high-water mark. The present cost of threshing and delivery 
 of a quarter of wheat to a railway station as compared with , 
 
 the cost in 1914 now absorbs a large proportion of the rise in 
 price between the two dates, and when the extra rail carriage is added 
 any possible profit disappears. 
 
 We have dealt so far with the direct costs of production and Rational 
 
 '- Demands. 
 
 delivery, and if this were all, it Avould be bad enough, in fact, a similar 
 
 though less rapid fall in prices nearly wrecked agriculture in the last 
 
 two decades of the last century, but at that time the national demands 
 
 were comparatively trifling, and both landowner and farmer were able 
 
 to devote the whole of their resources to keeping the land in cultivation. 
 
 Now, alas, the conditions in this respect are very different, and one of 
 
 the worst features of the situation is the crushing burden of rates and ^^^^^ ^^^ 
 
 taxes which presses upon the whole community and especially upon Taxes. 
 
 owners and occupiers of agricultural land. In those days the sum total 
 
 of rates and income-tax levied in rural districts rarely exceeded 2s. 
 
 in the £1, and was in some cases only Is. ; in the years preceding the 
 
 war rates had risen on the average to about 4s., and income-tax, though 
 
 graduated, did not average more than 2s. Now rates are from 13s. to 
 
 15s. in the £1, and in some cases much more, and income-tax 6s., with 
 
 an additional super-tax up to 6s. on owners of large agricultural 
 
 estates. 
 
 In the administrative County of East Suffolk, one of the poorest East Suffoii* 
 agricultural districts in England, the education rate for 1921-2 was 
 2s. Hid. The county rate for roads 2s. OJd., and the additional road ' 
 
 rate for local roads in rural districts varies from Is. 6d. to 
 5s. 7d., giving from these tAvo items alone a rate of from 
 6s. 6d. to 10s. 7d. 
 
In the rural County of Essex there were, in 1914, 429 elementary 
 schools, 67,000 scholars, and teachers' salaries amounted to £157,000. 
 In 1922, there are 425 schools, 63,000 scholars, and the teachers' 
 salaries are £367,000. 
 
 We do not desire to underrate the services of the teachers, or to 
 question their claims to adequate remuneration, we only point out 
 that the Essex farmers cannot pay them these salaries for the simple 
 reason that they have not the means to do so any more than they have 
 to send their own sons to Eton and Oxford. 
 
 The cost of road maintenance is already enormous, and the wear 
 and tear is rapidly increasing as through traffic increases. It is true 
 that the competition of the haulage companies tends to bring down 
 rail charges, and that agricultural producers can and do avail them- 
 selves of road transport to a certain extent, but a farmer owning a 
 lorry has to pay the same licence duty for it as others do, and also the 
 highway rate assessed on the entire area of his farm. Few farmers, 
 however, can afford to own lorries, whereas all use horses, and modern 
 tarmac roads are positively dangerous for horse traffic. 
 
 In examining the burden of rates, it has to be borne in mind that 
 under the provisions of the Agricultural Rates Act introduced in 
 1896 by Lord Chaplin, the first Minister of Agriculture, half the rates 
 levied on agricultural land were remitted and the deficiency thus 
 created was made good by an equivalent grant from the Exchequer. 
 Parliament, in passing this Act, recognised the claim of agriculture 
 to relief from an undue share of national burdens, but, unfortunately, 
 the Act was not so drafted as to keep the Exchequer grant up to the 
 level of the deficit in the years which have followed since its passing. 
 The Act only provided for an annual grant equal to the deficit which 
 was created in the first year of its operation. Since then the rates 
 have, as already shown, enormously increased, and the deficit has 
 increased in proportion, but as the Exchequer grant remains at the 
 1896 level, it falls very far short of meeting the deficit, and the balance 
 has to be made up by an increase in the general level of the rates from 
 which all ratepayers, including occupiers of agricultural land, suffer 
 heavily. 
 
