HD ROYAL COMMISSION AGRICULTURE. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE (26th August, 1919, to 3rd September, 1919). VOLUME II. Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty. L 0 i\ D 0 i'l .T.LISin']!) BY JUS MA.IKSTVS >.\KRY OF! To i II. M. STATIONERY OKKIC [HPEBIAL HOUSE, KINGSWAT, LONDON, \\ .('.?. .-iml -As, ABTM. Ln. \-uox, S.W.I: 37, PETEK STREET, .' , 1, ST. AXDKEW'S '.TFF; om K. PONSONBI DUBLIN. 1919. [Cn -h the in.. :.r-J can 1 • |lfi,ilirr. I'.U'.i. MK. H. mi.niN FOX MR. CASTELL WREY (recalled) ;W September, I'.M'.i. SIR RICHARD WIN i KKV, M.P. MK. FALCONER L WALLAcK I'AOK. 265 877 289 312 \ i;-iim\KM. C Hi:. / . "KM MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKKX BEPOKE THE ROYAL COMMISSION 01 AGRICULTURE. SEVENTH DAY, TUESDAY, 26xH AUGUST, 1919. PRESENT : SIR WILLIAM BARCLAY PEAT (Chairman'). SIR WILLIAM JAMES ASHLEY. DR. C. M. DOUGLAS, C.B. Ma. G. G. REA, C.B.E. MB. W. ANKER SIMMONS, C.B.F. MB. HENRY OVERMAN, O.B.E. MB. A. BATCHELOR MB. H. S. CAUTLEY, K.C., M.P. MB. GEORGE DALLAS. MR. J. F. DUNCAN. MB. W. EDWARDS. MB. F. E. GREEN. MR. J. M. HENDERSON. MB. T. HENDERSON. MR. T. P. JONES. MB. E. W. LANGFORD. MB. R. V. LENNARD. MR. GEORGE NICHOLLS. MR. E. H. PARKER, MB. R. R. ROBBINS. MB. W. R. SMITH, M.P. MB. R. B. WALKER. Mr. ALBERT BUCKLE, Cleveland Chamber of Agriculture, called and examined. 4960. Chairman: You are the representative of the Cleveland Chamber of Agriculture? — That is so. 4961. You have put in certain statements, which perhaps you will allow me to incorporate in the day's proceedings, without reading them? — Yes. (Evidenrr-in-chiff handed in by Witness.) 4962. (1) I am of opinion that in order to ensure increased production of agricultural produce a guaranteed minimum price for cereals and other agri- cultural commodities must In- given, as with the pre- vniling and ever-increasing high wages, the poorer hinds will not p;iv for cultivating, and the tendency will be, and undoubtedly is, at the present time for this class of land to revert to grass. If a guarantee of 70s. per quarter were given for wheat and other cereals in proportion, I think this would be a wise policy as it would encourage farmers to keep their land under the plough and to grow all they possibly could. (2) At the present time farmers are suffering most from shortage of labour, and from this cause cannot fret tin- bes't out of their land, the larger farmer being in a better position than the small one as he can take advantage of up-to-date machinery With regard to the dairying branch of forming were it not for the assistance we get from the women who have been trained to this work, I am certain many of us could not carry on, shorter hours and half holidavs being entirely unsuited to the industry. (3) The policy also of the Ministry of Food in en- couraging farmers in the outlying districts to sell milk in preference (as was their custom in the past) to making butter and cheese, is having a most detri- mental effect upon our herds as it was their custom to rear their calves on the separated milk. This system in impossible when the whole of the milk is sold off. Dairy farming is the most arduous of all branches of farming and should be the best paid, otherwise many will go out of the busi';< (4) System of Cropping in Cleveland. A four course system of cropping is practised on the major portion of Cleveland, i.e., fallow or roots, wheat or barley, clover, oats; in some cases beans following wheat instead of clover. On the lighter lands and near the towns a 6 course is sometimes taken, i.e., potatoes, wheat, turnips, barley or oats, clover, oats. The Dales farms are mostly worked on a 3 course system ; temporary seeds are sown to lay 4 to 6 years followed by oats, roots or fallow, barley or mixed crop to be seeded down again. (5) Cost of 1 acre u-heat after fallow. £ 3 5 1 6 Rent and rates (2 years) Four times ploughing at 2Ds. ... Three times cultivating at 8s. ..: Ten tons farmyard manure at 10s. Three times harrowing and drilling ... 0 10 Two bushels seed ... ... 1 0 Spring harrowing and rolling ... ... 0 5 Weeding ... ... ... Q 2 Harvesting and marketing 2 2 Less 26 cwts. straw at £2 10s. . £18 3 0 326 Estimated yield 4 quarters cost = ... £15 0 6 Note. — It may be well to point out, that though the cost of an aero of wheat is very high after fallow, yet the advantages are apparent through the whole course of cropping. (26329— 39— 8) Wt. 21831—13. 2000. 10/19. H. St. G. 34. ROTAI. I'i'MMlxsHiN n\ AiiKirri.Tl'KK. 88 A*s».i. 1919.] MB. AI.IIEKI Hrrki.r. (0) ''"«' vf 1 nrrr r/orrr for 1 year'$ lay. £ d (in; Oo$i "l i "••"• irheaf nfl'i jii'tillOfl. 1 d. Seed - B 0 ut and rates 1 IK n Sowing and rolling Ten mt. basic slag and sowing din' i « t sulphate and -owing Kolling nnd stone gathering Cutting, stacking. *c ... 0 I ... 0 II 1 ' ~ £ 0 d H 0 1 b 6 1 0 0 " ii Twice harrowing, 1 cultivating Drilling and harrowing... •J litishels seed and dr»«-sr.. Harrowing and rolling n 0 1 0 1 i.< 0 \VtHidinjr .. ... II • ' 'i Harvesting and marketing •J I n £8 17 6 Manures (one third applied to 1 0 0 potatoes) ... 4 " • Average vield 1 ton cost = ... £7 17 B 11 1-J B Tfiilnif. Kent and rates Three ploughings ... Two cultivating*, two scufflings Two rowings Twenty loads farmyard manure nt Hi- Three cwts. supers and sowing ... One cwt. sulphate and sowing ...... Seed .................. Planting Manure spreading Rolling and harrowing ... Three scufflings ............ Hoeing Ridging (lathering ... Carting off and pitting Straw Sorting five tons at 8s Marketing ... ... £ s. d. 1 I.') 0 3 I., 0 1 1 n 0 1-J (i 10 0 0 1 3 6 0 18 0 10 0 0 0 15 0 0 10 0 060 0 12 0 0 10 0 063 o 10 0 '2 0 0 1 10 0 (i 12 0 'J 0 0 1 :. n i :t Average yield per acre fi\,- ton- i ost CIO It should be pointed out th.-il the manure applied nlinve should l>e sufficient for the succeeding rro[i. nnd therefore n proportion (say one thirdt of the cost should be charged to that crop. Average yield per acre I <|rs. COM • C!» 2 <', (This concludes the crithiuc-in-tliii'/.) The Cluiii ninii : I will ask Dr. Douglas to begin questions in regard to the evidence thut you have been kind enough to put in, and which hn.s been cir- culated to the Commissioners 4963. Dr. Douglas: Your first photograph is land which has not paid for cultivation under present conditions. Are you referring to land which wa.- c ul tivated ."i or 6 years ago, before the war!- Yes, I am to a great extent. 496-1. You nre not referring only to the ndditionnl land brought under cultivation during tin- war- li it is really strong clay land. There arc -omo cases where very strong clay land has been ploughed out. but not many in our district. It would apply equally to that as to the land which has Keen under the plough. UN;'). You are referring to land which was for merly under cultivation:' Yes. (!)(>(;. So that you mean the standard of cultiva- tion would be apt to fall below the 1911 level? *> I mean the cost of production would be too great for that land. l!'i;7. Is that tendency actually showing itself in the operations of the present season: I'ndoiihtedly. I have heard of nunil>er8 of fields that have been laid hack to grass or put to gra — ; fields that have not IM-CII in grass previously. 4968. You are not merely making conjectures about the future. You tell us that is actually happening already?— That is so. 4969. You suggest a guarantee of "IK. a quarter. You are referring to a guarantee under the adminis- trative methods of the Corn Production Act. arc not you?— Yes. l!)7(). Can yon tell ns v. hat you have in your mind when you quote the figure ot 70s..- I think that on many lands you will get gnatcr production; I mean it will give a stimulus !•:> the farmer. If ho knows that ho has n guarantee of 7int of vi- IH7.Y In voiir si-cond paragiaph \<>ii -peak ot the -h.Ttage of' labour. You think that thai is greatest ( us the largest farmers are conc.-rn.-d in relation to dair\ n IM, 1 think 4970. Have y,,u many s II farms in your district? BUD I larms. and they a\ernge unmet h ing like ISO ncre*. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 26 Auguit, 1919.J MR. ALBERT BUCKLE. [Continued. 4977. Have you any considerable proportion of farms on which the labour is done chiefly by the holder and his family without hired labour? — Yes, there is a fair number. 4978. Does the labour difficulty arise on those farms at all:'— Xot to such a great extent. 4979. I suppose in purely arable work the larger fanner is compensated by being able to use more machinery:' — Yes,, I think he has the advantage there. 4980. In dairying there is not the great 'ompensa- tion, is there:' — No, I do not think so. I do not think the machinery in dairying is very satisfactory up to the present. . The milking machine has not made great progress in your district:1 — Xo. I have one myself, but I am not particularly struck with it. I'.'-'J. But in relation to dairying, you say the labour difficulty is very great. Has it been the habit in your district to employ women to any large extent in dairying P— It has been during this war-time. 4983. But not before the war? — No. not so much. 4984. Do you think that will continue after the war!' — Personally I do not think under the hours that are at present fixed, you will get men or youths to do it. We have only got the women to fall back upon. What hours are you referring to? — Tho Saturday half-day holiday ai'd so forth. 4986. Does that regular Saturday half-day holiday obtain in dairy work? — In many cases we pay higher wages in lieu of their having the Saturday half-day. 4987. Do you make any other arrangement for giving leisure to dairy workers:- Wo let them take it alternately: possibly, instead of giving them a a regular half-day, you give them a day or a week-end when they wish. 4988. In your third paragraph you speak of the policy of the Ministry of Food as baring distoiiraged calf roarini:. You reler to the relative prices of milk and butter - Y. 4989. Do you find that that has stopped the practice altogether of feeding ealves on separated milk:' — Not absolutely altogoth 4D90. You sell a certain amount of butter r There is very little butter sold now. I was speaking to a farmer out Wonsloydalo way. who tells me they are nearly all selling their milk his way in preference" to butter making and calf roaring. l!»!ll. Do you say that the inimlier of eaho, reared in your district has diminished:' I think in thoso districts it has — not particularly in my district. In the Dales and in the more outlying districts, most 1 1 rtainly it has. J!'!I2. On account of the high pricv of milk and the relative!) lower price of butter? Yes. that is so. 4993. But is not it still profitable when people wish to rear calves, to use separated milk as a substitute? -You cannot use separated milk if you sell the whole of the milk. 1 \o ; lint you can sell certain proportions of milk as cream or butter? 1 think if a man goes into the business he prefers to sell it all; he does not carry on the two branches. 4995. They used to employ it all in busier making? — Yes, in many cases. 499fi. Yon say something at the end of that para- graph alum! dairy farming being the most arduous of all branches of farming, which at all events in the ease of arable dairying it no doubt is, but you say that it should be the li. ,t paid. Have you any MS to make about that? Can you ra bing of a practical kind with regard to it? -What I mean is. that we should have a fair profit for pro- ducing. l!i!>7. Are you referring merely to the present con trolled prices, or to something else? — Yes, I am referring to the present controlled prices. I0'i-i. An.l to those only? Yes. I think so; or as to what, may take plaee in the future with regard to control. ' That i- to say. \ ou think any continuation of control bey, nd what is absolutely 'necessary in the national interests, would have an "ad«. ors,. effect upon prodoctionf Y. I do think go. I think there arejnany other ways. I mean a farmer can gell his 10880 produce or produce beef and make a better profit than in dairying, with less labour to himself. 5000. But you are not advocating any special State guarantee or anything of that kind in relation to production? — Personally, I think it would be better from a national standpoint that milk should bs de- controlled, and that we should have a free market. 5001. That is the point you are dealing with? — Yes. It might have the effect of raising prices a little just at first, but I think the increased production would very soon take place. The farmers would have greater confidence. Under this control you do not get it controlled far enough forward. You never know from month to month what to expect. We did not know what to expect for the month of August. We got the 4d. rise for July, and then it was taken off for August, when the conditions in our district were considerably worse. 5002. So that you put it to us that the control is having an adverse effect on milk production? — Cer- tainly I do think so. 5003. Do you tell us that there are cases of people who are giving up dairying? — Yes. 5004. Are actually disposing of their herds? — Yes, I know of several in my own district. 5005. Are dairy cows maintaining their price in your district? — Yes. They have been slightly Iqwer this last month since the 4d. was taken off. 5006. But on the whole they have not fallen very much in price? — No; until the 4d. was taken off, then there was a drop in price. •">(»! 1 7. Can you explain, if that is the case, why you think that people are giving up dairying? — It is chiefly on account of the labour and the hours. 5008. No. I mean can you explain if people are giving up dairying why is it the case that dairy cows are maintaining their price? — I suppose there is a great scarcity of cows, and there will be a greater scarcity through the slaughter of calves. 5009. You speak of the system of cropping in Cleve- land. You epeak of a four-course system as prac- tised. That is not continuous, is it? You have a period of temporary grass between these courses, have not you? — No. not on the greater portion. 5010. There is no grass in that rotation at all? — -There is the clover crop. 5011. One clover crop; that is all? — Yes. 5012. On land of that class, is not that a very costly wav of producing? — I do not think so. 5013. There are only one or two points I want to put to you on your costing figures. In paragraph 8 you put in 10 tons an acre as the average or normal production of roots. What was your estimate based upon? — At the time, on this year's crop. 5014. You say on account of the continued drought the yield will l>e only about half this estimate. You are referring to the 10 tons estimate? — That is BO. 5015. Is that your normal production? — No, cer- tainly not. 5016. What is your average or ordinary production of roots?— I should say an\ thing from 10 to 15 tons. 5017. Do you grow chiefly turnips, swedes, or what? edes and turnips. 5018. Not mangolds? — Yes, a few mangolds, but not many. .Mi I;). Does not that seem to you to be a very low production? — It is not turnip land in Cleveland; it is .strong land mostly. 5020. But in the case of potatoes, is your average yield just 5 tons? — Yes. 5021. You take that simply as an average over a number of years? — Yes. 5022. Is that based on figures that you have taken, or is it just conjecture? — It is based on my own farm and the opinions of others I have spoken to. •"iO'JS. It really refers to what you have been able to sell off your farm over a period of years? Yes. 5024. Then in your costs you have allowed thn manure applied to the turnip and potato crops to be partly charged to the succeeding crop? — That is so. 5025. Is that the caso with any of the other of your mamirings? It applies, I suppose, to a great extent to nearly every crop. That is where the difficulty comes in, in really estimating the actual of any crop. A :i KnVAL COMMI»1"N ON AGRICULTURE. 1919.] MR. ALBERT BDCKLC. 8096. Qu.to so; but you hare not really gi to that u between the different crops tu buc.ie«u,iour uot to much a* after the root < - i: To go back for a minute to tli. question of the guarantee which you think should be 7O». a quarter, do you name that as l»-.n_ <>nc wliu-li would leave a prolit to the farmc: l tli nk u would encourage htm to continue the cultivation of hi* land. &tt* But do you think that if the country is asked to guarantee a 'minimum, it should be such a mini mum as would in itself pay the farmer, or only one which would guard him against the heavy low such »•> liuTc was in the miictiea, and lot li in trust to favourable markets in other years to make his profit !- — Ye*, that was my idea. Of • our.*, a great deal depends upon what is done. With regard to labour, the cost of labour has gone up tremendously, and wo get fresh orders about every few weeks. Wh»l par ng price to-day might not be next year at this time 5039. No; but of course you realise that the coun- try would not willingly guarantee a higher price than it is forced to do. The point we are aiming at is, to get a guarantee which would safeguard tho fanmr •gainst heavy loss, but not necessarily to give him a profit on that individual crop, if the market price over a term of 3 or 4 years was higher on the aver- age. Do you think that 70s. is a sum which could be supported' on those grounds? — Yes, I think so— if I heard your question aright. 6030. I asked you whether YOU thought that 70s. in itself left a profit, or whether it was only a sum which would induce the farmer to grow because he would not make a heavy loss on the minimum- 1 •!.. not think it want* to be a maximum ; I think it should be a minimum. 5031. And you would not recommend a lower mini- mum ? — No, I would not. 5033. With regard to the paragraph which Dr. Douglas asked you about as to half-holidays, you rather laid emphasis on the Saturday half-holiday. You realise that there is nothing making the Satur- day half-holiday compulsory ; it is simply a half- holiday owing to the fact that the hours worked must not be in excess of 6J on one day of the week, not be'ng a Sunday? — Yes, I am quite aware of that. 5033. Cannot you change your milkers and give them a half-holiday on one day and some on another :- — On the great majority of farms you have hor and stockmen. If you let your cowman go and a horseman has to take his place on the Wednesday, a horseman has to take his place or your horse is .-t.md ing. That is our difficulty. 5034. I was referring to what you said, that you were depending principally upon women? — Yes; that is to keep the horses going. 5035. If yon have the women, could not you change them? — We are rather under-staffed altogether in Cleveland. That is rather the difficulty. In some cases, say, you have three or four employed amongst the cows. They have one half-day each some day during the week. 5036. Probably as a matter of fact the people them- selves like to have it on the same day? — As a matter of fact, with the wages the women are now getting, they do not want their half-holiday at all ; they prefer not to have it; thev would rather work at overtime rate. 6037. They would rather work tho half-day?— Yes. 5038. Then with regard to the question of rearing calves, Cleveland was formerly a large calf roaring district in certain parts, was it not?— In certain parts term tin- Dales; in the hilly districts. 1 N their |iositiiin su< h that they can now run a new milk trailo ; I moan is it near enough to tho markets?— Yea, that U §o; they are selling their milk to the towns. 5040. They are within reach?— Yes. 6041. Have you considered tho question from their own point of view of profit, whether the ].i r pin* the profit they make on tho calv<*. would or would not be »« great as tho profit they rimko from the sale of now milk?— No; they would" make nm-h more on tho milk .. 1 wa» thinking of the farms that are run by the farmer and his family, where tho labour would be in tho house. Calf rearing is a profitable mdusir. • i much as milk selling. I mean, take a pound of butter at 2s. 3d. ; that, 1 suppose, takes about 3 gallons of milk to make ; \. h< MM* in the winter we were getting 2s. 3d. a gallon for the milk, and at the present time it is Is. 8d. a gallon. 6043. I suppose the price of store cattle at present is very high? — "Yes; but still, in niy opinion, they consider they get better paid by selling the milk. besides, they are given advantages ; 1 mean the Imyer has railway carriage to pay. That is another point which I never could get quite cleared up with the Ministry of Food. Some of us, like in live about 7 miles out of Middlesbrough; and for the convenience of the buyer, I take my milk by road, whereas I could put it on rail within a mile and charge the carriage to him, but I am not allowed to do that. 6044. Then, again, they get a quicker return than they would from calf rearing? — That is BO. 6045. With regard to your rotation, this four- course system does not seem to give very big crops. You only estimate 4 quarters an acre tor oats. Is there any practice in the district of extending the course and letting the clover lay for two or three years, and then ploughing it up again?