 Income Tax. As regards income tax, the occupier's basis of assessment prior 
 
 to the war was one-third of the rent paid, i.e., supposing a farmer's 
 rent to be £600, he was assessed on a basis of £200. At the present 
 
time the basis adopted is twice the rent paid, or on a farm let at £600 
 his profits are assumed to be £1,200 a year— six times the amount of 
 his pre-war assessment. It is true that if he can, at the end of any 
 financial year, show that his profits do not actually equal the amount 
 of the assessment, he can make a reclaim for the excess tax paid, but 
 this involves the keeping of more or less elaborate accounts and 
 valuations, which many of the smaller farmers find a very difficult 
 and unfamihar task; also this basis of assessment conveys a wholly 
 false impression of the present financial position of the industry. 
 
 There is no reason, of course, why the farmer should not bear his 
 fair share of the increased burdens of the country, but it does seem 
 grossly unfair that the ever-rising costs of national services such as 
 education, upkeep of main roads and similar expenditure should be 
 imposed upon an industry not in ratio to the benefits received, but 
 upon what is, in the case of the agriculturist, the annual value of the 
 raw material from which he and the labourer secure a living. 
 
 In the case of most other industries, the producer can (and Usability to 
 
 pass on 
 
 must in order to pay his way) add the cost of such outgoings to the Burdens, 
 selling price of his manufactured article or of the services rendered, 
 but inasmuch as the price in our markets of corn, meat and other 
 products of the farm is governed by world prices (which are but 
 little affected by the costs and burdens of production in this country), 
 the producer of these is unable to pass on his burdens to the consumer, 
 as in the case of coal, cotton goods and similar commodities not so 
 subject to foreign competition and in the case of railway charges. 
 
 The tenant-farmer's position is greatly aggravated by the Landlords' 
 
 unfortunate inability of his landlord to come to his assistance as in 
 
 previous periods of bad depression, inasmuch as the landowner is 
 
 himself so severely hit by high costs and taxation (both local and 
 
 Imperial) that in the majority of cases he can no longer maintain his 
 
 estate as in pre-war days, and in many instances is compelled to realise 
 
 it in order to remain solvent. The incidence of income- and super-tax 
 
 upon landowners is referred to later, but it should be stated here that 
 
 at their present level they cannot be paid out of income, but have 
 
 to be met by realising capital, or from sources outside the income 
 
 receivable from the estate, consequently nothing is now available for 
 
 •carrying out necessary improvements. 
 
 The incidence of the death duties is one of the most frequent Death Duties, 
 ■causes of land being forced into the market against the interests of 
 
the occupier, the reason being that under the system of valuation for 
 estate duty, introduced in 1910, the value of the estate is no longer 
 calculated on the present incoine derivable from it, or even on its 
 capital value as an existing unit, but on the value of the component 
 parts of the estate assuming the holdings to be separately submitted 
 to public competition. The effect of this is that an agricultural estate, 
 the net assessable income of which is, say, £12,000 a year, will now be 
 valued on a competitive basis— in other words, lotted to secure an 
 assessment at its utmost realisable value if broken up — say, £500,000,. 
 the estate duty on which sum will be £125,000, so that even if a sale is 
 avoided and the owner pays the duties in eight yearly instalments, 
 he is deprived of far more than the entire income for the whole of that 
 period, as he will continue to pay income-tax and super -tax on the 
 income of £12,000, amounting to nearly £6,000 a year, plus an instal- 
 ment of £15,625 and interest on the unpaid instalments ; which latter, 
 however, he may deduct from his super-tax but not from his income- 
 tax assessments. 
 
 It is obvious that £21,000 a year cannot be paid out of £12,000,^ 
 and therefore, unless the successor has other considerable resources,, 
 part at any rate of the estate must be sold. But if, say, £100,000 has 
 to be raised by sales, it is quite certain that the residue will be worth 
 much less than £400,000 as a single unit, a consequence which does 
 not follow on the realisation of investments. In this way landowners 
 and the whole agricultural industry are heavily penalised by being 
 taxed on an industrial basis, no doubt logically defensible, but in 
 practice cruel and destructive. 
 
 f Excise Duty There is another matter of taxation about which farmers feel very 
 
 "^ ' sore, viz., the heavy excise duty levied on home-produced sugar. This 
 is calculated to amount to nearly £50 an acre on an average crop of 
 sugar-beet, and those who are conducting this pioneer industry declare 
 that it is impossible to carry it on under such conditions. It has already 
 been stated that the railway charge for carrying the beet crop a distance 
 of 70 miles is £20 an acre, and if this is added to the £50 an acre excise 
 duty, the total is clearly prohibitive; also the figures are so large in 
 proportion to the cost of growing the crop that a comparatively small 
 remission would be of great advantage to the grower. This action of 
 the Exchequer is the more remarkable since the State has recently 
 advanced £250,000 of the taxpayers' money towards the erection of 
 the sugar-beet factoty at Kelham, and has guaranteed interest on a 
 further sum of £125,000 for ten years, so that national as well as 
 private enterprise is being sterilised by this policy. 
 