— In the Dales then> is. You will see that I have a paragraph on that, 6046. Yes; I see that in the Dales; but I moan thi> other land where the close cropping means a lot of labour and the crops do not seem very good. If the grass or the clover laid two or three years, it would be a saving of labour, and I should think it would get a ly increased crop of oats? — In many cases where land is laid for a few years, there is great trouble with the wiro worm. 5047. Is there in a short time such as 2 or 3 years? — Yes, there is; and of course during this \\-.\v t.me wo have not been allowed to leave it laying. 6048. No; but we are looking forward to the future, and a crop of 8 qrs. of oat- or a good of clover would be as good as two crops of 4 quarters. You know better whether your land would be likely to suit that? — I do not think, except on tho very strongest portion, it i- advisable to leave any ley I have a portion myself laid for the second \ wild white clover. At the present time white > is almost unobtainable and at a tremendous price. 5049. If it gives 2 quarters an acre profit afterwards it pays, besides the extra grazing? — I think myself that is too high an estimate; I do not think you would get that. >>. It does on some land, and more than that .- You get a very poor crop the second time; you get no second crop. Wo get a second crop with the 1 y..,i - lay. You get no second cut with the wild white clover. •'. Mow much of the 10 tons of farm yard manure applied to the wheat would you carry forn an I • • tainly think a portion of that should go f<» to tho next crop. Half of it?— No, not half. '••••I no much; more than half will 1- hausted:-- Yes, undoubtedly. I should say about on. '-third— the same as I did with the |>ota.to crop. 6054. Then as to the root crop, you say it is not a suitaMe, district for root growing!- \\V do not grow l.ip root crops in Cleveland. It cannot be, because of the yield?— But D exception; they arc really very Itfid. I Has through a hir^e part of ( levelnnd a'- ago and hail the land i.s pi at tu all\ I. air. ami ;l, thin. .t 1 thought you said that in normal I from 10 to 15 tons an acre was nil you I think that is the a\orayeof Cleveland, certainly. II. IM- \<>u thought of Mhige- in-tead ot on that land? -No. 605W. Mi. .\nkrr Simmon*. What is 11, rent in youi neighbourhood? I should .say Ir. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 26 Augtut, 1919.] MR. ALBERT BUCKLE. [Continued. •30.39. What is the proportion of arable and pasture generally;' — I should say somewhere about half. On those farms which I surveyed two years ago, they averaged just about half. 5060. What is your custom on entry with regard to the payment for hay, straw and manure? — The in- coming tenant takes the hay and straw at consuming value. 5061 . And the manure for labour ? — Yes, he gets the manure that has been made during the last year of tenancy. .5062. I notice in your cost of production of wheat, you put your farmyard manure at market price? — Yes; it cost a good deal mure to produce now with cakes and roots at the price they are at present. 5063. Yes; but if the custom is that the farmer enters at the consuming price, I take it his agreement would provide that if he did sell off anything in the way of hay or straw, he would have to bring back the equivalent of manurial value P — Yes, that is so. 5064. You have made no allowance for that in your estimate of the cost of production of an acre of wheat or an acre of anything else. You see if you take your cost of production of an acre of turnips, you have no less than £7 Kts. an acre for farmyard manure ? — Yes." 15. It 1 were valuing on that farm, which you put ui 1") tons. I should only allow you the cost of carting the immure on to the land and spreading it? — Surely it costs something to produce. You are not changing farms every \. 506C. Xo ; but you cannot have it both ways. If you are only entitled to a consuming price, what we have to get at here is, as near as we can. the average cost of production of a crop, and therefore we must go right through. There arc some districts where everything is at the market price. Personally. I wish that was the custom everywhere, as it would be much fairer. But I take it in your district that is not so, and it would not really cost a farmer £25 an acre to produce an acre of turnips? — We took it as nearly as we thought was the value of the farmyard manure. 5<>t;7. Of course, all your figures, I take it, are estimates, and not taken from an actual cost basis or account keeping basis? — No; they are estimates. T mean I do not see how you can get it in any other way than by an' estimate. 5068. We have had witnesses before us who have IK en keeping accounts for some time on the new s\-fi in of actual cost of production, booking up the number of hours of the men and the horses which were employed in each field? We have certainly not done that. 5069. Then with regard to the cost of production of an acre of wheat. You give us, very fairly, two examples. You give us the cost of production after fallow which would bo the most expensive; and you give us the cost of production after potatoes, which would be the least expensive. So that if yon put the two together and divide them, you get a fair average of the cost of production which, not deducting for the straw, would give you an average in round figures of £15 an acre:- Yes, something like that. 5070. Then you say you grow four quarters to the acre and you suggest 70s. as a guarantee. Putting your straw at £3, that would give you £17 an.acre for your produce. That would only give you a margin of £2 an acre profit? — Yes, that is BO. .VI7I. .May T take it that four quarters is an average crop of wheat? Would not you grow more than four quarters after bare fallow? — No. I have been told on many hands that 'I put it too high at four quarters. 5072. ] should have thought arable land rented at 30s. an acre ought to be capable of producing on a high farming principle like this, a four course system, nine sacks? t think it is beyond the mark, the four quarters this year; and on the average I think it is quite enough. 5073. Of course we cannot take any one particular year. I am aware that this year is a bad year, although it in not a particularly bad year for wheat -. nheiit is the best, crop of all. We must take it on an j-verage of years. Then may we take it from you that [ would lie Miifr in calculating your average yield would be about four quarters to' the acre? — Yes, I think is quite enough. HIM 5074. I am rather struck with the cost of production of an acre of turnips. Of course, if you take off tht. very heavy item for manure which is produced on the farm, even then you get £18 an acre, which would appear to be a very high sum and far in excess of the general average. I see you estimate £1 12s. an acre to cart to the pit, and another £1 to cart back again into the turnip house? — Yes. 5075. I take it as a rule if you cart to a pit mangolds or any root that you are going to use for cattle, you would not, of course, cart your turnips, because you would probably feed them off with your sheep? — No, we do not in our district at all. There is very little of that done in Cleveland. 5076. You first cart the whole of your roots to a pit, and re-cart them into a shed where the cattle are? — Not absolutely the whole. You would fill your turnip house at the beginning of the season, and the rest would go to the pit to be re-carted again into the turnip house. 5077. One is anxious not to get exaggerated figuns ; and I should have thought when you were carting your roots to the field the first thing you would do would be, as you say, to fill up your root house, and you would put the other roots in close proximity to your root house so that it would be a very simple matter. I mean the man with the odd horse and the odd cart would keep your root house going, and that would not cost anything like as much as the whole thing getting from the field ?--That is what we do. A man with the odd horse and cart carts them in. 5078. Under those circumstances you might cut down that last item of £1 easily by half?- -I do not know. You do not get very much work done for £1 nowadays 5079. Just a word or two with regard to milk. I do not want to ask questions that do not come within our limits ; but I would like to know from you definitely whether you would be opposed to any State contro of milk-selling or production? - Ye.s ; I think it is in the national interest that we should have a free market. 5080. Do you think if there were a Tree market for milk to-day that the price would be higher or lower than it is at this moment? — It is possible that for a . short time it might be higher ; but I think that the supply would increase and would eventually bring down prices. 5081. You complained just now that very short notice was given by the Ministry of Food of the change of price?— That is so. 5082. You are aware, surely, that that 4d., which was put on in June, was a sum given to the farmer to make up for the loss sustained owing to the drought? — That is so; but the drought was more acute in August than in July. 508.'! Yes. hut T want this made clear. It was est mated that 2d. for two months would probably meet the matter, but it was easier in the interests of administration to have 4d. for one month, because any sum less than 4d. over a gallon makes it difficult to divide when you get down to pints and half-pints, and so on? — I see. It would have been better if that had been explained at the time. It caused great dissatis- faction amongst the producers when the price came down in August. "il'-t. When a witness of your standing comes here. T do not want you to be under any misapprehension. You complained that yon were not allowed to be paid for taking your milk seven miles. How far from the nearest station are you? — A mile. 50R5. If you studied the Milk Order. I think you would find that any distance you carted your milk over that mile you would be allowed to charge for? The Order says distinctly not; that the price is fixed at the seller's station or the buyer's premises. 5086. I think you will find that what you would !»• entitled to make some charge for, would be the extra distance beyond the distance to your station? — We have written the Ministry of Food repeatedly on that point, and they will not allow it. ^fr. Anker f^iminons: I know it used to be allowed. 5087. Mr. Overman : How many acres of land do you farm?— 380. 6083. Are you a tenant fanner? — Yes. 5089. You have told Mr. Anker Simmons thai these are estimates; but I take it the yields of four quarters 6 UoVAl. 0>.\!M N A..IJICUI.TUKK. 1919.] MR. ALBEIT Id [Continued. of wheat and four quarter* of oats are taken from actual facts?— Yes, but not absolutely. Ot a we took our own farm into consideration. I had a Committee of threv other* who hcl|>cd mo to fill in the**, and w<> took what wo thought was a fair average for Cleveland. Wo took our own farms into ooaaiaeraUoo, tli«« crojw no had actually got, and what wa* a fair average for Cleveland. oOSKi. What do you grow in barley!' You do not . • IViMiii.illv. 1 grow very little of barley. Our land is more suitable for wheat and oate. 6091. What i» the usual yield of barley in your neighbourhood? I havo never been able to grow moro than about four quarters of bar! 50B2. That is your outside crop?— Yes. 5003. Yours are. all Lady Day tenancies in York- shire, are not they?— Not Lady Day; it is May l.'Uh in our district. £004. Is it your ruxtom in your country always to put farmyard manure on your fallows for wheat? — Yes, I think it is. 50ft). A general custom? — Yes. 5090. In nvkoning out these costs what did you put your horse labour cost at per day? — I think about 7s. 6d. or 8s. 6097. Mr. Balrhrltn : Will you look at paragraph 8, your cost of production of turnips. You have been asked ulready on the question of farmyard manure. How is that manure made? Is it from cattle, or bow!' - It is made principally from cattle and, of course. horses— a few farm horses. 5098. If you did not charge that farmyard manure r'nst the turnips, where could you charge ill- would charge it to the succeeding crop, I suppose. 6099. It musA be charged against crops P — Yes, I take it so. 5100. So you consider that you are quite right in putting it down here to the crop to which it was applied? — Yes. I said in the potato crop that a i .-i tain proportion of the manure should go to the suc- ceeding crop, and I think the same with regard to turnips. 5101. What about the spreading of that manure:1 Is that included in the 10s. per ton, because it does not appear otherwise in the cost of growing turnips? It appears under potatoes as an entry? — In many cases there is not any spreading except the carting to the field. In our district it is thrown on the land from tli<> cart and ploughed in; with potatoes we spread it in the row. 5102. Then coming to potatoes, you have there IX) loads of farmyard manure at 10s. Does that include the carting on to the field? — I think it did, I do not think we charge for carting. 6103. Then when you come toithe marketing of your potatoes, what does that term include, " marketing 36*."? — Carting to the station and so forth. 5104. 5s. a ton?— Yes. 6105. Then your deduction there in respect of manure would be something like £4, being £4 Os. 6d.. which you mention in the next item of growing wheat after potatoes? — That is so. 6106. Is five tons per acre about your average yield of potatoes?— Yes, I think so. 6107. Kven with 20 loads of farmyard manure? — I think it would be too much this time. 6108. I quite admit that. bu«t taking it. on the average?- Yes, I think it is an average for Cleve- land. MOO. Is this a clerical error? You have here under cost of one acre of oat»: rent and rates £1 10s. In •II the other* it appears as £1 15s. It is the same •nme?- We took it on the fallow land that was in the four course system : and on the four course VV-trm we reckon all the land at 30s. an acre, mid the ont« nre on tin- four course system aft. i 1 And v.ni alno take the wheat alter fallow at £1 10». and 1.'{.». Do you suggest this price for getting an acre ploughed to-day? On the fallow I think we did. .M.'Xi. What is a day's work now. What are the hours?— They are supposed to work from a quarter to •even tp half-past five in Yorkshire. •M:i7. How many hours work is it?— 54 hours a week. Those are the hours fixed. ."(13*. What wa« it Iwforc the war? I think it was practically the same. They are supposed to work time quarters of an hour extra on the five days in order to get their Saturday half day; but I am afraid MC do not get it. "d.'l'.l. The hours are the same, are they- Yet*. "(140. I notice, you do not include anything cither for interest or for management? — There is nothing [nit d.iw n for that. •Mil. What do you estimate is the capital em- ployed in a farm in Cleveland to-day ? I should think almost l'V.11 per acre on a mixed farm. 5142. At 5 per cent, that would be £1 an acre lor interest, would not it? — Yes. .M l:f. You have included nothing for management? In our costs for production, they would not allow us to put anything down for that. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 26 Augutt, 1919.] MR. ALBERT BUCKLE. [Continued. 5144. How is a farmer to live if he does not charge for his time? — That is true, I suppose. .">14-">. We are not dealing with profit but just with his own time-' — That is right. 5146. I notice there is nothing either for keeping the ditches or tenets in order? I wauled to make some remarks with regard to that. ">147. What are they?— That it is most difficult to arrive at coste of production. There is all that class of work which it is almost impossible to put to any crop. There is the repairing of roads, and so forth. 5148. Yes, and there is nothing included for that? — Then there is loss in your stock through death and other causes, and there is loss in crops. Sometimes a crop absolutely fails. 5149. We are only dealing with the wheat crop now. Mr. Anker Simmons suggested that as to the cost of the valuation when the incoming tenant takes possession, there is a certain scale adopted by the agreement or the custom of the country as to the valuation of manures, and therefore you apply the same in estimat- ing the value of a crop. It does not apply at all ? — I agree ; that is my contention. 5150. What we are here to do is to find the actual cost of growing a crop ? — Yes. 5151. And in the actual cost of growing a crop, is the actual cost of manure an essential ingredient? — Yes. 5152. Have you ans. a ton is a low figure-, that is, for the manure, the carting and the spread ing!' Although it is only throwing it out of the cart, it takes time? — Quite so. ;">1">4. 1 suggest you could not get it done or buy it at that. If you said to anybody: " I will buy 100 tons of manure and you spread it on my field," you could not get it done at 10s. :< tun;' I'ossilily not. ."ii'i.j. Do not take my word. I aui only speaking of the South of England!'- -It is a thing which is not on tho market : you cannot buy it. There is no such thing as buying it. r.l.'.lj. You < <>M|, I ii .,• Imy it. so that you can only form an estimate of its vain "i\~i7. Can you tell me how much you have allowed for the labour of getting it on to tho land and .spread ing it out of the In,.;- —No, we did not make any .lation. \\'e thought the 10s. a fair price for the manure and the carting. & T agree with what Mr. Anker Simmons said, and I think you would probably agree, that the fair cost of uhcut is t,i take tile cost of an acre of fallow and the cost ot an acre grown after potato or whatever vour root is, and divide by tv. V- •M.'iO. I understood that that came to an average of about £15 an acre. That is 75s. a quarter? — Yes; on the fallow it was £15 an acre. f'hnirniiin: I think he took it without the straw. The first was £K the next is Cll 12s.. and if you add those two together and divide it is CI5. 5160. Mr. Cuntli ,/ : VIM. It comes to £15, and then the farmer would have the straw" Is that on the two crops? 5161. On the first one and the last one it works out at £15, and then there is the straw to be dedn No. the straw was deducted in the first. .".I»i2. Yes; but to get at the average of £15 you must take it at £IS »m\ £11 ]'2s. making practically £*>. and then the farmer has the straw?— Yes, that in right. •"i I ''.T I have already pointed out in my view that these Bgnrei an- on the low side and there is nothing allowed either for interest or management or for reeding or road repairing or an\ thing of that sort?— is charged. . Quite right, but nothing for fencing or ditch- \" nothing for fencing or ditching. "•ic..-,. Yon told us von thought that a guarantee of . would IK? effective. In the first place, on your figures, the ,lls. would not show any profit" Yes I think it would. It would show a slight profit; not a very high one. "• '1'iailcrs com,, to L'll:- I think on the average deducting the. straw, this is costing about M per quarter or a little over. 5167. I was putting it to you the straw is about £2 10s. in one case and £3 in the other, against the other expenses pnd the farmer's profit? — I see. 5168. These things are very difficult to get an absolutely exact figure of. This is what I really want to get at. It is a point of principle. £14 you see would not show a profit. Would you agree with me that the farmer will grow what pays him?. — Un- doubtedly. 5160. That if the object is to get wheat grown, farmers must see a profit in growing wheat? — That is so. 5170. If the object is to get nr:lk grown on the farm, farmers must see a profit in growing milk? — That is so. 5171. And would you agree that the farmer will cul- tivate any land if it pays him? — Yes; if he can get the labour, undoubtedly. 5172. Assuming that he can get the labour, the farmer is there to make money; it is his livelihood? — Quite so. 5173. Taking this laud that you have given us at what 1 have put, and the figures are before the Com- mission, at £15 an acre the average cost, is it the best land in Cleveland or the average land? — The average land. 5174. Is there a large quantity below that average used for growing corn at the present moment? — Yes, there is some. There is some better and some worse. That is the average. 5175. To what extent of district are you speaking for in your chamber? — The whole of Cleveland. 0170. I do not know how big that is? — I cannot tell you the acreage. 5177. Is it the whole of the North Riding? — No. 5I7S. Only a portion of the North Riding?— Yes. It extends out to about Whitby I think, and from there to Middlesbrough on the coast. 5179. Could you give us any idea how much land would be below thin average of £15 cost? — I do not quite follow you. 5180. You see you are telling us what tho average cost of growing wheat is. If there is a large amount of land bolow the average with a great deal of land above the. average, how, if the guarantee of 70s. will keep ih, average land in cultivation, will it keep the bad land in cultivation? 1 see your point now. 1 (rtily suggest that aa a minimum. I . Of course a" guarantee is a minimum, and wo are only dealing with a minimum? — I think it would encourage the farmer if the farmer thought he had a guaranteed minimum of 70s., and had the [•lay of the market. He has the hope of getting more. I think it would tend to keep his land under cultivation, provided wages do not go any higlier than they are to-day. That is made on the assump- tion that wages remain the same. 5182. You do not meet the difficulty I have. I '1'iite see the 70s. might be- enough for the better laud; hut my difficulty is on your figures to see how that would keep the worst land in cultivation? I suggested that as a figure we thought was the one. . You cannot give us auv assistance on that point'1 No, 1 think the 70s. is enough. Tli, !,• is only one other thing I want to ask you a little about. I gather that you are a milk pro- ducer?-^ , •"•1*5. Of course, with milk there is no foreign com- petition at all. is there-?-- Very little. 5186. Practically nothing. Therefore it you havw the free- play of the market, whatever it was, milk would be produced and a« much milk as was wanted. is not that your opinion? It would in time. 1 mean I her,, is a great scarcity, and likely to be a very great scarcity this winter in my opinion. ~>\-7. But in view of the great scarcity now, is not it absolutely essf-nt'al in the pnlilic interest that there •honld he a limitation put on tli- price? 1'erha.ps at the present time; but I think it is the very fact of the milk having been controlled in the first'that has ' aii*cd this scarcity. Milk is absolutely css('itial? Ye-i. 5 Hi). Would not you really agrco it is absolutely n,-cessary that there should be a controlled price at the present moment?- -Possibly for this winter; but it is 8 tlRSION OK M, UK i i.TURK. H A ;,-. 191 • MB. ALBEIT BDCKI.C. [Continued. my contention that this continued control is driring ~ ' i oat of the busir 6190. 1 agree. Is uot the real fault of the control— »f may grumble al iho |>ricc», of course— that it is always put on too late -the prices are fixed too late? Yea, 1 havo already said ao. 5191. 1* it poaaiblo, with prices for the winter «nl\ juit now fixed— I think last week — to arrange our OOWB ao that there will be either a larger or lew supply of milk this winter!- It is uot possible. 5193. Hare you considered at all whether a guarantee of cheese prices would do anything to •tabiltie the milk supply? — I have not ooBaiaend that point. I know very little about cheese making. 6193. Do not they make cheese in Cleveland P— I think there is a little made up in the Dales perhaps. 6194. Did the Dale farmers make butter only and rear calves? — They make a great deal of cheese up •h- i. 5196. If there was a guarantee on cheese in thr summer and they were to sell milk in the winter, would not these keep the calves at the same time?— Yes, it certainly would assist. 6196. And would not that benefit the hill tanner* a great deal? — I should think so; they would pet their calves reared in the summer. 6197. They would get their calves reared and their • cheese marketed in the summer, and they could sell milk in the winter? Yes. 5196. Your Chamber has not considered whether that is possible?- No. that has not been considered. 5199. Has your Chamber considered whether it is at all possible to fix a guarantee for corrals on a sliding scale, as to the cost of wages or the cost of other com- modities at all? — That has not been considered. .Vjm. And you could not give any opinion as to whether such a thing is feasible now?- 1 have thought of the matter, and I think there should be some rela- tion between them. 5901. Might I suggest you should put that before your Chamber when you go back, and that they should ..n-idor it. I have one more point to put to you. It has generally been agreed by witnesses here that a guarantee to be really effective and beneficial to Agriculture, ought to be for a series of years. Do you fall in w ith that?— Yes, I do. I think for 5 years. 5302. Suppose such a thing were to be done, you will »ee the Government have no control over other prices. They have no control over the coat of anything that a farmer has to buy, or of labour; BO that would not to be some provision for alteration or recti- ii- It would be very difficult to arrive at n IIM •! j.rn e for 7 or 8 years, or even 6 years, with' all the other element* in the cost of production varying? > e«, that is so. 6908. And if some scheme of variation according to the other main elenn nt- which constitute the co-t of product -on were adopted, it would be more likely to be a workable plan, would not it? Yes. I do think M>. We have discuMed this matter, not at the Chamber but amongst my friends. 520-1. Kut \.ni have no suggestion to make? No, 1 have not at the present time. I'lmiiinnti •. Then you will communicate with as perhaps? 6906. Mr. I'nullrtr. If you would bring that sugges- tion as to whether any plan for n sliding scale could be made and agreed to by practical people, as the Chairman Buggmtts, your Chamber might communi- cate again with tin- Secretaries of the ComnHssi- T *h*ll he- v.-rv glad to do that. S9TW Mr. li,, II,,,: You stated that in order to keep the land in cultivation, you suggested there should be a guarantee Of 7(K ? Yes. 52O7. Are you aware that large numbers of farmer-. are not keeping their land in cultivation but letting it go down to irra-s- I think to a great extent that ban been o« in hortage of labour. ">3f»~. You think it i- dii" to shortage of ln)tour. and that if thcv had plentv of labour, they would n i)i*t' I do mil think they would. I moan these shorter Hour- are having a very great effect. Farmer* find they cannot p<-t the work done. ' I li ' 1 . Of course we have to deal w ith the whole country? — Yea, but I can only speak for my own district. ."j-l-J. The labour is actually short there? — Yea, un- doubtedly. "•_'!:(. You would agree that if the farmer is to have guarantees for the produce that he sells, the people who supply him, say. with tractors, harness, feeding • • I.M-. and artificial manures, should also be subsidised and given a guarantee by the Government? I think that would be almost impossible. 0214. So thai your idea u> that the farmer should have a free market for what he buys and a protected market for what he sells? — I only think it is in the interests of the nation that they should be guaranteed the price of wheat. 5. But do not you think that the man who is producing the feeding stuffs, the artificial manures, and the tractors, would also say that it was in the interests of the nation that he should be protected and guaranteed the prices for what he produces?— The feeding stuffs are not produced in this country, and I think we want to buy as cheaply as we can when we are buying from abroad. 5216. That is my point. You want to buy at cheaply as you can and .sell as dearly as you 01 That is our point. 1 havo always tried to do that. 5217. You understand, of course, that the com- munity will suffer for that? — I do not think so at all. I think it is bettor to have wheat at 70s. a quarter than to have none at all. 5218. You do not anticipate we will have none at all, do your 1 mean a shortage then. I will put ' nt 7'K. was made on the basis that «.,•.;.- remained as they I Yes. 5220. But in your ev-idence-in-chiof, you stated ithat it is given with the prevailing and ever-increasing high wages. How do you reconcile those two state- ments?— I do not quite follow yon. 5221. You arc making an allowance for an increase even in the present wages? — If the wages went up. I suppose the prices would go up. That was my idea.' B899. No. not in accordance with you cvidcnco-in- i hid : that tlie 70s. is given with an allowance for ever-increasing high wages. You have made allow- ance for that?— Yes; I took it on the basis of wages nt the present time, anyhow. 522.'). With reference to your labour, you made a fient in answer to one of the Obauniamonera, that owing to the Orders of the Wages Board you got them about every three weeks?— No, I do not think I .sai had been altered more times than that. Three times only. You wen .saving that you could not get I lie men to do the work, anil you had to get women!- That is dairying work. .VJ-J7. You -.aid because of the half-holiday. 1 w a- iite dear in my mind; but it seemed to me you said that because the. men got a half-holiday, you could not get them to work. Is that it? The |>oint. waa this. I wax speaking of tho dairying branch of farming. You have your horso work. They ha\e nothing to do but. turn the horses out, say, at Saturday dinner-time, and need not go back fill the Monday morning. Our stockman or cowman has to lie the whole of the week-end; and they will not do it. It is not reuKonable. T would not do if. T would go and l>e a horseman. - Rut if those nun are (here, they are getting overtime Kites? They do not want, it : th' v art. get- ting plenty without. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 26 Augiut, 1919.] MR. ALBERT BUCKLE. [Continutd. 5229. I want to touch on that point too. You say they are getting plenty. Tho minimum rate of wages in Vorkshire is how much;'— 47s. a week for the horse- men or stockmen. 5230. That is for the customary hours, not 54 hours? — No, it is the customary hours. 5231. With the customary hours he does his cus- tomary duties of attending to his horses and stock; so there is no difficulty there? — No, but you cannot get a man for that minimum wage. 5232. Whatever minimum wage you get, includes extra hours for attending to his cattle. The feeding and cleaning are included in his customary hours, and do not count as overtime and arc not paid for as overtime ?- -No ; that is not so in the case of the cowman and stockman. 5233. Then where does the difficulty arise? — Be- cause, as I have already said, you have to pay con- siderably more in the case of the cowman, who is having to work a portion of his Saturday afternoon and a portion of his Sunday. You cannot get him at 47s. 5234. 1 do not suggest you ought to get him at that ? — No, 1 do not either. 5235. One other question with regard to control. You are very anxious to get rid of control, and 1 am not quarrelling with that; but is not it the experience of the Ministry of Food that in answer to the demand generally they took off control, and immediately j went up so high that they had to reimpose control ? — To what article are you ref erring? 5 230. There were several articles — butter, mar- garine, and those things. It is the general effect of the taking off of control. I am not referring to any particular articles. It seems to be your own idea to tako off control, because you said in reply to one of the Commissioners that ultimately, not immediately, you thought prices might go down, but they might go up at first?- -Yes. I am not in favour of taking off control on everything at the present time. Personally, I do think it should come off milk. I think control has had the effect of causing the reduction in the output of milk. 5237. Would you be surprised if 1 told you that a very important witness who has been here and given evidence, said that tho one thing he thought control should be maintained upon was milk? — He is entitled to his opinion ; I still stick to mine. I do not say it from a j>« : sonal or a farmer's point of view, but I look at it more broadly from the national point of view. 1 think it is our duty to try and produce all the milk we can in the interests of the nation, and we are trying to do that; and the suggestion I make is with that object. 5238. I may say the witness I have in my mind had the same object in view ; but you have evidently a different method of obtaining it? — Yes, quite so. 5239. W ith reference to women, you stated that women with their present wages preferred to work overtime? — Yes. 524U. Does that mean that their weekly wages are so small that they have to work overtime to make a decent living?— No. At these overtime rates they get extra pay, and I suppose they like to make a little extra. 5241. Are the women built any different from the men ; because your contention, and that of other employers, is that the men are making such high wages and getting so well paid that no inducement under Hea-u n will make- them work overtime? — Yes, I do agree with that with regard to the men. I was perhapi .-linking of women more personally. The two I have employed do not wish for the Saturday afternoon holiday ; they prefer to work at the over- time rates. I told my cowman he was to give them it in rotation, and he said they did not want it. 5212. I submit the only deduction to be drawn from that is that women's wage* ure not enough, and they !i:mi to work overtime in order t<> got a decent living wage?— They are earning from t£r t<. .lo*. «, week according to the hour, that, they put in ; from that we ••an. only deduct 1 Is. a week for their board. :,'2U\. [[..,., ,lo you work thai out, lx:oause I am interested. I mean tho minimum rate of wages in Yorkshire is 7d. an hour? — 7d. an hour between 7 and 5; and 9d. an hour before 7 and after 5. 5243. How many hours do they work? — They com- mence at half past 5 in the morning, milking. 5244. And finish when? — I do not wish to say any- thing against them. They go on till 7 at night. JVly contention '-s that they could get done sooner. 5245. Mr. Duncan: You state with regard to the de-control of the milk supply that probably the first effect would be an increase in the price and con- sequently an increased production, which would bring back the price again presumably to about the figure where it is now? — Possibly yes. 5246. In what way would that help the position of the dairy farmer situated as you are in Cleveland at the present time? — I said that I thought it would be a benefit. I do, not see any benefit to us, but from a national point of view. I think it would be beneficial to the nation. I think there would be increased supplies. 5247. Where would these supplies be brought from? What class of farmers would go into the milk trade who are not in it now ? — There are many cows out of dairy herds that have been sold for beef undoubtedly, as the farmer considered that the price of milk did not pay. 524*. But according to your own statement, tho ultimate effect would not. be to maintain the dairy- herds if the price were not put permanently higher. Would these men simply because of de-control, and with prices returning to the same level, increase their dairy herds or stock producing dairy herds?- They would know where they are. You never know from one month to another now the price you have to expect. That is where the uncertainty in the business is caused. 5249. Then your point is that you would rather trust tho market than trust a controlled prico? — That is so. I am speaking rather personally that way. I do not say every farmer is of that opinion, but that is my own contention. 5250. But when you come to wheat cultivation, you are not prepared to trust the market ?--We are more subject to foreign competition in the grain prices. 5251. And you have not the same faith that you would be able to maintain your prices as you would in the milk trade? — That is so. J. But if you have faith that the prices are to be maintained in the milk trade, then that hardly squares with your idea that the price would come back to the present control price which is driving dairy fanners out of the business? — I think it is better from the country's point of view that wo should have a good supply of milk. I think milk is still one of the cheapest commodities on tho market ; and I think it is in the nation's interest that we should have a supply of milk even if it were at a rather increased cost. 5253. So that your reconsidered opinion is that the cost would be increased with de-control? — For a time. It is impossible to say what would be the effect in the future; but I think it would tend to dairy cows being kept rather than being sold out. It is an undoubted fact that there arc numbers of herds being disposed of. I know several in my district; I can speak of three that sent 300 gallons a day into Middlesbrough, which have already boen dis]x>sed of since the war. 5254. Then as to those dairy farmers who have given up milk production, what form of farming have they gone into? — Beef and mutton production. 5256. Am I right in assuming that the estimate* you have given here ns to the eost of cropping are on mixed farms in Cleveland? — I think so. 5256. With a large proportion of them in milk or meat production ?— ^ >•-. 5257. Can you give us any balance sheets for those fauns, showing the whole of tho farming operations; so that we may tell what the results are over the whole of the operations, and not with regard to any particular crops you have given?— No, I am not in a position to do that. In estimating the results of farming in your district, would you credit your milk production or your beof production with the farmyard manure at WK. a ton? Yes. That 10s. included carting on to ilie land. 10 26 Au9**i, 1919.] .:.\ll>M"N ON AGR1CULTI MB. ALBERT BOCKI .»-. [Continued. 6969. So that in considering theso estimates, we •re to take into account what thi- . UK i of producing ttu«o i rups i« upon tlii- oilier operations of tho farm, and take thu farm as a unit: Yes. O'JUO. Hut vou aro not prepared to gm- us any esti- mate an to what the result is, taking all the op. nit on., into account, so that »<• may judge <>f tlif whole . ; tho o|«'ratioi:. - I think that is quite ini|x>- •o much depends on seasons. If you get a wot wmt. r after the first crop, there is probulj very littlo residue loft. If you get a fine season, there is pretty good residue le'ft for the succeeding crop- 52»il. Could you give us any estimate then of the whole of the operations, in the same way as you inti niato for these particular crops. I moan, including the other operations on the farm so as to eliminate that particular difficulty you have, just ra<-. was • t. ne in thf w.i ; -i. ,i u < ;it»lil« teaMjiVK. and mile— V..H li.i\< the labour and " 6374. But my point is «hia. You seem to disfavour the control of the milk trade, and yet you oik for a guaranteed price?— I do not ask for a guaranteed price of milk. 6276. .No, Imt for corn. It would be natural for the farmers, in view of the guarantor! t<> put in a certain proportion of wheat < other corn which is guaranteed. That is my \» That i- .1 \.-iy dittictilt matter. There an- di which are suitable for wheat growing, and there are other districts which are. not at all MI ,<:il>lo for wheat growing. \V.< found that out during the I a mistake to allot any jiortion of any farm to wheat growing, and assume it is suitable or not suitable. 5270. Hurt assuming you have suit-.ihlo land, would you view with favour Government control, ami their saying, " In view of tho fact that the Govcrnnmit is going to guarantee you a price, you must cultivate such an area of wheat, or any other crop which u« guaranteed "?— We certainly should not like Wo have had too much of that sort of thing during the war. I do not think it is in tho interest of the country. 6277. You say that the re»t of your land is 30s. to 35s. on acre? — Yes. 6278. Assuming that the Government should adopt your suggestion of a guaranteed price of 70s. a quarter on the wheat, what effect would that have on the rent of the land? — I do not think, under present condition*. it would have, any effect at all. I think that is only just a barely paying price. lT'.*. Would not it have a tendency to steady the .. rent!' In view of the fact that tho farmer would know he would have a steady price, would not it naturally follow that the rent would be steadied in the same way:'— By "steadied," you do not mean inn ease. I. do you!' .VJMI. No, my question is, what effect it would have, if any? — I do not think it would have any real effect. It might steady the value of land a little. 5231. You say in your prtcis that dairy farming is the most arduous" of nil branches of farming !'