We are well aware that other industries besides agriculture are Agriculture 
 
 ^ cannot close- 
 
 suffering heavily from the present world-wide depression ; we are also down tem- 
 
 ^ -^ ^ _ poranly. 
 
 aware that national borrowings and our debt to our ex-Service men 
 
 and their bereaved dependants must be honoured and that sacrifices ~ ' 
 
 are required from us all, but agriculture differs from all other industries, 
 
 because if in any area it cannot pay its way for the time being, it cannot 
 
 be closed down temporai'ily, but that area must go out of cultivation. 
 
 Land once thrown out of cultivation becomes derelict and can only be 
 
 recovered from Nature at heavy cost. We believe that but for the sums 
 
 recently paid to farmers under the wheat and oats guarantee on the 
 
 1921 harvest, many of them would now be insolvent, and their farms 
 
 would in many cases have gone out of cultivation or have been laid 
 
 down to grass. No further guarantee is payable for this year's crop, 
 
 and unless some change is effected in the present conditions and outlook, 
 
 we fear that there will be an agricultural debacle. Possibly some of the 
 
 present adverse conditions may be temporary : we hope so ; but surely, 
 
 in view of what has been said above, it is then all the more necessary 
 
 to do what is needful to tide agriculture over its present difficulties, 
 
 lest a natural recovery should come too late. It is a moral and physical 
 
 loss and disgrace to any nation to allow a large proportion of its cultivable 
 
 soil to be derelict, and it is to prevent this that we urge the immediate i 
 
 application of the measures we are now going to suggest to relieve the , 
 
 present situation. i 
 
 In proposing any remedies for the state of things which has been Remedies. 
 already described, it is necessary to bear in mind certain important 
 limitations which arise from the fact that agriculture occupies a 
 subordinate position in the United Kingdom, and that measures which 
 would be regarded as of primary necessity in an agricultural country 
 have hitherto been taboo here. 
 
 There can be little doubt that if rural voters were in a majority Foreign Flour 
 means would be found under our fiscal system for discouraging the 
 importation of foreign flour, however much wheat it might be necessary 
 to import, thus securing a larger and cheaper supply of bran and offals, 
 which are necessary for stock feeding, but are now dearer than wheat. 
 A farmer states that with wheat at 43s. a quarter equal to £9 lis. 3d. 
 a ton, the best price then obtainable, he recently started to feed 70 
 pigs on a rick of best wheat. As the pigs threshed the wheat them- 
 selves and the carriage to the station was saved, 36s. a ton can be 
 deducted from the above price, which was for the wheat threshed and 
 
 c 
 
10 
 
 delivered on rail. This leaves the net value at £7 15s. 3d. a ton as 
 ^Barley. against £10 a ton for the offal at the mill or pig meal at £13 a ton. 
 
 Also, if agricultural voters were in a majority, some advantage would 
 be given to home-grown barley, and it may here be noted that 
 whilst the price of barley, as already shown, has fallen from 
 72s. 2d. to 44s. 5d. a quarter in the last twelve months, the price of 
 beer remains the same. We can hardly be told in the same breath 
 that a duty on foreign barley would increase the price of beer and 
 also that a fall of 28s. a quarter does not justify any reduction at all. 
 
 I^^s*"'- The excise duty on home-grown sugar has already been referred 
 
 to, and it would seem reasonable and wise to reduce it materially. 
 
 i 
 It has, however, hitherto proved quite useless to suggest any of these 
 things, as the urban and industrial majority have been persuaded 
 that it would be against their interests to concede them. Perhaps 
 some of those who read this report may come to a different conclusion, 
 and, if so, it will not have been written in vain. It is our firm belief 
 that if all these comparatively trifling fiscal measures were carried out, 
 they would not involve any abandonment of the general policy of 
 Free Trade, and the advantage to the whole nation would enormously 
 exceed the price paid for it. 
 
 gurdens on Ncxt wc come to the burdens which have already been enumerated 
 
 and their consequences described. 
 