- That is so, undoubtedly. .'. And you also said that many farmers are giving up selling milk? — Yes. 8. You also said that farmers are giving up butter making and going in for milk-selling? — That is because the milk price pays better than the butter price. That is why they are doing that. 5284. Therefore, possibly you produce the same quantity of milk in your district as you did pre- viously?— There is possibly as much going into the towns; but it is going out of the Dale- to a great extent. It is instead of their making butter and cheese; and I think that has a very injurious effect on stock rearing, because tho calves aro not being retained. 5285. I find from your figures that you grow about four quartern of wheat to the acre, and the same amount of oats. You said that your land is suitable for wheat and Oftta, and yet you have only four quarters of oats:' — Yes, after clo\ 5280. Do you think that is a satisfactory return in oata?- 1 cannot say il is perfectly so; but I think it is much above the average this year. '. Could you venture an opinion us to the capital of the farms- Have farmers in the pasl comm.iiid of -uflicient. capital to carry on their farms to the I. CM advaiitiiL'e!- Speaking pre-uar. I should ..-sihly there might be some who had not enough capital. V , :. | .are that areas of land art' being sold at the present moment in various parts of the count ; • What is the case in your A great ulity of land has been sold in our district, too. >| |,ro|Hirtion of that land been sold to the tenant farmer •• II. In view of the fact that you say son: them were under capitalised in prewar tiim--. what effect do NOM think the fact that ih. v ha\e to find their capital to buy the land and the capital to liandle their farms will have on their farmin- in the future? The man who is buying his farm now. is not the man short of capital before the war. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 11 26 August, 1919.] MR. ALBERT BUCKLE. [Continued. 5292. What becomes of those who were short of capital? — In many cases they are having to turn out when the farms have been sold over their heads. 5293. Is that the case? That there are farmers iu your district whose farms are sold over thoir heads? — Yes, undoubtedly. There; is one on the next farm to myself. 5294. Who failed to purchase his farm? — Yes. 5295. Did he try to do it? — I do not think so. 5296. Was it offered by public auction? — Yes. 5207. In the case of a farmer who does buy his land, has he any claim whatever for compensation under the Agricultural Holdings Act? — I should say he will against his landlord. It is a point I have not con- sidered ; but I think he ought to have. 5298. But does he? That is the point. I ask that question because it was asked at the last meeting of this Commission ; and the answer given was to the effect that he had. Assuming you buy your own farm now, you have, of course, improved it greatly. no doubt ? — I hope so ; but it is not for me to say. 5299. But assuming 'you buy your farm, do you say that you would have' a claim against the vendor of the farm for any compensation for the improve- ment you made? — 1 suppose it would be according to the conditions of sale, would not it? I mean, if the place was sold and I did not buy it, I should have a claim against the purchaser. 5300. That is the point. Therefore, if you bought your own farm, your claim would be against your, self? — It almost appears so. 5301. Mr. Green: Are yon in a position to give us a balance sheet of your farm? --No. I am afinid T cannot do that. ."(.Mi 12. Would any of the members of your Com tnitteo bo in a position to give us a balance sheet of their farms? — I do not think so. 5.303. You say that in spite of paying more than the minimum wage, most farmers have been making on an average about 30s. an acre? — I do not say they are now. I said that I did not think farmers'would make any profit this year, or very little. 5304. Would you agree that no guarantee was necessary to stimulate farmers to grow wheat on good laud? A farmer is piling to grow what suits his land best arid what is paying best. At the present time I think barley is the best paying crop. 53115. Do you think we could have any price high enough to stimulate farmers to grow wheat on poor land:- I think so. Poor land is only suitable for wheat growing either that or grass.' If it would not grow wheat, it would not grow anything. 5300. With reference to paragraph 2 of your precis, could not the small farmer in England imitate the small farmer in Ireland, and by en opcraf ion take every advantage of up-to-date machinery? — There are not very many really small farmers in our dis trict; and I think most of them have self-binders and so forth, up-to-date machinery. 530". With regard to the half-holiday, are you aware that one of the Hoard's investigators reported that the lack of the half-holiday was a hay seed in the shirt of the labourer? I do not follow that. 5308. I think he was very graphic; but it means the lack of the half holiday is the thing that has made the labourer very discontented in the past? I do not think so. 5309. With regard to dairying, have not the hours many cowmen have had to work, that is to sav, on 365 days a year, made their lives indistinguishable from servitude?— Certainly ; as 1 have already sai'l in my remarks, I think it is ono of the most arduous hranches of farming, whether it is carried on by the farmer and his family or by hired labour. 5310. Then unless yoir make the conditions fairly good for the cowmen, you are not likely to get many cowmen? That is so ; 'l quite agree. 5311. Then do not you think the half-holiday and shorter hours will make it easier for farmers to pro- duce milk than it has been in the past? — But who is to do the work when be lias his half-holiday? That is the difficulty. We quit.' approve of his having bis half-holiday; hut who is »o do the work? 5312. That will have to be divided amongst the rest, as von do it now? That means horses standing in many instances. 5313. With referenceo to paragraph 5 of your precis, is not dairy farming after all the safest and most profitable line of farming, (though perhaps the most exacting that the small farmer can undertake? — Of course, it depends now on the prices that are fixed We have had prices fixed which we contend are wholly inadequate to meet the costs of production in one or two cases; for instance, in the month of June this year. 5314. I put it to you, would not the small farmer prefer any day to rent a grass farm and keep a few cows, to occupying a market garden of similar capital value? Are not there less fluctuations in the market price of milk than ithat of vegetables and fruit? — It may be so. That depends on those who fix the prices of food. 5315. Perhaps it will surprise you to learn that I know of a dairy farmer with 100 acres, who last year confessed he had made £500 profit? — He was possibly doing all the work with his own family, and not pay- ing them the minimum wage. 5316. No. he kept several men. Do you agree with me that in districts where there is a heavy rainfall, dairy farmers would improve their economic condi- tion by farming on a system known as continuous crop- ping?— What do you mean by continuous cropping? Is that on arable land? 5317. Yes; where the rainfall is high, as in Ireland and on the West Coast of England. I do not know whether your rainfall is about the average? — Yes. it is about the average. 5318. Do not you think they would do letter with that system ? You see there are fodder crops for the co\\sr' — I know what you mean. That also means a lot more labour, and that is what we arc short of. 5319. Yes; but do not you think you would make more profit on the whole on the farm? — But if you cannot get the labour, you cannot get it done. 5320. Why do you object to the milking machine? Have you quite a modern one? Yes, I think so. I have the " A mo." The reason is this. To begin with, there are cows who do not- take to it, and will never their milk to it. and they very soon go dry. Then again we have had some very small breakages, and there is a difficulty in getting parts. I called on the company this morning, and asked them if they did not keep the parts. I wrote to them for one or two simple things, and it took me six weeks to get them. They said they did not keep them, and had to semi to Sweden for them. That is our difficulty. I know our neighbours who had milking machines had the same difficulty, although they were English makes. They cannot get the parts. 5321. Supposing a great many farms are going down to grass, a.s T believe you said they were, what are the farmers doing with their grass? -They are going in for stock raising. 5322. I do not quite understand your paragraph here on the vexed question of manure. I am sorry to have to stress the point again ; but in paragraph 9 you have C12 Is. Cd. as the cost of manure. Do vou charge tin' whole of the cost of that to potatoes? — No ; a third is charged to the succeeding crop. 5323. Under the cost of one acre of potatoes, the cost of the farmyard manure at 10s. is £10, and super- phosphates and sowing £1 3s. 6d.. and sulphate 18s., making £12 Is. 6d. Then I see you add on a third to the succeeding crop'of wheat. £4. That altogether makes £16 for the two crops, although after all vou have only expended £12. Is that not so? — No, T deducted the £4 for the potatoes. 5324. Yes ; but you have made a total charge of £16 on the two crops, whereas the total expenditure on manures is only £12?— I have not. £12 was manure applied to the potato crop. I only charged £8 to the potatoes and £4 to the succeeding crop. 5325. I thought you had charged £12 to the |K>tatoes ? — No. 5326. But you have added up those items to £40 4s. 3d.? Yes; but I put a note at the bottom that a third of the manure was to go to the succeeding crop. K-iY.M. ; i ui . MR. ALBERT BUCKUC. [Continue*. SSil. M>. I. M. llrndrrsun.l understand that you a tanner yourself P — That ia 80. 3328 1 think you cultivate 380 acres? — Yet. 6399. I unlit to get on the records with regard to accounts. You have kept nccounU of the results on your o»u farm from time to time, have you notP — 1 make a valuation every year, but I am afraid that during theae war yean I have not had time to keep •uch accurate account* as would satisfy an accountant. 5330. One would suppose that a person who was capable of making all these various calculations would be just the very man to keep accounts? — I do keep accounts. 5331. Can you say generally what has been the result of your farming, from those accounts, for the last three years P — I cannot give you the actual figures of the result of my farming, but out of the last three years the last year was certainly not so successful as the two previous ones. 5332. Can yon tell us on the average during the last three years what profit you madeP — I do not think I could off-hand. 6333. You have got the material, surely? — No, I have not got that. 5334. Would you be prepared to produce to the Chairman such accounts as you hare? — I am afraid I have no accounts with me with regard to my own particular farm. 5335. Could you get them? — Before I came I asked if I should be required to produce any balance sheet, and I was told no. 5336. It would be of great value to the Commission to get the results of an expert farmer. Can you produce them to us, and if you ran, will you? — I do not think I can do that. 5337. Is it that you cannot or that you will not P — I cannot; I have not got correct balance sheets. 5338. You have not got the material? — No. 5339. You speak of a 70s. guarantee. I suppose you are aware that several other experts who have given evidence before us have recommended :\ guarantee of 60s. ? — No, I was not aware of that. 5340. In your idea 60s. would be too little? — Yes. 5341. Have you made any estimate of what such a guarantee would cost the State for the year 1920? — No, I have not done that — so much would depend upon foreign import* and so on. 5342. You look upon it by way of an insurance, do you not? — Yes, that is so. 5343. That is to say, the farmer would be insured up to four quarters of wheat an acre at 70s. a quarter? — Yes. Of course, the four quarters is problematical; he might pet it. or he might not get it. 5844. I think the Corn Production Act says " four times," which means four times for each acre? — Yes. 5845. That means four quarter* P — Yes. 5346. Have you ever considered, or have your con- stituents considered, whether the farmers ought not to pay a premium for this infmrnnep? — T do not think that has been considered. 5347. Supposing it were put to thorn, " We will give you a guarantee of 70s., but on every quan.-r that you sell at a price beyond 70s. you shall pay a premium of inturanco of In. a quarter or 2s. a quarter frown." Doe* thnt iile:i shock yint rather in asking for this guarantee for wheat" is that the I will grow' barley if it pays him better; and if it is in the interests of the nation, if the nation wants us to grow wheat, I think they should give some guaranteed price. 5360. That is a political 'question which we need not go into. You spoke about a 30s. per acre profit, did you not? — Yes. 5361. Would I be right in saying that in addition to that 80s. the farmer has free quarters — a free house. That is included in the rent? — Yes. 5362. He gets his food for very little?— No, he does not. 5363. Most of his food. He gets milk and eggs and butter, and so on? — That would be charged to his household expenses and credited to his farm. 5364. Have yon charged it Inn:- I have not given any estimate of the household expenses. 5365. As a matter of fact that would account for a considerable amount, would it not? — Yes, but the farmer would have to live on the profit; we have not put down anything for household expenses. 5366. In addition to the 30s. an acre, be it right or wrong, he has free quarters which is charged in the rent of the farm? — Yes, a free house. 5367. And I think you mus,t admit a considerable portion of his produce he gets, if not free, at price, at any rate? — Yes. 5368. I suggest you should put it to your consti- tuents to consider this question of a premium on all guaranteed produce sold at a price over the minimum. Cli'tirman: I have no doubt he will report what you have asked him. 5369. Mr. Thomas Henderson: I think I heard you say you thought it better to grow wheat at 70s. than have a shortage of wheat?— ' 5370. You think by offering a guarantee of 70s. yon can insure the country against having a shortage? — That will depend to a very large extent on the price of cereals. If barley, as you say, is making 100s. a quarter and is likely to make it, I do not think a farmer is very likely to grow wheat on land that will grow barley. ,1.'!71. So that the 70s. would not have very much effect? — I think not if barley was making a very large price. .">.'i 7'J. Yon spoke of it being in the national interest. What national interest had you in your mind? — To ensure tho growing of grain. We know me position in which «o wen- in in this «>untry during the war owing to the shortage of cereals. 5373. That is what yon had in mind only to prevent shorbu "..'17 1 Mr. rriisxrr ./r/nc<: You lold us that theie was a great shortage of labour in your district? — That is so. ID any complaint to make against tho • •Micioncy of the labour y«u have? — No, I do not wish to mnke any complaint against the' labour. J)o von find the men as efficient as they ttiTe. say. in KIK)? I ihink. particularly ri'li -ih,- younger generation, those shorter hours have- a t«'tidenc\ to make them wish to he off at nights, and RO forth. .">.V7. That is what I wanted to get at, tho younger :iion seem to be n,t fnult in one fN ON A. .Kli I I.TI-HK. I •.'!•.•; MK. AI.BEKI HUM i « /• | Mi, under the present cost of production, would be 34». 6d. a ton?— I have not work.it it out, but it will be • lei ably more this year. 17. If you get half a normal crop thi« year— that :..n- 'tin- price will l»- double, and it will cost tore 6B«. a ton to produce P— Yes. 6488. RooU enter very largely int.. the cost of tin- production of milk P— That is BO. 5429. Assuming hay is a free market this winter ami root* cost this to produce it is obvious the cost of production of milk will be very heavy this winter? — Yes, this winter. 6430. You are a milk producer? — Yes. 5431. You do not anticipate much profit this pends upon the price you fix; I think it will bo very difficult to produce. 6432. Mr. Lennanl : I understand that your tables in your ovidence-in-chief are estimates for the present year? — Yes, to a great extent. 5433. I notice in Tables 5 and 10 you only allow •>0». a ton for wheat straw? — Yes. 5434. That is very low, is it notP— I think the selling price fixed is £3 per ton, is it not? Last year's straw was anyhow. 5435. I think it is more like £4 a ton? — Not wheat straw; it was £3 last year, and we took off 10s. for the inanurial value; we took it at consuming value. 5436. I know we had to pay £4 a ton for some wheat straw for thatching? — That is a particular job. I know I sold a good deal of wheat straw hist %. ."' to the Government. 5437. I am speaking of this year? — I do not know- that it is likely to sell at much more. 5436. It is being contracted for at £4 a ton. — Pos- sibly there is some cartage on it. 5439. If it is priced at £4 a ton that will bring down your cost of production of wheat after fallow and after potatoes in proportion? — Yea, but I contend that £4 is too much; as a price we cannot get £-1 for it. 5440. I think you said in answer to Mr. Rca that you considered that one-third of the cost of farmyard manure put on your wheat field after fallow should be charged to the succeeding crop? Yes. 6441. That would mean a deduction of about 33s., would it not? — Possibly. I have not worked out those figure*. 5442. This deduction for farmyard manure charged to the succeeding crops would reduce the (v- cultivating an acre from £!'> Os. 6d. *o £13 7s. 6d. in Table 6P_Yes. 5443. And it would bring down the cost per quaiter to £3 6s. lOJd.?— Yes. 6444. If you also make tho correction which I have huggpfctod for straw that would bring down the cost of a quarter of wheat after fallow to t'J 1 7s. <«!.. valu- ing the straw at £4 a ton. would it not? — Yes, but, a* I say, it ii» not worth £4 ; wo cannot get £4 for it. and, in fact, we are unable to get rid of what we s.ild 6445. Is that because of market conditions in your district or because the straw is of an inferior quality- the straw is of good quality, and we still have it standing. It was sold to tho Government a year ago nearly. Much of tho .straw sold lost year to the Government is still standing. 5446. Do you think you will have much difficulty in selling straw this year?— One does not know. 6447. We have heard that it is likely to be so; Yen. I think it will be scm 6448. I think you said that wages in your di • re higher than the legal minimm 6449. That means, dm« it not. that your labour oosjt* are higher than they are in districts whore ithe actual rato of wages in not higher than the minimum wag* P— That is so. 6460. So far as labour costs enter into your evidence they could not IK> applied without deductions to those other district*? I should think there are not many districts where they can got the labour at minimum rat** In nearly every case the farm labourer ni to get his house, milk and potatoes f 6461. How much higher than the minimum rate are the w«gn» in your district? I am giving a, cowman, for instance. 62«. a week with house and perquisite*. 5453. What is the. minimum wage?— 47s., but theie is tho houso and Ins milk ami |Mitat<**> aln.vo the 5*., M iliai n is reallv equal to COs. a week, whereas tho minimum wage is 17.-. rely aa tho minimum wage is Inner than the rat«« you are, paying, which L> the market rate, it practically moans that you are Inlying laboin market, does it not:- We can gi\e more, but wo can- not net it for less; that is what it amounts to. .". I-M. If the rate was removed you would not be able to gei them for less?— No, I do not think we should- not in our district. Did I understand you to say in answer to \l> It. -a that a guarantee of 70s. a quarter for wheat would leave tho farmer a profit? — Yes, I think it would leave him a profit at the pr.t-ont. time. . A guarantee of that figure would then be, more than a mere insurance against r.sk? — Yes, slightly. Supposing the alternative were put to you in the interests of cereal production whether you would rather have a guarantee of 60s. a quarter for four years or no guarantee at all, what would • ir opinion ? In any case if it were, a minimum guarantee you could not take any harm with it. .", l">-v Yoti think it would be an'odvantage from Uie national point of view P— Yes, but I do not think it would encourage the production. I think that tho 70s. figure would be more likely to encourage people to sow wheat. '.It would encourage more production than the 60s. ?— Yes. Mr. Nichotti: I should like to ask you whether you do really think it is a good national business to give n guarantee of 70s. a quarter for wheat to keep really poor hind under cereals? — There mav 1)0 certain classes of land that are not worth cultivating at any price — I moan land which would pay better under grass. 0. Have you got in your mind that the Govern- ment ought to pay on acreage and not on quarterage? No. I think it" would be better on quarterage; it would encourage a man to produce all the quarters he could. I think the acreage principle is wrong because a man who is drawing a low crop two quarters an acre — would get as much as the man who grows four quarters or six quart 5101. Does he not know that there is a large part of the land which is really hopeless for wheat growing, and that he could never hope to get more than two quarters from his land, try as he would? — There are districts where I have no doubt that is the case. 5462. That really would not induce a farmer to go in for growing wheat except on really good wheat- grow ing land?— My opinion is that whore you grow only two quarters to the acre the land is not worth cultivating. .'.. It seems to be in the mind of everybody who wants a guarantee that we ought really to give it to induce people to grow wheat on land that cannot ronlly produce four quarters to the acre, and I wanted to know what you thought about it. It seems to me absurd really to guarantee 70s. on four qrs. of wheat on land which nobody thinks will grow more than two quarters:- 1 do not think personallv such land as that is worth bothering with. Land that will only grow two quarters an acre ought, in my opinion, to be put down to grass. .".int. Did I understand you to say, in answer to Mr. Kdwnrds, that you do not fool that if tho Govern- ment or the nation did givo a guarantee in respect of wheat, growing, the tanners themselves would not he prepared to give the nation a guaranty that ili. \ wmld produoo a certain acreage of wheat? — I think that is rather problematical. 5465. It may seem unreasonable to some people, but it doc* sir ke me that if somebody \vcre to come along and o*k me to give him a guarantee* of so much per quarter for his wheat or for any nrtii •!<• he produced, if I were to give, him n guarantee I should have a right to say to him, " Now may I rely upon \ou pro- ducing th'fl article up to a certain' quantity or a certain .•>< I o:>go " :- -Ye». What do the farmers really think about that? must have got in their minds when they held their meetings, must they not. that if the nation ig going to give a guarantee on the one side the farmers MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 15 26 Auguit, 1919.] MR. ALBERT BUCKLB. [Continued. must also give a guarantee on the other side not ouly to my mind with regard to acreage but also with regard to wages. It does not seem to be unreason- able to say to a farmer : " If I give you the guarantee that you are asking for, of BO much on your wheat, you should produce the acreage I want, and you should also show me that you have spent so much in wages on that acreage." How does that strike you? — I think it would depend to a great extent upon what price other cereals were making. A farmer is going to grow what pays him best even if he has the guarantee. If we get the guarantee of 70s. a quarter for wheat we should still not get the acreage if barley is making anything like (Xte. or 100s.; they will hold it back for barley. 5467. Then the assumption is that if the guarantee is given we shall not get the guarantee of the wheat ? — Not unless it is sufficiently high. 5468. I think I am right in suggesting that you believe, with the exception of milk, in all agricul- tural commodities being guaranteed. I think that is the suggestion in your precis? — Yes. 5469. Do you not think that if farmers, instead of going in for wheat or cereal growing, were to turn, as you suggest, to producing beef, and they were all putting beef on the market, there would soon be a glut of it?— Yes. 5470. In that event, is there not a chance that these farmers would then conic along and say, " We want a guarantee on beef, or else we shall turn round to cereal growing instead of beef producing " ? — What I said was that they would produce beef in preference to milk. 5471. Under present conditions? — Yes. 547IA. Mr. Parker : You represent the Cleveland Chamber of Agriculture? — Yes. 5472. Has the land in Cleveland district become foul during the war through want of labour and manure? — Yes, there is no doubt that a lot of it has. 5473. Do you anticipate a yield of four quarters an acre before the land is brought back to its pre-war fertility:' — No, I think that at the present time that is above the average of this harvest. I do not think it will yield four quarters to the acre this harvest. 5474. Until the land is perfectly clean and brought back to its previous state of fertility, you do not think that four quarters an acre will be the yield? — No, I do not. 5475. I think you said to one member of the Com- mission that you allowed nothing in your schedule of the cost of production for interest on the farmer's capital ? — No. 5476. Would you mind tolling me what amount of capital per acre is employed in your district generally ? Chairman : He has answered that — £20 an acre. 5477. Mr. Smith : £20 an acre would be more capital than was necessary in pre-war times, would it not? — Undoubtedly. 5478. What proportion would it be — douhle? — Yes, I should think it is about double. 5479. Do you- think the farmers to-day are handi- capped by the absence of capital? — I should not think so. 5480. You think that they have got enough capital for their farms? — I should say so, on the whole. 5481. Do -we understand that your farm is 380 acres?— Yes. 5482. How long have you had the farm? — Twelve years. 5483. I think you stated that the farmer will want some guarantee in regard to the future in order to give him confidence? — That is so. 5484. You also stated that the farmers had been buying their own farms?— Yes, some of them. 6485. At fairly good prices, I think? — Yes. 5486. Do you not think that the two positions are somewhat contradictory — that the farmer by pur- chasing his farm is showing a confidence in the future which does not suggest the necessity of a guarantee? — Yes, perhaps that is so to a certain extent. I do not know whether it is justified or not. I think 2532'.! that many of them who have purchased their farms may iind themselves in a worse position than they were as tenants. 5487. Still we must give these people credit for knowing their own business? — You asked my opinion, and that is my opinion. 5438. Farmers are practical men, are they not? — I should hope so. 5489. Most of them of lifelong experience? — Yes. 5490. And therefore capable of judging how far they are justified in purchasing their own farms. Does not that suggest a great confidence in the future on their part? — One strong point is that they naturally do not like being turned out of their holdings. Many of them are worse off I know than they were as tenant farmers. They have purchased their farms, and pos- sibly borrowed a proportion of their capital, and they are actually having to pay as much in the shape of interest as they had to pay in rent previously. 5491. Do you state that they have borrowed capital to purchase their farms? — In many cases no doubt. 5492. Does not that show greater confidence still than if they had purchased them with their own money? — I suppose in many cases they would be actually paying more rent now than they were before. 5493. A man working on borrowed capital is work- ing in a worse position than the man who is working on his own capital ? — I mean those who had borrowed u proportion of the purchase money, I do not say «11 of it; I do not think they would be so foolish as to borrow the whole of it. 5494. In the case of men who have bought their farms with their own money that would suggest that the industry had been prosperous up to this time, would it not? — Yes, you would naturally conclude so. With regard to this question of security of tenure, if a man has his own farm he knows that he can do as he likes with it, whereas as a tenant he never knows when he is 'going to be turned out or whether he is going to get the benefit of h:s own improvements. As an owner he knows he will get the benefit of his improvements. I would buy my own farm or any other farm to-day even if I could only get 4 per cent, interest on my money just to get the security of my tenure and the value of my improvements. .".I'.i'i. M-iy I take it you are in favour of security of tenure for the farmer? — Yes, certainly. 5496. And that that would result in better farming? — I think so, undoubtedly. 5497. Would you agree that the profits of the agri- cultural industry in the last four years have been high? — They have been higher than usual, I am quite prepared to admit that, but as compared with other businesses not so high. We have made hundreds where other people have probably made thousands. 5498. You are thinking of shipping now, are you not a -Yes. 5499. Do you suggest that these figures you have submitted to us are actual costs — or are . they estimates? — They are estimates. 5500. Therefore, it does not follow that they are exact? — No, they might vary a trifle, hut they are an honest attempt to arrive at the truth. 5501. Do you not think if the public are to he asked to give a guarantee so far as prices are concerned which might increase tho cost of food that they will want some definite information as to the condition of the industry before they can sanction a proposal of that description? — The present guarantee would not in- crease the cost of food. 5502. It would as compared to pre-war times — it would be a new departure in otir national life, would it, not? — Yes. 5503. Do you not agree that the only real test as to the actual cost is the annual profit and loss balance sheet of a farm? — T admit that is the only real test because it is most difficult to arrive at the actual cost even with the best of accounts of any particular crop. T mean it is most difficult to arrive at the profit on a crop of wheat or a crop of potatoes, be- cause you have so many broken days of work from which there is no return, and you have also hedging and ditching and road-making, and so forth, to take into consideration, so that the real test is tho balance sheet of the whole. B 16 ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTt UK. 86 Auyut, 1919.] MR. ALIIIKT BDCKLR. [Conlunted. 6004. Assuming all thov» cvwt* hare to be addod to the figures you hare le to double their capital, and in many coses to buy their farms at a high price. That is evidence, is it not, that they must have made more than the nominal amount which you suggest here and which would be reduced if the cost of hedging and ditching and road-making nnd all the other costs are added to it? — The hedging and ditching arc not very serious items. •V.ll. Still they all count up?-1! ."•."ill1. Do you not think it is possible for your Asso- n to help us in respect to supplying us with some balance sheets as to actual figures and costs, and so on, so that we can get both sides? — I can ask them, if you like. 1. I would like to suggest to you that the absence of any real information will make it difficult for the nation to be persuaded of the necessity of giving guarantees? — Yes. 6514. Do you know of any difficulty that is special to the industry which might be worthy of considera- tion— from the point of view of organisation or administration apart from the question of prices? — I think the question of security of tenure is one of the chief difficulties. I think that the farmer ought to have greater security of tenure than he has at present, because as things ore I do not consider that he gpts the full benefit of what he has put into the land when he leaves his farm. I know an old valuer who once said that a man can go on to a farm and form it well for three years and can get as much com- pensation when ho leaves as a roan who has farmed hi* farm well for 30 years. Thnt must be wrong. If a farmer has improved the letting value of his farm by lOt. an aero, as many farmers have done, surely entitled (,, compensation for that, whereas he gets turned out for some reason or another, and the .nip, -nsation he gets is the manurial value for the previous three years. that the lack of trans- port ),.i< a be-iring ujion it?- Yes, I think that mu. h ought to Ix. done in that respect, collecting and d. livering milk, and so forth. Ml 6. If a Ivettcr system of transport o\-olvcd out of this new legislation as to ways and communications that would !>•• helpful to the. industry- I'ndoul.i •••.i any idea as to what proportion i,t farmers suggeiit^l Schedule f) for the purpose- of In come Tax a* against Schedule H - I do nob know of any ra..-, m our district, The question of Income Tax is on.- thing I would like, to say a few words upon. I know it will be suggested that 'the farmer has the same opportunity as other business people of pre- senting their accounts, but many farmers have neither he ability to keep accounts which would satisfy a Surveyor of Income Tax. and I think to be assessed at the present time at double our rent for Income Tax is very unfair. 5518. You think that double the rent is not a fair basis?— I do. 6519. Will it surprise you to know that farmers have stated that rather than have to pay on their profits they would sooner continue that method;' — There may be some who think so, but I am certain that is not the- general opinion in our district. 5520. Would it be true to say that there is about 1 per cent, of farmers paying on profits and that the others are paying on double the rent? — It may be so, but it is because of the very fact that they have not got books to present. 5521. You would not suggest if those happen to be the proportions that that is the proportion of farnu rs who fail to keep books or accounts:' — I do not know. There are very few farmers that I know who keep books that would satisfy a Surveyor of Income Tax. 5522. In regard to wages, your industry is rather restricted by the minimum wage that has "been fixed!' — No, we do not object so much to the wage, as to the hours. I wish that to be clearly understood. 552.3. You are not really seriously disturbed by the minimum wage, are you, because you are paying a)M)\-e it? — No, we do not object to the minimum i. Mr. Walker: In reply to a previous question you stated that you were paying your men of special I . a week with house and perquisites? — Yes. 5525. Would you state what those perquisites arc? — Free house, a pint of milk a day, with potatoes, what they may require. 5526. Nothing else? — No; I believe in some cases they get coals. 5527. They do not pay 3s. a week for their rent? —No. 5528. So that the 52s. is a cash wage?— Yee. 5529. They draw that every week?— Yes — that is in the case of the cowman; he is the highest paid man. 6530. What do you pay your labourers? — I have a horseman at 42s., with free house and milk and potatoes, the same as the cowman, but he is not a very first-rate man. 5531. You have not thought it right to apply for a permit if he is not a first-rate man? — He cannot stack and thatch, and that sort of thing, but he is quite capable of doing a day's work. 5532. Anyhow, the 52s. is a cash wage?— That is so. 6533. You admit that these figures here are esti- mates?—Yes. 5534. Do you not think, in regard to the 70s. guarantee which you mention in paragraph 1, that tin- first essential is to know the normal cost of pro- duction?— I 'do not think that we are quite living in normal times yet. .V>:i.r>. Take the average cost of production ?— Th at is what we have attempted to arrive at. 5536. That is how you reach your 70s. P— Yos, if onr average cost of production did not come to so much as 70s. we are still asking for that just to leave us a small profit. .rir>.'!7. Which varies, of course, on the estimates you submit? — That is so. In paragraph t? you refer t" the farmers suffer- ing from a shoring- of lnl.our, and that they cannot ;re( tlie Iii-s| out of their land, the larger fanner position than the smaller one, • in take advantage of up-to-dato maehiiieryP — Yes. • 11 thought of any method I,y which the small inati might he helped wherel.y he MX the use of up-to-date machinery? — Small fields are la for tractors and that kind of machinery. I :nn not dealing so much with small fields I am with Hmall fnrmers? —Small farmers, as a rule, have small fields. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 17 26 August, 19(9.] MB. ALBERT BUCKLE. [Continued. 5541. You have thought of nothing whereby he can be assisted on co-operative lines, say? — It is possible that something might be done on those lines, but, as I think I said some time ago, the average of 80 farms which I surveyed was about 150 acres. I think that man is quite capable of getting all the implements for carrying on his holding. 5542. Yes, but you state here that the larger farmer is in a better position than the small one, as he can take advantage of up-to-date machinery? — That is so. 5543. The men you have been referring to up to now have been able to get on quite all right ? — There are a few small holdings that have been created in our district, and I think those men are at a great disadvantage. 5544. Do you not think there is some value in the suggestion with regard to co-operation? — Un- doubtedly. 5545. With regard to this labour question, would you be surprised to know that there are some r.\|>erienced men in the industry who arp out of em- ployment at this very moment in certain districts? — I ran only say if they will come up to Cleveland they will soon find employment if they want it. 5546. Sir William Ashley : Will you kindly tell us a little bit about the industrial situation? I suppose Middlesbrough has a great power of attraction upon the labour in your district? — That is so, and other industrial centres also. There are mines all round Cleveland, as you know. 5547. Yes, quite so. I suppose your labourers usu- ally live in villages? — No, mostly on the farms. 5548. What is there in the way of recreation for an adult agricultural labourer in your district? — I do not think there is very much ; they do get a lirttlo cricket perhaps on a Saturday afternoon, but that is about the extent of it. ;:). What are tho prospects of a hard-working and able labourer? Can he look forward to becoming a bailiff? — I certainly do think so, and many have done so. 5550. In your neighbourhood? — Yes, and particu- larly the young men who are getting, theso high wages and who are boarding in. They have every oppor- tunity of saving a great deal of money and might very soon become small holders. 5551. There are small holdings for them to obtain in your neighbourhood? — Yes — I do not mean that they are vacant to-day, but there are many farm labourers who have risen and got on to small holdings and eventually on to farms. 5562. You have been examined a good deal with regard to the confidence which a farmer may be sup- posed to feel. I suppose you wish us to understand that, although farmers are confident in regard to the prospects of agriculture generally, they are not con- fident in regard to the prospects of wheat growing? — No, I do not think they are over -confident. We never know what is going to be dumped into this country from abroad, and unless we have a guarantee the price might drop very low. 5553. Chairman: We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Buckle, for the evidence you have given us? — If you will allow me, I should like to say there is a very strong feeling in our district that this Daylight Sav- ing Bill is detrimental to the interests not only of farmers, but of the farm labourers. In hay time, and harvest particularly, with the dews in the mornings, now that the hours are fixed we are losing that hour altogether. I also think it is detrimental to the health of the rising generation — the children. They do not get to bed until it is dark — half past ten or eleven. Young boys particularly who have to be at work next morning on the farm do not get to bed until 11 o'clock at night, and they are expected to bo at their place next morning at half past five. When they come to their work they are tired out. and I think the Daylight Saving 'Bill is a great disad- vantage in the case of the agricultural industry. (The Witness withdrew.) Mr. R. C. BOURNE, called and examined. 