 Dealing first with income-tax and death duties, we suggest that 
 the assessment under Schedule " B " should forthwith be reduced 
 from two years' to one year's assessed rental. It can, as already 
 remarked, be urged that no farmer need pay his full Schedule " B " 
 assessment where he can show that his profit for the preceding year 
 is below that figure, but so long as this form of assessment continues, 
 it should obviously bear some relation to the probable profits which 
 a farmer may make, and, just as it was raised from one-third of the 
 rent to the whole rent, and afterwards to twice the rent, on the 
 assumption that farmers were making increased profits three or four 
 years ago, it should now be put back, at highest, to one year's rent, 
 and farmers would accept this as some recognition by the State that 
 they have fallen upon evil days. If this change is made, and with his 
 existing right to abatements and exemptions, the ordinary tenant- 
 farmer will not be more seriously affected than other taxpayers by 
 the present high rate of income-tax. 
 
11 
 
 It is quite otherwise with the landowner, whose function it is to ^q^*. ^^^ 
 find all the capital required for the equipment of agricultural land 
 with farm-houses, buildings and labourers' cottages, drains, fences 
 and other essentials for proper cultivation. 
 
 The landowner pays income-tax on the Schedule " A " assessment income-Tax. 
 of all agricultural land on the estate whether let to tenants or in his own 
 occupation. He is also assessed under Schedule " B " on his garden, 
 park, pohcies, etc., and under Schedule " B " or " D " on agricultural 
 land in his own occupation. The sum total of these assessments may 
 reach a considerable figure involving a high rate of income and super- 
 tax. The abatements to which he is entitled, and which are referred 
 to in a note attached to this memorandum (page 16), materially reduce 
 the gross assessment, but, as is also shown, to a quite inadequate 
 extent in view of the tact that the present rental of agricultural property 
 barely covers the necessary and heavily increased cost of maintenance 
 plus rates and taxes. 
 
 The effect of this state of things upon agriculture has already 
 been referred to, and it is impossible for landlords to continue to pay 
 a steeply graduated income-tax upon an assessment which is still far 
 in excess of their nett income. The obvious remedy is to reduce the 
 assessment until it does really coincide with the nett income, on the 
 same principle as is followed in assessments under Schedule " D," 
 which is assessed on the basis of actual nett profits. 
 
 The landowner's right to abatement should not, therefore, be Cost of 
 limited to his necessary outlay on his farms, but should also include ^^' 
 the cost of necessary upkeep of his house and premises, but limited 
 in this case to the expenditure necessary to maintain their existing 
 annual value. 
 
 In view of the fact that the cost of repairs and maintenance has 
 more than doubled, and with war arrears to make up, it is obvious 
 that the statutory allowance of one-sixth and one-eighth, which 
 was admittedly insufficient even in 1909, is now altogether 
 inadequate ; and this cripples the landowner and disables him 
 from maintaining his agricultural estate. We, therefore, suggest 
 the removal of the present limitation of annual values above which the 
 advantages of Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1909-10, cease to operate. 
 We also suggest that the present five years' average shall be reduced 
 to three years. 
 
(Death Duty 
 Valuation. 
 
 12 
 
 The death duties, as has beei^ shown above, are even more oppressive 
 to agriculture than the income-tax. Landowners have, as already- 
 shown, received some special income-tax rehef, but on the other hand, 
 the two provisos, originally included in the Estate Duty Act, 1894, 
 for the protection of agriculture, have now been repealed. Under the 
 first of these agricultural land was assessed on a valuation arrived at 
 by multiplying the nett annual income by a maximum multiplier of 
 25 instead of being assessed upon a sum estimated at what it might 
 be expected to sell for if sold piecemeal to the highest bidder. 
 