5554. Chairman: You have put in a statement of tho evidence you propose to give to the Commission:' —Yes. o5.>>. May we take it 'as read? — Certainly. (Evidence-in-chief hmn/i/l in >>i/ Witness.) 5556. (1) I regret that I cannot give accurate evi- dence as to pre-war costs, as I was not keeping the farm account^. :it that period and the accounts were not analysed at this period. Fourteen horses were kept, and 11 men were employed. Hours worked, 63 per week and wages approximately 18s. ").")". (2) A tractor was purchased in 1917 and two teams were sold, thus reducing the horses to eight. Hours the same, and wages raised to 25s. 5558. (3) In 1918 hours were reduced to 56 per week in tiiintner and 48 per week in winter. \V,t<;<". wen- raised to 31s. One tractor and eight horses employed, the latter as two teams and two spare. Average overtime worked per week was 22 hours at lOd. per hour. This overtime was worked chiefly by the wag- goners and the two men employed with the tractor. Those four men averaged four hours overtime each per week, leaving six hours overtime to be distributed amongst the remaining seven men. The stock men and shepherd worked very little overtime, and con- sequently received very slight increase in wages in this respect. The ordinary labourer received lOd. per week (average) and the waggoners and men em- jil'i.vcd with the tractor 3s. 4d. overtime per week on the average. If the rise in wages is considered from the point of vii-w of the individual labourer it will be seen that the waggoner's wage had increased by 16s. 4d. per I'tagi- increase 90-7 per cent.), whilst that of the ordinary labourer had only increased by 13s. lOd. per week (percentage increase 77-3 per cent.). MM 50. (4) In 1919 wages were again raised to 36s. 6d. per week and hours shortened to 54 hours. This has necessitated the employment of another man, and what is still more important, of another team. A team in my part of Herefordshire is three horses, and at present prices the price of a team is approximately £200 per annum, made up as follows: — £ s. d. Interest on cost of horses (£300) at 5 per cent. ... ... ... ... 15 0 0 Depreciation on basis of 15 years ... 20 0 0 Cost of food, &c., at 2s. 4d. per horse per day 158 10 0 Small expenses, drugs, &<•., say ... 6 10 0 £200 0 0 Or £66 13s. 4d. per horse per annum. In arranging for another team only two more horses have been required, thus the number at present em- ployed is three teams of three horses each=9 horses and 1 spare horse, or 10 horses in all, but this in- crease in the number of horses adds £133 6s. 8d. to the annual cost of production. 5560. (5) With the extra team and man employed the amount of overtime worked is negligible. The present figures are : — 3 waggoners. 1 stockman. 1 shepherd. 2 men with tractor. 5 general labourers Total 12 Theso 12 men working 54 hours each per weok give a total of 648 hours work per week, which with 10 horses working enables tho farm to be kept in a proper state of cultivation. B 9 li.'YAI. COMMISSION ON AORICULTDBE. 1919.] Ml: K r BOI RN1 [Continued. 1. (6) If the hours are shortened to M |N i man per week (here will be a km of 48 hours fur the 1- n..-i. employed. In M> far M the teams are concerned, this estimated shortage (12 hours per week) can be made up by working overtime. Assuming; that the iwtim.it. of cite working hours per week given in my let to to the " Times," of August 15th, is the minimum which ia required to keep this particular farm in a state of fertility, there w ill bo a difference of 20 hours per week to be made up. Of thcbc hours. probably eight will be worked by tlio mrn who ar>- t in I 'with tlu> tractor, having IS hours overtime to bo <1 i I'Lxl amongst seven remaining men. This will probably work out at three hours per week for the ordinary labourer and throe hours per week divided between the stockman and shepherd. If this forecast is correct, the waggoners and tractor drivers will receive 40s. 6d. |x>t •*. an increase since 1914 of 32s. 6d. (125 per cent.) whilst the ordinary labourer will receive a weekly wage of 39s. 6d., increase 21s. Cd. (119 per cent.l. In my opinion this tendency for certain individuals to obtain a higher rate of weekly wages, in addition to definite p/.y meiits in n-spn t of their special duties, is not likely to arrest tho feeing of discontent with existing conditions. .'. (7) Moreover tho rise of wages is not propor- tionate to the rise in the wage cost, e.g. : — £, ». d. Wages of 11 men at 1SK. per week ... 9 18 0 Wages of 12 men at 36s. (id. per week 30 18 0 Increase, £12. Percentage increase, 121-2. The present increase in wages is 100 per rent. If the hours are further shortened the cost of wages will be: — £ .1. d Wages of 12 men nt 36s. 6d. per week 21 1 38 hours overtime at K. per hour ... 1 18 0 23 16 0 Increase since 191 1, £13 !«•». Percentage increase, 140 per rent. In the meantime tho rise of wages in the highest p»id class — viz., waggoners, is only l'2-~> per rent, ami in the case of the general laourer 119 per rent. It is obvious if the value of agricultural produce is to bear a relationship to tho cost of produ that with a further shortening of hours the price of wheat must rise and if the rise is in proportion to the increased coat of production, this rise in price of wheat must inevitably be greater than any rise in wages and thus the purchasing power of the labourer it lessened. 5563. (8) The cost of keeping one Hereford cow is £12 per annum in 1918. Of this amount, £10 repre- sent* food and C2 wage*. vet.. A-c. In the case I am dealing with practically all the food is grown on the farm itm'lf £•'! represents rent and rates on tho pastures, ami the remaining L'7 is for food grown on the farm. Of thin amount, about £5 10s. is paid in wages, the remaining 30s. being for rent, manures, Ac. llenre it follows that an increase in the cost of laUmr must ha\e a \ery marked elfeet on the cost of in. -at. The \alue of a Hereford i-alf when weaned is between il- to £lo, a sum which does, not allow much margin for profit, when the value of th. and the risk of loss is taken into account. A further increase of 1M percent, in labour costs will in. the cost of keeping a cow from £12 to £!•'! H>s. per annum, and this will leave a very small margin of profit for stock breeders, so small, in fact, as to endanger the future of the industry. iN It In tho above calculation no allowai,- made for the cost of fattening beasts for the Imteher. This requires purchased foods, and the cost per animal per annum is much higher than i'l'J. this figure being the cost of keeping a breeding cow in 5564. (9) I hope to be able to lay figures before the Commission showing the cost of production of certain crops, but unfortunately certain account 1-ooks have not arrived by- post, and I am not in a position to include these figures in my Statement of Kvidence. 1 attach a ropy of my letter of August 1-th to " The Times " for information, and have marked the part which I wish to put in as evidence. (10) Kj-trnrt from LHIi r to " Tlir Timrs" of 12-f/i August. " The hooks of the farm (a large mixed farm in II, •icfordshiro of 440 acres, one-third lieing arable, with 20 statute acres of hops in addition) have been examined carefully, and it appears from these that prior to 1918 overtime payments were very excep- tional, save during harvest and haymaking? In l!i|s. with the additional tillage required owing to the war, 11 men were employed, and the average overtime worked slightly exceeded two hours per man per week, except during harvest and hay- making, when this amount was largely exceeded. In this year, owinj; to the further reduction of hours, another hand is employed, and overtime again becomes the exception, save in the two instances above mentioned. From these considerations I have been led to believe that, provided the men do a fair day's work, 63S working hours per week are required to maintain the farm in a state of full productivity. " This belief is confirmed by the fact that in 1!>1H. when 11 men were employed for ."><> hours each per week (total filC hours), '_>•_> hours' overtime were required to cope with the work; but in 191!). when 1'J men are employe;! for VI hours each (total i>IS hours), no overtime is required. Before the war the long hours worked undoubtedly led to a diminished output per man per hour, and all subsequent figures are based on the standard of 63S etlieient working hours per week heinc necessary for this particular farm. " Tables are uiveti showing tho cost of labour per hour, the percentage increase in wa^es and labour nee 1MU. and also the increase in the price of wheat. Year. Wages INT week. Hours worked per week. Cost per hour in pence. Corrected for C38 hour. (H-nce. Per cent increase. AVages. Cost. Wheat. 1914 18/. 68 8-6 3-72 __ __ _ 1 '.i 1 ."» _ — — — 51-8 I'.ur, _ _. — — — — (;-•:>, 1917 23/- 68 4-7(1 r. • :>,:, 39- 43-82 110-2 1'JIH 1 '!/«! M C-41 (1-70 81-4H Kl-7^ 116-2 1919 M H-1I 8-11 100- 118- 116-2 1920 1/61 ( 3/2 J 50 8-44 8-81 120 -:!7 140- llH-2 •1920 36/c 60 8- 7 «• 7 100- 186-66 116-2 If one extra hand is einpl- ni|«-ns:ite for the shorter hours MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 19 26 August, 1919.] MR. E. C. BOURNE. [Continued. " From these tables it will be seen that oil the first rise of wages the percentage increase iu labour cost slightly exceeds that iu wages. This is due to the hours worked before the war being uiieconoini- cally long. In 1918, wheii wages were raised and hours shortened, the percentage increase iu labour cost slightly exceeds the percentage rise in wages, but in this case two hours' overtime at lOd. per hour have been added to the labourer's wage. In 1919, when the recent change took place, the increase in the labour cost exceeds the rise of wages by 18 per cent. If the proposed shortening of hours takes place in 1920, the increase in labour cost will exceed the increase in wages by 19-63 per cent., even though an addition of three hours' overtime at Is. per hour has been made to the labourer's wage to enable the total of 638 hours' \york per week to be performed by 12 men. If another man is employed instead of working overtime, the increase iu labour cost over the rise of \\ages is 36-56 per cent. " It may be noted as a matter of interest that the percentage increase in labour costs is at present practically the same as the percentage rise in the value of wheat, but that if the proposed change of hours be carried into effect the increase in labour cost will exceed the rise in value of wheat by 20-22 per cent. " It is impossible to accelerate the rate of agricul- tural operations, as these are largely governed by the working pace of the horses, neither is it possible in most cases to obtain additional labour owing to shortage of cottages." [This concludes the evidence-in~rhief.] 'I'lt'^i. Chni rum it : May I ask for whom you appear, and what is your interest in connection with agricul- ture?— My interest really is that of having been con- nected with farming for many years and intending to take up farming myself. 5566. Do you represent any body of any sort? — No, I u in perfectly independent. 5567. You are not a farmer? — Not at present. 5568. What experience have you had at all in agri- culture?— My experience has been partly limited to working for the Government during the war partly in Kngland and partly in France, and since I have been demobilised managing my father's farm at home in Herefordshire. 5569. In what respect have you been working for the Government? — In assessing the damage i-au^c;! to the French crops by manoeuvres of our troops. •>. So far as your duties and interest in agricul- ture are concerned what were you doing? — I was assessing tho compensation to be paid to various farmers because of interference with their agricul- tural operations through the military operations. 5671. What experience had you to enable you to come to a correct judgment upon those matters? — In Kngland I was working at Headquarters command. We got assessments sent up to us by people on the spot, and we compared them carefully with other assess- ments made by other people in different parts of Eng- land and with what we knew to be the selling value of the crops, and the rental values, and the Government instructions on the subject. We compared them very carefully. • It was not practical work, I admit, but wo considered them carefully and came to a conclu- sion as to whether we thought the claim was reasonable or not. 6572. You had no practical knowledge to enable you to do that? — No, not with regard to that, but in France, of course, it was practical work. .Vi7.'l. Von said you have been managing your father's farm? — Yes. 6574. How long have you managed his farm? — Since I was demobilised in 1917. •"..'.7.',. So that you have had a year or eighteen months of practical experience of managing your father's farm? Yes. •Vi7(i. Docs that experience enable you to write this memorandum which you have sent in? — Yes, from the account lx«ik«. •Vi77. You have had siir-h access to the account books of your father's farm as has enabled you to prepare these statements with which you have supplied us?— MM 5578. Mr. timith : Could you tell us the acreage of the farm? — Approximately 440 acres. 5579. How much is arable? — About 150 acres arable and 12 acres of hops. I made a mistake in the letter to The Times in which I said there were 20 statute acres of hops; it is 12 acres of hops. 5580. The remainder is pasture? — Yes. 5581. In paragraph 4 you give some figures regard- ing horses. Do you think the charges you set out there is a fair charge to make for depreciation? — Fifteen years? 5582. Yes?— Yes. 5583. Do you breed any horses on the farm ? — Yes. 5584. Are there not young horses always coming in as well as old horses that are passing out, and do you make any allowance for some to be appreciating while others are depreciating? — I think that is a question which crops up if you are breeding horses for the pur- pose of sale. If you are breeding them purely for working purposes, as one horse dies a young horse comes in to replace it, and their depreciation must be taken as the length of their working life. 5585. If the numbers are equal at the end of a certain period the position would remain without any depreciation having had to be taken into account? — No, because you have to feed the young horse for three or four years before it conies up to working value, and to that extent you have depreciation to take into account. 5586. Yes, but taking the early part of his working \ears the horse would appreciate and not depreciate? • — Unless you are breeding horses to sell, I think that is purely a paper transaction. It appreciates and depreciates, but you do not get any more money for the appreciation or lose anything in respect of the depreciation. What you have to do is to replace the working horse to keep up your teams. 5587. Have you formed any opinion as to what the relationship of the State should be to the industry in future? — No, I cannot say that I have considered that from a political point of view at all. 5588. You have not considered the question as to whether the industry requires anything in the way of a guarantee from the State? — I think that is a matter which depends on a bigger political question than I can give you any opinion upon — as to whether it is desirable that we should try to be self-support- ing in respect of food as far as we can possibly "Be. If we are to do that I think some form of guarantee would be necessary, but that is a big political ques- tion and one which as a private individual I do not think it necessary to take into account. It is a question which deals with foreign politics and other matters which are beyond my knowledge. 5589. Can we take it in the absence of any de- clared policy in that respect that your opinion would be that there is no need for a guarantee? — I think that if you were to leave the farming altogether alone people probably would make profits out of it and con- tinue farming for their own benefit, but whether that method of doing it is one in the greatest interest of the nation is another question. It is probably better for the nation if you have much land under arable and so employ a great deal of labour, but I think people will manage to exist at farming whether you give a guarantee or whether you do not. The question of policy seems to me a rather difficult one and governed by other considerations. 5590. In connection with your father's farm have there been any balance sheets kept? — Yes, accurate balance sheets — fairly accurate. 5591. Would it be possible for that information to be given to the Commission? — That is a matter with regard to which I must get my father's consent. I could not give that information without asking him. 5592. Mr. Parker : In paragraph 4 of your evi- dence-in-chief you say that the shortening of the hours of labour to 54 has necessitated the employment of another man and, what is still more important, of another team ? — Yes. 5593. Supposing the hours were reduced from 54 to 50 what would that mean in men and teams? — I do not think that it would affect the question of teams, B 3 HOVAL COMMISSION OS AGRICri.TI UK. 1919.] MR. K. 0. HOUIINE. but it would mean most probably working a great d«al of orcrtimo or baring another man — most prob- ably working overtime. With the present number of hone* wo hare got it cornea somewhere between employing about a quarter of a team additional. ^ cannot put on a quarter of a tram, iind therefore it moan* working overtime. 6084. The question of hours is a much roor. portant one than the question of the minimum wage, is it notP — Yet. I am personally of opinion that tho hours are far more vitally important than the rate of wages. 5596. You say in paragraph 7 that the rise of wages i* not proportionate to tho rise in the wage cost. C.mld you elucidate that a little?— What I think is this: If your wages rise and you have got to employ another man the total amount you spend in wages is greater, but if the amount is being divided between I1.' moil instead of 11, as it was before, the individual does not receive such a high amount of your cost of production measured in wages as he did when there were only 11 men to divide it amongst. I have ascer- tained from some further figures I have got that the cost of wages in production is roughly 40 per cent, per man. If you divide it among 12 men you only •33 per cent, per man of your total cost of pro- duction. Therefore if your cost of production is raised by tho raising of wages the individual is not bMMftted to the same extent as the rise in the cost of production though the aggregate has risen by the same amount. 6596. What axe you arguing— that the lessening of hours and tho increase in the number of men is not lor tho benefit of labour?— What I am arguing is that if you curtail the number of hours worked and if a man works a lesser number of hours than what is a reasonable maximum ho loses individually over it although labour as a whole may gain a bigger •Rgregate sum, and his individual purchasing power is lessened and he correspondingly suffers. 5597. In your opinion, therefore, ;t would be better for labour to have a fewer number of men because they would get better wnges individually?— That seems to me entirely a question for labour to decide for itself, <,nly I think that the question should be put to them perfectly honestly. You need not ^•wtarily employ fewer men. If you havo more irable land you w:ll employ more, men, but if you have to bring in extra labour to do the same amount of work then the lalwurer suffers individually, but if you can get more work for tho extra labour then labour scores. 6598 In paragraph 9 you say you hope to be able to lay before the Commission (inures .showing the cost of production of certain crojw. Havo you cot those » th you? I have them in draft. I should liko to |.ut thetn in to bo circulated later. Mr Mcholti: I only wanted to ask your own opinion with regard to this shortening of hours. You are a young man? — Yes. 5600 !>.. you not really think that the timo had •iv... 1 when it was absolutely necessary that tho hours of workers should I,. sfcoitCMdr' l" think that ...I hours were too |o,,t; „„,) ,|,.lt t|1(1 .shortenin,' •cially giving a weekly half holiday bad boon of immen-e benefit. Imt i, you shorten the ' talOT that J do not think it w: IM food has to be produce! the work has got to ud it ha« got to bo don,- when you can and not when you would liko to do it.' There- -tm bourn are verv important „ ]„.„ ,. •••ing ah.-.d. One cannot II,,.,,, • plough and it do-s in, i nutter whether they are ploughed on the 1st January or on 'ber." It matters yery much ' If the is not put in you do n<(t get ,),„ (,.„ dtiiro i. ,,IFc, (.,] ,,i..re j,, ,|ll|t ,v |V than 11 the c,i"i« in nny other ii,i|ii • only |>oint in my' mind is that wo writ V> nttrru t labour to the land nnd ko.-p the boat tvne in touch with u - y,nt, 6602. Do you really think that ran be done under tl Id conditions!'— It depend-, 1 think, II|M>II what you mean by tho old conditions. 5603. The old conditions of hours and wag<*?— The wages have certainly doubled since the war, nnd 1 do not think at present prices the wages are to high. 1 think that tho hours, 50 a week, are not too ! five days of In hours and one day of six hours, gi\ m j the people- a half holiday and not yery much overtime. It is a Kmgish day, Imt at the same time a good deal of it is spent in getting about from place to place, and the work is not so complicated or so dull as it is in a factory. 6604. Mr. Lennard: You say it is impossible to accelerate the rate of agricultural operations because these are largely governed by the pace of the horses P —Yes. 6605. I fully appreciate that, but is not the quality of the horses on many farms capable of great improvement? — I should think that is quite likely. 5606. You speak of using a tractor. I should like to know what your experience of tractor cultivation suggests. Has a tractor accelerated the rate of agricultural operations at all? — Unfortunately in our case the soil is clay, and if you put the tractor on to the soil when it is wet it usually puddles it, and the effect is disastrous. When you can use her under certain conditions, when the soil is not too wet, she is very beneficial, but she is always very uncertain. 5607. Y'our experience with the tractor has not been very good? — Where she is useful is for harrow- ing and for rolling on grass land. She is better than horses then, but you have to use her with great discretion on the arable. You may only l>e able to use her for two months in the year, and then have to put her on to something else owing to the character of the soil. 5608. Mr. Thomas lie iul< I:«,H : In paragraph 7 you say: '• Jt is obvious if the value of agricul- tural produce is to bear a relationship to the cost of production." What is the meaning of that? Do you refer to the cost of production of wheat in that passage?— I understood this Commission was dealing with the fixing of the price of wheat for another year, and I presumed that so long as there "as a guaranteed price it had some relation to the cost of production. 5609. You were referring to the cost of production of English wheat? — Yes, the cost of production in Great Britain. . 5610. You go on to say: " With a further shorten- ing of hours the price of wheat must rise "? — There again I refer to the cost of production. 5611. You were not meaning so much the cost of wheat as tho cost of production ? — Yes. That, of course, is governed by foreign supplies and so on, but I was only dealing with it in this paragraph so far as the :;narantcod price* are com-, -rued. 561L'. When you say "the ri.se in price of wheat must inevitably be greater than any rise in wa are you referring to the extra labour you will have to employ? — That is one of the thin 5C13. Anything else?— It I may turn back to my letter to "Tho Times," I there worked out the percentages. Kvon when an extra man is not cm- ployed, it does not quite correspond with the' rise in wages, partly liccaiiso the hours were shortened a good deal, and that makes the cost per hour more expensive, and the number of hours which require to IM- norkcd in order to keep a farm going cannot In- shortened, unfortunately. •'''''II. Turning to your table in paragraph 10, I gather that wages did not increase at all ill your neighbourhood between 191 1 and I!M7:- t'nfoi t unaiclv 'luring that time I was on active service. I think tl.'-y did increase as a matter of fact, but I was not at homo, and I could not give you tho details. ">iil.". Your account books apparently do not show any increase?— 1 could not t;ct at the accounts with sufficient accuracy to bo able to state that Tl,, n was a change in the nninW of hands at the farm at the time, anil I thought it, better to leave it out altogether rather than give ina, . ui.iti- tij-i. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 26 August, 1919.] MR. R. C. BODRNE. [Continued. 6616. You have given us figures of the percentage increase in the cost of wheat since 1915? — Yes. Those are taken from the annual volume of the Royal Agricultural Society. 5617. In paragraph 7 you again refer to the further shortening of hours being detrimental to the cost of production. You are assuming that no improvement is to be looked for by way of better organisation, and • so on? — It is very difficult to see where one is going to organise things very much better than they are at present. We may get some new discovery such as a practical method of using electrical power in agricul- ture or something of that sort which will constitute a great improvement, but it is difficult with the present machinery that we have to see where any improvement can take place. 5618. Mr. J. 11. Henderson : I am at a loss to find out exactly what is your experience. When were you on active service? — I joined up at the beginning of the war in 1914 and served in Gallipoli and France and was demobilised in 1917 since when I have been manag- ing my father's farm. 5619. Your experience of farming, therefore, has been one year and six months? — Yes. 5620. Do you think that experience enables you to give evidence of the same value as that which we have had from witnesses who have spent all their lives in agriculturi •!- ' ni, a n : That is for us to judge as a Commission. 5621. Mr. J. M. Henderson: What did you do before you went on active service? — I had been at the Bar for a year, and I had just before that come down from Oxford. 5622. Yon say there are certain farm accounts which you have, and you told the Chairman that you could not give the Commission these accounts without your father's consent? — Quit© so. 5623. Do you think your father would be likely to consent, if he thought that those accounts would be of any value to 'the Commission, to let us have these accounts of the actual working of the farm? I am afraid that is a point I could not answer off-hand ; I did not discuss the matter with him when I got the Commission's letter asking mo to give evidence, and I have had no opportunity of approaching him on the subject sinro. 5624. Will you be so kind as to ask him?— Cer- tainly. 5625. Accounts such as those will be of more value to us than demonstration of the value of horses or anything else. We n'ant if we can to get returns from various farms, and if your father will be good enough to sanction the production of his farm accounts to the Commission we shall all be very pleased indeed. I will certainly convoy your w'sh to him. • 5626. Mr. Crrcn : Your evidence-in-chief deals verv largely with the efficiency of labour?- ft 5627. Are you aware " that tho land and stock management capacity of the labourer has consider- ably increased since 1871?— Yes, quite. 5628. Do you not consider that altogether apart from tho increase in the cost of living the labourer should be paid more in consequence of his greater capacity?— Do you mean tho labourer as a whole should be paid more because of that, or that the indi- vidual man who looks after the -tt.ck should be paid more because of his increased skill? 5629. I put it to you that tho fact that he is able to manage more stock now than ho was able to do before is one reason why he should ruche higher wan.-- You are referring to the individual man? ">i;.'«i. Yes?— I think he is paid more, because he is a skilled man. His skill has increased since 1871 in tho ratio of ,) to 6, and. therefore, apart from increased cost of Bring he i, entitled to be paid more for his in- CTMied skill, is he not?- I am afraid I do not under- stand your questions. The labourer who manaped three head of stork in 1H71 is now able to look after six head, and do you not think, in consequence of the inrrea-ed efficiency in tiie labour Mian.-rrment of s-lock he. ihonld lie paid more, ...part altogether from the higher cost of tiring? I do not think so. Nowadays one man looks after six cattle and perhaps a great HIM many more, and is probably worth higher wages because he is a more skilled man, but I do not think that affects the question of the general labourer. 5633. I asked you whether you were aware of the increase in the skill of laud and stock management on the part of the labourer as between 1871 and the present time, aud you said you were, but apparently you are not aware of it. Your farm is in Hereford- shire?—Yes. 5634. You are going to have electric power there ? — We do not know; we hope so. 5635. With regard to getting extra efficiency in the organisation of labour, are you not of opinion that the use of electric power would make an enor- mous difference in lighting barns and cowsheds and the utilisation of machinery for cleaning out sheds and pumping liquid manure and that kind of thing? — I think it very probably might, but we have not had it so far, and one has not had a chance of figuring it out to see what it is capable of effecting. We do not know how much the cost of the electric unit will be, and therefore it is very difficult to answer your question. 5636. You could utilise labour a great deal more on wet days if you had electric power than you are able to do at present, could you not? — We have to utilise it now. 5637. Yes, but it would give you a greater oppor- tunity of utilising your labour efficiently on wet days? — We have to employ our labour whether it is wet or fine. 5638. Yes, but I am asking you whether you could not utilise your labour more efficiently if you had electric power than you are able to do at the present moment? — Yes, you might. 5639. With regard to your paragraph 7, upon which Mr. Thomas Henderson questioned you, I do not quite understand that paragraph. Do you mean to say there has always been a relationship between wages and prices? — No, I do not think that there has been in all things. 5640. You think that wages have always been a matter of custom? — In the past I should think that they have been a good deal a matter of custom. 5641. Mr. Duncan : I am not quite clear as to the basis of your calculations as to the cost of labour in these figures you have given. In paragraph 7, for instance, you contrast the wages of 11 men at 18s. per week with those of 12 men at 36s. 6d. per week ?— Yes. 5642. Is that because you find that 12 men are now required to do the work of 11 men previously? — Yes. 5643. For exactly the same amount of cultivation? — Exactly the same. 5644. There has been no greater cultivation?' — There has been an increase since 1914, but the staff was the same then as in 1916; it has been the last shortening of hours which has necessitated the em- ployment of an extra man. 5645. Have you found in your experience that yotv require an extra man because of the shortening of hours? — That is so. 564(5. Do you think that your experience has. extended over a sufficiently lonji period to enable you to say it is tho reduction in the number of working hours which has necessitated the employment of an extra man:' — One can only speak from personal experience, and I agree that the shortening of hours has only just come into operation, and that we have not had a very long experience of the result of the working. 5647. Do you think it wise to base a conclusion upon such short experience? — If an experiment is tried and it leads to a certain result it, at any rate, gives one reason for thinking that the result is duo to a 'certain cause. Although it may not ho absolutely correct you have nothing else to go by. 56IS. IK the quality of your labour the same to-day HS it was in pre-war times or has it been allcctrd b\ ill' war!" The quality of the labour has improved since the war has been over; otherwise it remained constant during the war. B + KOTAI. COMMISSION ON At; I; K I I.ITUK. ../«/, 1-J19.] MR. R. C. BOURNE. [Continual. 5649. You had IK> decrease in efficiency during Lho N» !••:.• There was a littkj perhaps duo to |M«>|ile iM-ing mobilised. I'.M: You think that the quality of labour ia iiH-re«*ing in efficiency? 1 think it ia in- creasing because we are getting certain of tho younger men luck who have l»o<-ii in the Army, and tin- vi'iinger men can work a HttK> lutrder than the men »l l.i to 00 years of age. We havo been deprived of them for two or three yean and now they arc retun •1U11. IV/you think that tho shorter hours and tho increased wages w ill attract the bettor t\ p.- «>! man? — \\luit one hopes is that it will prevent the younger moo from go'.ng into other occupations. 6652 If it pre\ents tho younger men from giving up agriculture your labour efficiency will be on the iiu-re;iM- - A tittle except, I suppose, the proportion of men of all nges "ill mnaiu about tlu> .same. You , .inr.ot turn off tho older man because ho has got a I ttlf le.vs elli. lent if he has served you well for 20 years; you keep him on. The younger men are coming "in and 1 think they are a help, but it is difficult !•• »hat they will do. .">»UV». Mr. Coutley: ^ mi told us that the farm boloi ..iir father? — Yes. 5651. l»i- - In- i. .1111 his own land or is he a tenant farmer!' It is hin own land. i. Ha.s he another occupation? — Y'es. Do you mind telling us what it is? -Ho is a 1'rofcfvsor at Oxford. ~. Is the farm run as a pleasure farm? — No; business. 5658. On commercial lines? — Y. • '. Your father is not a practical farmer:' Nut in the least. 5600. Y'ou yourself are only just beginning to be a practical farmer:- Y> •<. . 5661. Your father is not dependent for his livelihood upon tho profits he makes on the form? — Not for his livelihood, no. o»'*>'2. One (juextion about the wages. I see you bring out in paragraph 7 the increase since 1914? — Yes. 5663. Tho percentage increase in wages since, 1914 is I 10? — That is on the assumption that the hours are still further reduced from the hours at present. 5664. I misunderstood that. Let me go back to another figure. I understood you to say in answer to Mr. Duncan that it took 12 men now to do what II men did before? — YOB. 5665. And it-hat the total cost per week shows a per- centage increase of labour of 121-2? — That is it. 6666. Is that since 1914?— That is since 1914. 6667. On the other hand — just see if my calculation ia correct — were the hours in 1914 63 hours at 18s. ? — Yen. 8868. They are to-day 54 hours at 36s. 6d.P— Yes. 6669. I suppose the overtime is about lOd. an hour? — No, the overtime is Is. an hour art. present rates. 5670. We have 1 n told 10d.?— It has been Is. with us since the lM June this year. 6671. That is for the hay making, but the ordinary rate of overtime. I thiuK you may take it, is 10d.? — I will take that from you. 6672. To make up (the present number of hours to 63 yon have to add on 9 more hours, and 9 hours at lOd. would be 7*. 6d., ami adding the 7s. 6d. to the 36v 6d. it brings it up to 44s. That is, 44s. you are paying a man now for the same number of hours' work for which you paid him only 18s. before the war. That it an increase of 111 per cent. That shows, does it not, that th" wages having increased 144 per cent, the name work has cost you I'-'l per cent, more?— That i» it. 5673. Does that show that they are working better or working worne? They are working a little better. I think that the old U1 hours were too long. 5674. That doe» bear out what you sni 1 that under the nrw liouio at any rate the men are working b. — Yen, I think that the old hours «er<- too long, and that the men could have done ibe work which tin \ did in five or MX hours a week ICMK. Wb.it I do not think ii that they can go much below the number of Lours they are doing at present. i. Tlie only other thing I want to ask you is this: You tell us thai your l>ook» show that the wagea lire 40 per cent, of the post of running .the faiinr Y'os, approxim:: Mocs that include tho rent?- ^ "dn". And interest and everythii N interest. 5C78. On yon get from your liook.s what pcrcenitage labour is to the <"ost of growing wheat, for lii-tano-;' — The calculation 1 have made, if you omit the interest .MI capital and the cost of haulage and take the actual cost of cultivation, the labour is ll-.'i per cent, on the straw crops. It is very difficult to put down definitely what it i- M between wheai barley. You can get the total c,n all 4ho crops. Imt the absolute details as between the different crops are very hard to get. 6679. Is that taken out for the present year? N that is for last year. 5680. Have you got it for moie than oni No, I am afraid not. I have only hail tun. accounts kept for just over a year. A time sh. kept by every man. 6C81. Have you got out an\ costs for growing an acre of wheat? I have got out the cost of the en tion of an acre of whe.it if you omit interest on capital, depreciation of live and dead .stock, and tho cost of haulage. That comes to £10 I-,. |o;,|. If you pirt those other it<'nis in it comes to L'l-'i tis. 9d. "ii'.^L1. Have you got out the pcrec'it-age oi lain. in a.s against that?- 'Hie actual cost of labour on the farm ing operations 1 worked out at 41-5 per cent. 5683. Mr. ]liiirhi'lnr : In these costs of production which you have put in to-day, whai various crops do ihcy deal with? Wheat, oats, barley, beans, peas, and hops : they deal also with cattle, 5684. Are these all taken from actual figures in your father's books? — Yes, these are taken from actual figures. The men are given time sheets, and these are taken from the actual figures filled in by the men on their time sheets. 5685. What year do they apply to?— 1918; we have not, of course, got them out for this year yet. M86 II.,-,, you ;ol tin . ••' ii.-l \ ield pet acre tb.it has Keen received? — I am afraid I have riot, because a good deal of the crop is consumed on the premises. It is difficult, therefore, to give the actual yield; it has to be largely estimated. 5687. So that what you have is the actual cost, but an estimated yield? — Yes. 5688. Can you give us the cost per acre: Yes. of the crops all lumped together; not of the individual straw crops. 5689. Mi'. Ankt'r Siiniuuiix: Do I understand that the total cost of £13 odd applies to all the straw crops?— ^ 5690. Not to wheat ? — No, not specially. I have taken them altogether; it is very difficult to get your costs individually. For instance, it is difficult to say what the cost of carting one crop is, and what the cost of carting another is, but you can tell what the total cost of carting is. The same thing applies to threshing. 5691. In fact, in a sentence, your experience is that with the present reduced hours of labour it takes 1'J men to do the work that 11 men used to do? — That is about it. 5692. The 12 men produce the same result in labour as 11 used to doP — Yes, substantially. 5693. Mr. Rea: With regard to this question of 12 men versus 11, you say that the rise in tho total cost of wages exceeds the proportion of the individual rise P — Yes. 5694. If the 11 men worked overtime to make up the amount of work that it now requires 12 in. do, the 11 men would, of course, receive rather more in the aggregate (ban the 12 men? — If 11 men worked overtime. I think that the rise in cortt would no! even then be square in the case of tho individual. because the overtime is not worked equally by all tho men. KOI instance, the shepherd does not work overtime— or very rarely. The people who work overtime mostly are tho tcamsmcn. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 26 August, 1910.] Mil. B. C. BOURNE. [Continued. 5695. Do you find any disinclination on tho part of the men to work overtime:" — We try as a principle not to work more overtime than can be helped. The men have fixed hours of labour now, and one tries not to exceed them unless it is necessary. 5696. You think it preferable to take on an extra man rather than work overtime:' — Yes. 5697. Of course, the 12 men earn more in the aggro - than the 1 1 would liavo done? — That is true. 5698. But still, with the shortening of hours, the 12 men do earn a proportion of the increase of labour per hour, because they are getting the same wage for 50 hours that they previously did for 54? — Yes. 5699. And they are sufficiently well off not to care about overtime? — The difficulty is that the shorten- ing of hours has been very largely taken up by giving the Saturday half-holiday. There is no doubt that the men value the Saturday half-holiday very much. 5700. This summer, up to the 1st October, you get 54 hours, and after the 1st October it will be 50?