 The second safeguard was that settled property was only to be 
 assessed to estate duty once in a settlement, i.e., on the death of the 
 settler, and that the duty shoul4 not be charged on the death of every 
 tenant for life. In consideration of this relief an additional duty, 
 called Settlement Estate Duty, was imposed in these cases, which went 
 some way to cover any actual loss to the revenue ; but the risk of an 
 estate being practically confiscated and destroyed by a series of rapid 
 successions was greatly minimised. The application of this enactment 
 was not confined to agricultural or landed property, but, as property 
 of that character is much more frequently put into settlement than 
 personalty, landed property did derive a special benefit from it. 
 
 It is strongly urged that both these provisos should be restored 
 in their original form ; both worked quite satisfactorily, and no 
 adequate reason was ever advanced for their repeal. 
 
 We now come to the rates, the incidence and effect of which upon 
 agriculture have been dealt with in the earlier part of this memorandum. 
 Relief should mainly be sought in that part of the rate which is levied 
 for national and onerous as distinct from local beneficial services. 
 
 So far as the former are concerned, the principle and implied 
 covenant in the Agricultural Rates Act of 1896 should be carried out, 
 and the Exchequer grants should be increased to a sum equal to the 
 actual deficit created in each financial year by relieving agricultural 
 land of one-half of its burden of onerous rates. These are rates levied 
 to meet expenditure for which the ratepayer gets no direct return. 
 Such expenditure is incurred on behalf of the community as a whole 
 as distinguished from the locality. The expenditure is in respect of 
 services national or semi-national in character, though administered 
 locally. 
 
13 
 
 The cost of giving this relief would be small in comparison with 
 that of continuing the promised guarantee under the Corn Production 
 Act, and although we fully realise the necessity for reducing the burden 
 on the taxpayers, this adjustment is both necessary and overdue 
 and it would tend to economy if when Acts of Parliament were passed 
 throwing increased expenditure on to the local ratepayers, the 
 Chancellor of the Exechquer had also to find a proportion of the new 
 outlay. 
 
 So far as the highway rate is concerned, a further remedy is S'?^'^*'' 
 available, which would relieve both taxpayers and ratepayers, viz., to 
 revert to the old principle that those who use the roads should pay 
 for their maintenance. This principle was carried out through the 
 turnpike system, but, when long-distance traffic passed to the railways 
 and the use of the roads was mainly confined to local traffic, their cost 
 was conveniently transferred to the rates. 
 
 Now that the roads have again become national highways on a 
 scale previously undreamt of, it is time to revert to the old principle, 
 but to apply it differently. Turnpikes would be an impossible 
 impediment to present-day through traffic. The petrol tax was 
 uneconomic and confined to one type of fuel, and the best system 
 seems to be that now adopted, viz., a licence duty. This duty should. Licence Duty, 
 however, not be confined to motor vehicles, but should be extended 
 and adjusted to cover road-using vehicles of all descriptions, including 
 State-owned vehicles which are now exempt. Agricultural horse- 
 drawn vehicles should, however, be exempted as long as highway 
 rates are paid on agricultural land, but if, and when, the entire cost 
 of road maintenance is paid for by road users and the highway rate is 
 abolished this exemption should cease. It should not be imposed 
 on the present annual system, which penalises all vehicles brought 
 into use on any date subsequent to January 1st in any year, but licences 
 should be procurable at any date for twelve months. 
 
 Some relief would be obtained in respect of education and other Education. 
 onerous rates by carrying out the suggested reform in the application 
 of the Agricultural Rates Act of 1896. But apart from this, it is 
 impossible to continue the present rate of expenditure on these services, 
 and, however necessary and important they are, there must be some 
 temporary reduction on a considerable scale. Would it be sacrilegious 
 to suggest an apparent lack of education in some of the educational 
 enthusiasts, in that they seem unable to grasp the real facts of the 
 present economic situation ? 
 
([National 
 
 I and Local 
 Expenditure 
 must be 
 Reduced. 
 
 14 
 
 Even if all these recommendations were carried out the total 
 burden would still remain excessive, and it is clearly necessary to 
 reduce our whole scale of national and local expenditure, and so obtain 
 such rehef as will alone enable the trade and industry of this country, 
 including agriculture, to resume its normal activities. 
 
 (oreign 
 Produce. 
 
 Railway charges on the carriage of agricultural produce must come 
 down if the agricultural industry is to pay its way in the future. 
 At their present level they are unfair both to producer and consumer, 
 and we earnestly hope that those concerned in the management of the 
 railways will be able to find means to effect an immediate reduction. 
 
 There is one further legislative remedy we desire to suggest, viz., 
 that the law compelling the distinctive marking of imported produce 
 should be strengthened and its administration enforced. 
 
 The greatest advantage British farmers, stock-breeders and poultry- 
 keepers possess is the superior quality of their produce. Surely they 
 are at least entitled to the price the consumer is willing to pay if he can 
 be assured that he is being supplied with the genuine home product. 
 At present, imported meat, imported bacon, imported butter, imported 
 eggs and other produce are constantly retailed as British, and it is 
 difficult to blame honourable retailers for failing to attach particulars 
 of origin to all the foodstuffs they sell so long as less scrupulous com- 
 petitors can undersell them by palming off imported produce as British. 
 Nothing would help farmers more at the present crisis than this method 
 of providing them with a better market. It would also benefit the 
 consumer, by ensuring him the article for which he is prepared to pay 
 and also by encouraging the increased production of home-grown food 
 supplies of superior quality. 
 
 Unemploy- 
 ment Grants. 
 
 Our last suggestion is that some of the money set aside for providing 
 work for the unemployed should be spent in raising and supplying 
 chalk and lime for top-dressing the land. It is not suggested that these 
 should be supplied to farmers free, but at a uniform price of, say, 3s. 
 a ton for chalk delivered on a dump on or near a farm, with a corres- 
 ponding charge for hme. 
 
 Importance Ninc-tcnths of the so-called inferior land in this country yields 
 
 Lime.* ^"^ poor crops ouly because the plaiit food which plentifully exists in it is 
 
 not there in a form available to the crop. The application of chalk or 
 
15 
 
 lime liberates this plant food and so makes it available to the crop, 
 whilst it destroys the sour weeds, such as sorrel, spurry and bodel, which 
 infest such land. No one who has not seen it can realise the effect of 
 spreading ten or twelve tons of friable chalk to the acre on land of this 
 description ; the improvement is permanent, at least there are no signs 
 of reversion in fields which were so dressed thirty years ago, and although 
 the full benefit is not felt till the second or third year after application, 
 there is considerable immediate improvement, and it is the second-rate 
 and poorer land which suffers most both from sourness and from the 
 depression, and which it is therefore most necessary to help. There 
 are vast areas of chalk in this country, and there are many districts 
 where a scheme of this kind might be put into successful operation. 
 
 If all our suggestions are adopted, the agricultural situation will 
 still be difficult and critical, but our object has been to confine ourselves 
 to what is reasonable and practicable and will not overstrain the 
 resources of the nation, even at this difficult time. Our proposals are 
 all put forward from the practical and not from the political stand- 
 point ; they are conceived solely in the national interest and not in 
 that of any section or party. May we hope that they will be received 
 and examined in the same spirit, and we believe that if they are 
 carried out, they will suffice to stave off the disaster which threatens 
 agriculture, and, through it, the whole community. 
 
 DYNEVOR (Chairman). 
 
 ARTHUR BODY. C. H. KENDERDINE. 
 
 DESBOROUGH. E. G. PRETYMAN, M.P. 
 
 CHARLES ELEY. E. ROYDS, M.P. 
 
 E. A. FITZROY, M.P. EDWIN SAVILL. 
 
 ROBERT GRESLEY. ANKER SIMMONS. 
 
 HINDLIP. J. ST. LOE STRACHEY. 
 
 JERSEY. JAMES TABOR. 
 
 JOHN B. GILL. 
 
 CROFTON BLACK, 
 ERNEST WATSON, 
 
 [Secretaries. 
 
 February, 1922 
 D 2 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 NOTE ON SECTION 69 OF THE FINANCE ACT, 1909-10. 
 
 Under Section 69 of the Finance Act of 1910 and amending clauses 
 in subsequent Finance Bills, a landowner can obtain a rebate on his 
 Schedule " A " assessment equal to his necessary outgoings averaged 
 over five years for management, maintenance, repairs and insurance 
 on his agricultural property, so far as this averaged expenditure exceeds 
 in any year the statutory allowances of one-sixth on houses and 
 one-eighth on land (inclusive of farmhouses and buildings). The 
 benefit of this rebate is extended to house property, but limited to 
 houses with an assessable value of £105 in London, of £90 in Scotland, 
 and £78 elsewhere. 
 
 APPENDIX B. 
 
 AVERAGE COST OF FEEDING-STUFFS AND ARTIFICIAL 
 
 MANURES. 
 
 
 1914. 
 
 1920. 
 
 1922, January. 
 
 Feeding-Stuffs : 
 Linseed Cake, per ton 
 
 £ s. d. 
 8 1 3 
 
 £ s. d. 
 22 16 10 
 
 £ s. d. 
 14 5 
 
 Cotton Cake, per ton 
 
 5 6 5 
 
 14 1 4 
 
 8 15 
 
 Dried Ale Grains, per ton . . 
 
 5 3 
 
 12 17 5 
 
 10 5 
 
 Manures : 
 Basic Slag, per ton . . 
 
 1 14 6 
 
 4 17 6 
 
 5 10 
 
 Superphosphates, per ton . . 
 
 2 10 9 
 
 8 3 6 
 
 4 10 
 
 Sulphate of Ammonia, per ton 
 
 12 7 6 
 
 21 10 
 
 14 10 
 
17 
 
 APPENDIX C. 
 
 MEAT. 
 
 London, January 30th, 1922. — Smithfield Meat (official report).— 
 Supplies 2,340 tons, as against 2,272 tons a year ago and 1,918 tons 
 on the corresponding day in 1913. Imports formed 80*9 per cent., as 
 against 81*0 per cent, a year ago and 63"4 per cent, in 1913. Average 
 or middle price of the ruling wholesale prices of first quality meats at 
 per stone of 8 lb. : — 
 
 Description. 
 
 To-day. 
 
 Same day 
 year ago. 
 
 Same day 
 1913. 
 
 British and Irish : — 
 
 8. d. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 Beef — English long sides 
 
 7 2 
 
 11 11 
 
 4 2 
 
 Scotch long sides. . 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 12 8 
 
 4 6 
 
 Do., short sides 
 
 
 
 8 8 
 
 13 4 
 
 4 10 
 
 Veal 
 
 
 
 9 4 
 
 10 8 
 
 6 2 
 
 English mutton 
 
 
 
 8 10 
 
 15 4 
 
 5 1 
 
 Do., tegs 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 15 4 
 
 5 2 
 
 Scotch mutton 
 
 
 
 8 10 
 
 15 8 
 
 5 2 
 
 Do., tegs 
 
 
 
 9 4 
 
 17 4 
 
 5 10 
 
 Do., lamb (Hill) 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 17 4 
 
 — 
 
 Pork— Small 
 
 
 
 7 4 
 
 11 4 
 
 4 11 
 
 Do., large and medium 
 
 
 
 6 6 
 
 9 4 
 
 4 7 
 
 Imported : — 
 
 
 
 
 Beef — Arg. chilled hindqrs 
 
 4 2 
 
 8 
 
 3 
 
 Do., chilled foreqrs. . . 
 
 
 
 2 6 
 
 5 4 
 
 2 5 
 
 Australian, frozen hindqrs. 
 
 
 
 3 2 
 
 6 10 
 
 2 4 
 
 Do., frozen crops 
 
 
 
 2 2 
 
 5 
 
 2 1 
 
 N.Z. frozen mutton 
 
 
 
 4 10 
 
 6 
 
 3 2 
 
 Do., lamb 
 
 
 
 7 2 
 
 8 8 
 
 4 9 
 
 Dutch mutton 
 
 
 
 7 2 
 
 14 8 
 
 — 
 
 Pork— Dutch 
 
 
 
 7 4 
 
 11 4 
 
 4 8 
 
 Frozen 
 
 
 
 5 2 
 
 8 
 
 
CULTURE AND SOME OF Tl 
 CAUSES THEREOF. 
 
 REPORT 
 
 BY A COMMITTEE OF THE LAN 
 UNION, WITH SUGGESTIONS 
 
 ■ THE LAND UNION, 
 
 15, Lower Grosvenor Place, 
 
 Loudon, S.W.I. 
 
 Vaoher & Sons, Ltd., Westminster House, S.W.I. — 1992 
 
^p^pf^ 
 
 '.•mCi