— Yes, and that will mean further overtime because I do not think we can u.->o another man. 5701. As to paragraph (8) with regard to tho (use of keeping one Hereford cow I do not quite follow your figure of £12 per annum in 1918. You say, " Of this amount £10 represents food and £'2 wages, vet., &c.," and further on you say. " £3 represents rent and rates on the pastures and tho remaining €7 is for food grown on the farm. Of this amount about to 10s. is paid in wages, tho remaining 30s. being for rent, manures, &c."? — Originally the accounts were presented in thih way. The stockman presents his account for looking after cattle, wages so much; and from another man you get on his wage sheet, " Helping stockman two davs," or whatever it may be. Those iteni.t are charged again>t the cattle as labour, but when you come to the home grown foods and work them out still further, a great di>al of the cost of those is in the labour bill. If you take £10 as representing food a good deal of that Li wages paid in labour. 5702. That includes the food*— It is food at cost price to the cattle. •"•703. £12 seems to me a very low sum for keeping a breeding cow just now? — Tne.ro is no interest on your stock and no depreciation in it, but as far as I ran make out it costs £12 a year to keep it and there i-s very little bought food in'that. ."7i»4. How many grazing weeks are there in that? n months I should think entirely in the vear. It depends upon the M-awn. You have to begin to feed alxnit the middle of November and bring them in about the middle of December and keep them ill until May Day. 5705. What do you feed them on? — Hay, chaff, and roots mostly. 6706. Can you do that at £12 a year, including tho labour? — Yes, as far as I can calculate it. I can show you the accounts for last year. I make it that wo did do it for £12 last year, but, of course, there is practically no cake allowed for in that. Practically nothing has been bought — no cake at all. If you begin to buy food of course you would not touoh the figure. 5707. The Chairman: You mentioned that you had your costings for all the "produce in one cost account ? — As far as the straw crops are concerned. 5708. Yes, in one cost account? — Yes, but in working it out I lumped them together because one is not quite certain that one has apportioned certain things as between certain crops and in a large acreage it makes a big difference. •j~09. If you could give us separate statements, making the best estimate you can, but so that the separate statements agree-with the total that would be very interesting and useful to us? — I will try to do so, certainly. 5710. If you please. I suppose you have got a.n .accurate balance sheet and probably a profit and loss account? — Yes. 5711. Does this combined cost which you have referred to, and which I have just referred to, fit iu with the actual results of your trading operations? — It fits in very approximately. It is difficult to be quite certain because your costs of certain crops overlap during .the year, and the profit and loss account is strictly balanced in the calendar year from January to January. The crops, of course, overlap. 5712. It fits in very closely, I understand? — Yes. The total labour cost and tho costing account and tho actual wages paid are approximately identical. Of course, the bills are taken from the cost account, and it fits in approximately, but it is a difficult thing to apply it to individual crops, the crops not being quite of equal duration. 5713. How is the valuation at the end treated in the costings? — The valuation is ignored in the cost- ings; it is simply an attempt to find out what it actually costs you to cultivate the different crops. The only attempt I have made to deal with that is to put in the depreciation on the stock and the interest on capital. 5714. Your profit or your loss, according to the profit and loss account, will vary as compared with the balance sheet and profit and loss account, according to the increase or diminution in the valuation? — Naturally. 5715. I do not quite remember if you were agreeable, subject to your father's consent, to send us the balance sheet and profit and loss account for the inspection of the members of the Commission? — Subject to my father's consent, yes. I cannot, of course, undertake to deal with his private property. 5716. Quite right. I agree entirely that you could not do so without his consent, but he has given you his consent to send us the statements of the costing which you have put before us? — Yes. 5717. Also, probably you will equally with his consent bo able to send us the details of the straw crops indi- vidually; those details fitting in with the total which you have got before you? --I will do my best to work them out for you, but I cannot guarantee to give you tho details as regards tho individual straw crops very accurately. I can give you (the lump stun accurately, but not the sum in respect of each individual crop. (The Witness withdrrv*.) Mr M. D. BANNISTER, F.S.I., called and examined. 6718. The Chairman: You have been kind, enough to VIH! tho Commission notes of the evidence you pro- pose to give iiere? — Yes. 6719. Will you allow mo to make it an exhibit to your evidence? — Certainly. 5720. You are a Land Agent and Agricultural Valuer of Market Place, Hayward's Heath?— Yes. (Evi 88 loads yard dung, carted and spread' at 5s. 6d ....... 24 4 0 ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 26 Augutt, 1919.] MK. M. D. BANNISTEK, 1 - I [Continued. 25 cwt. buii alag 1 ton ground lime •'> « .. i. sulphate ammonia Oarriage mill applying artifi- cial manure ... 9 years' rent and rates, at 1%. per acre per year Cutting and binding ... Harvesting Threshing and carting, at 12s. por At per more. 8. d. £ •. d. I :, ,. d 12 6 I lu 1 17 6 0 0 0 6 0 5 10 7 10 0 £98 13 1 L'lil 1 Is. 7d. per acre. Kstim.iu-d yield: 12$ qrs. wheat, 3 tons straw. (1*1 HI, fin .!«(.«. Soil at A'o. 1 !(,/, ,,/t,,- Wheat nn,l l>r,tler qr. Drilling Ma -.-.A Harris Seeder = 60 9 cwt. sulphate ammonia Carriage and sowing by hand... Spring irorfc — Once horse-harrowed ... 2 Onee rolled, 2 horses ... 2 tit and rates ... = 20 Cutting and binding = 20 Harvesting ... ... ... = 20 Threshing and carting, at 8s. per qr. £ 8. d. 16 4 0 250 600 250 12 12 0 2 14 0 7 13 '- Beam 1919 . Once tracU>r-plotiL;lie) :t OCrti '2 minis <•/ Mnlinin l.nml Clinj Sub-toil (>.,t* 1919 a/in- Ma*ffold l!il>. At per tt ! : 36 qr*. wheat, 4 tons straw. ploughed. 3 horses ... Twice Spring lime harrowed ........... Twice bone-harrowed at '2-. i t . siilpliate ammonia at 17-. l\d. ent .......... 4 cwt. superphosphate at 8d. cwt .......... 4 ewt. dissolved bone compound at 12*. cwl ...... C.iniivjc and applying Scatter- id Drill ..." ...... 3J sacks oats at 84s. per qr. ... s. il. 45 0 00 40 60 C s. d. 7170 110 0 14 0 1 15 0 I fi 0 i1 s o " 17 6 770 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 26 Augnst, 1919.] MR. M. D. BANNISTER, F.S.I. [Continued. Drilling ... ... Once horse-harrowed ... Once rolled, two horses One year's rent and rates Cutting and binding Harvestin-g ... Threshing and carting at 8s. per qr At per acre. s. d. £ s. d. . = 70 146 . = 20 070 . = 20 070 . = 21 0 3 13 6 . = 18 6 349 = 18 0 333 lj years' rent and rates Cutting and binding ... Harvesting Threshing and carting at 12s. per qr. ... 10 0 0 £45 6 0 £12 18s. lOd. Estimated yield : 25 qrs. oats, 4 tons straw. 5729. (9) Fifteen Acres of Light Land on Chalk.— Wheat 1919 after Mangolds 1918. At per acre. s. d. £ s. d. Once ploughed, 2 horses ... = 36 0 27 10 0 Three times horse-harrowed at 2s = 60 4 10 0 Twice rolled, 2 horses at 2s. ... = 40 300 l.'i Sacks wheat at 90s. per qr. 33 15 0 Dressing wheat = 20 1 10 0 Drilling, 3 horses = 70 550 30 cwt. superphosphate ... 11 12 6 15 cwt. sulphate ammonia ... 12 15 0 Carriage and applying artifi- cial manure ... ... ... = 50 3150 Shrilly Work. Once horse-harrowed = 20 1 10 0 Once rolled, 2 horses ... ... = 20 1 10 0 1 year's rent and rates ... = 11 0 850 Cutting and binding = 20 0 15 0 0 Harvesting = 20 0 15 0 0 Threshing and carting at 12s. per qr 27 0 0 £11 8s. 6d. per acre. £171 7 0 Estimated yield: 45 qrs. wheat, 7J tons straw. .">7:>n. (l't) Si-nii .\i-i-i .- ../ Soil ax .\o. 9. — Oats and Hurl,-!/ 1919 after lte folded. At per acre. s. d. £ s. d. Proportion of cultivations and seed and manure for Rape 27 15 10 Folding = 60 0 21 0 0 Once ploughed. 2 h.,i>e«, ... = 36 0 12 12 0 Twice bone-harrowed at 2s. ... = 4 0 180 Tw-ice harrowed, 2 horses, at 2s. = 4 0 180 35 bushels seed, oats and barley at 70s. per qr. 15 6 3 Drilling = 70 2 !» (I Sr-ven cwt. sulphate ammonia 5 19 0 II cwt. superphosphate ... 589 Carriage, mixing and applying ^=50 1 15 (I One year's rent and rat. ^ 11 0 3 17 0 Cutting and binding = 20 0 700 Harvesting ... ... ... = 19 0 7 13 0 Threshing and carting at 9s. per qr. 11 0 G £124 12 4 £17 16s. per acre. Kstiniaied y'eld: 24J qrs. oate and barley, 2f tons of straw. 5731. (11) 24 Acrrx of Soil n.t No*. 9 ,ind 10.— Whrat after Clear Fallow folded with Sheep. At per acre s. d. £ 8. d. Twice steam ploughed ... = 80 0 06 0 0 Once ploughed, 2 horses ... = 36 0 • 43 4 0 Three tii harrowed at f 2s = 60 740 50 loads sheep dung, carted anil spread at 1-.. ... 1150 Folding = SO 0 60 0 0 12 compulsorily. I thought it was not a fair test for the ordinary routine of farming to give instances where land is put in either two 01 vhree white straw crop running, or on land which is broken xip by order of the Executive, which possibly the farmer and other people may not have thought was a very wise move in some cases. Undoubtedly there have been failures on the part of Executives as there have been in the case of all other bodies. For that reason I have taken no land for this purpose which has been pasture and which has been broken up ; this is all arable land, and land that has been arable for ten years. 5736. How did you obtain such figures as. for in- stance, in No. 1. once ploughed two horses 36s., twice tractor ploughed at .?0s., twice tractor cultivated at 11)-.. and once horse harrowed at 2s. Are these actual payments:- The ploughing in No. 1 is two-horse work, and we consider in that district, each horse is worth 10s. a day. I am taking the statutory day. . A.Ai.uiri i. n I;K. jtul, Mu. M. D. UA 6737. 1 bou the** are estimate. You do out know that Inu hor-«» went actually • n. ployed . n thut \>ui iiculur bi- \os, two horses wcie actually employ, . I oil that, but lli< y »cic hoi M - !•• tug to ilu- . were not |i;iul for ut the rau- of 10». a day -ed to the farmer, ami In- bud got .. m. luu M did i. pay IDs. a duy U> anybody lor tli. ;.-. ul iliouc .' on thoao day* &7Jb. l)u 'you attribute all)' pan <>l the bcm-iit i.i cultivatioii ..ii.- yi-ar to the 4 year or to .. .<>iu> lor wheat 1 d<) my Iw-nelit for llif crop following I in- i- !...i- alter clear fallow, MJ thut you havu two year.-.' cultivation and two yours.' rent and rate* and so on for one crop. 5731). /'/ . Itvutjlti* : Are these actual figures oacor- .1 from accounts or estimates or what is their Hi. . ul tivut ions :- 57-10. The cultivations and the prices?— On all thane farm* 1 make annual stock-taking valuations a- ut the 1st Juno. Naturally some are made ut ihr end • •I \luy-some the last two weeks in May — and some tint first two weeks in June. Those are the lime- ni\ ..Lliulaiii.n- we:,- taken, and the prices are of the cal- culated ijuanlity of work two horses and a man or thii-e horses and two men, as the case may be, will eratioiis and of the financial cost are estimates?— J Are they based upon records made at the timer The number of times are. but the uctual time occupied is based on the average on those farms. f.7i:i. On the usual practice of the district!- 1 would not say the usual practice of the district. Imt mi the experience of the farmer and myself as to what i- .Line in a day on those particular farms. 1. You charge for horses 10s. a day I think you said?— Yes. 5745. How do you get at that — how many days' nork do you calculate a horse does in the year?— 1 am assuming that he does six days a week, which of course he does not do. 5746. Your horse cost is 10s. a day on the assump- tion that the horse works on 313 days in the year? — Yes, I think it is 313— or is it 312? •~>7I7. How do you get at that cost? That makes a total for every horse of about £166 for the year? — I have taken depreciation on the horse; I do not know n bother I ought to have done that or not. 'iat have you allowed for that? — I have allowed 20 per cent, depreciation. 5749. Five years' life?— Yes, whether I am tighter not I do not know. I know we cannot in this di-.tru-t hire a horse for 10s. a day, but whether that bears upon the subject I do not know. 6760. It hardly bears upon it, unless the trans- action has actually been a hiring:' I do not think it does. The average price for hiring is 12s. (id. in that district. 1 Do you think that your rate for each horse day is probably excessive? — I do not think so. You • • have horses at the moment up at a fabulous . rsonally I cannot see it is going to stay, and, therefore, ihe depreciation of '20 per cent. I consider reasonable. We are giving 120 and 130 guineas for anything like a decent horse now. If the - are going to stay there. 'JO per rent, is of course lib a dfpnv-intinn to put, but we have got prices up above what I think tho average man considers is fair. I do not think I need pie-, \,,u on that al ntlbject. if you tell \is th.it tin day is • m tho cost of keeping a horse?- It is not; it in including depreciation • If I nrn right it. ing (hat your rate the other hand it would I.e a very sanguine .ito to »ay yon could work a horse on :JI2 days in that i- impossible. 1 what do you base your price for dung that .avo charged in one (,r inn nf voiir account It • il five ill |xm the price that wo ordin- arily 8<-t in \alnaiioii.. for dung This dune would tell in the market at 7- 'id i.n the farm, but in a tenant right valuation a farmer doe« not get that J755. Does your 5t>. (Jd include, the carting uud ios. then then lilllc put oil the dung v.ii ,i very grout dual. :'. as it would be valued from a leaving io an entering tenant r \\lnu rate of wagon have ym based your ip.ui: 1 have based them on the rate of a week. 575U. for what length of week? — For a six day -i. ui. l for a carter. 5700. What number of hours;'- For actually work- ing null the h:'i.-i - in tin- iiold u 7 hours day. o701. is thut for i>i\ days, ul 7 noun.;'- Six days at 7 hour.s. J7U2. Your Tablet, do nut seem to lake into account anything lor preceding and .succeeding crops in either I 01 example, it 1 take y ou to 'la bio. I tha •hcii wheat follows mangolds on a part of the ueld ul all cvciii "> • I lax. win charged anything for the residual value of the cultivation-, and the manuring: .No. that leally I- mil a complete account of the ut producing th 's win-air No, ii i.s not. r>7tj.">. The mangold crop would leave something:-' He ordinary farmer under his agreement- would be compelled to leave a certain proportion of his land iii a tallow or tallow crop. 57(50. Taking this as the actual cost of producing lour acres of wheat that is (mother element which should be added to that account?- Certainly. .">7i>7. In the respect that the land possessed more before the wheat crop than it did after? — Yes. .J706. Could these be added?— Ye- : it i- only an estimuu1, 1 think. • The whole thing is to a considerable extent an estimate? 1 do not mean in any der< The question of the residual value of a previous crop where it is mangold is, if I may suggest it, even more on an estimate than anything else. 0770. It would depend upon the whole history of tho crop?— Yes, and as to whether the farmer got a crop or not. No. 7, for example, shows tW quarters of oate and barley for £171 10s. That particular lieM has never grown a white straw crop for 20 year- pn vious to this. Whether I was right in putting that in or not 1 do not know. 5771. How is that? — It has always been either roots or potatoes. It is a big dairy farm just outside a large town; it bos sometimes been a market garden. _'. Take No. 12 with reference to yield. that appear to \ou r\ low yield or how dm - it compare with the normal yield: It i.s a low yield and this year that particular farm is going to make a very big loss. It is a thin i-oil on chalk and il ha- dried right up. .".".!. This would really not be a normal comparison of course to a return of the whole district? — This particular instance, No. 12, shows very badly this year. Last \ear. which was a wet season, it would have shown very well. As against that, No. 4 last year would have shown a very much worse result than it docs this year. No. 4 likes a dry season and No. 12 likes a wet one. 6774. .Mr. Cautlcy: Is that nine ijuurtvrs per Man right?— Yes. 6776. Dr. Douglas: Do your ai counts contain any- thing for interest? — No. 5776. Or supervision? — No. 6777. Or. for general oncosts of any kind? No. 6778. Maintenance or depreciation of implements? — No, I have not taken interest or depreciation, ex- cept in tho case of horse labour. The only en which I have tuken depreciation into account is in tho horses in arriving at the Ids. a day. 6779. Tie Ion-, reallx arc- ae. mints of actual outlays in manuring, labour and h • That is so. 5780. And rentr 5781. That really is the whole ihing that these are? — Yes — and binder twine 6782. So that they are not really complete state incuts of the cost of producing the crops? — No. I understood that yon did not wish any opinion as to the interest on capital included. 5783. I am not criticising. I am morel v getting at what they actually are?— Y- MINUTKS OF EVIDENCE. 26 August, 1919.] MR. M. D. BANNISTER, F.S.I. [Continued. 5784. Mr. Rea: 1 am not quite clear about your costs of horses, 36s. If you depreciate your horses by 20 per cent., that is practically -£20 a year, taking the value of the horse at £100?— Yes. 5785. That moans fs. per week or Is. -kl. a day?— Yes. 5786. If you take the cost at 10s. a day inclusive that leaves 8s. 8d. a day without depreciation. Do you think they actually cost that. I am taking the working days of course as being six days a week.?— I think they do. 5787. The manure in crop No. 1 conies to £33 4s. 4d. — the total. £4 2s. 10s. of that is in respect of sulphate of ammonia which we may take as used up in the first year? — Yes. 5788. That leaves about £29 of manures which last, the farmyard manure, the slag, and the one ton of ground lime. What proportion of those have you carried forward to subsequent crops? — I should think if you carried forward the lime on a five years' basis that would be right, but I should not carry forward any of the others after a wheat crop. This was put on a clear fallow for wheat. '. Do you think the wheat would use up all the farmyard d"ung and the basic slag?- 1 beg your pardon, I should put the slag on n three years' basis and the lime on a five years' basis. 5790. And the dung?'— The duns; I should not carry forward. 5791. You think that would all be absorbed? — Yes, 1 think so. 5792. Take No. 3, 9 acres, yield 67 i quarters of oats — that is 7^ quarters to an acre? — Yes. 5793. Y»u have only got 7 tons of straw off the 9 acres. Would a crop yielding 07 J, quarters of oats only yield as little straw as 7 tons? — I should have said not, only this is a ease where it has !»on actually threshed and it has produced that; otherwise 1 should say it was impossible 57!H. Has the straw been weighed? —No. it has not been weighed, but it has been measured and I do not think there is any doubt that [ am within a quarter of a ton of it. The straw has been phenomenally short this year. 57!>5. The same thing applies still more in the next sheet. 30 quarters of wheat on four acres which is nine quarters per aei<- and only four tons of straw, that is one ton per acre an enormous crop of wheat and an abnormally small crop of stray!' -These nre from two farms in the same district and it is the same in both. No. 4 is not a threshed result, it is estimated, but No. 3 is where it has been actually threshed. 57:tO. In No. 7 the same thing applies again Mid even more strongly- 10 acres 80 quarters of oats and barley and only six tons of straw — half-ton of stra.v to s (jimrters of grain? — Yes. 5797. To go bark to No. 4. " One year's rent and rates. 20s."— that is the 36 quarters to the four :i"i i "i 579-v What are the rates there? — The rales there would be about 5s. Od. in the £ ; it would be one-half for the agricultural land. 57!)9. So that the rent would be about 17s. or 17s. Od. an acre? — In getting at the rent of the land I have assessed a rent for the, house and deducted that. This is the bare rent of the land without the buildings. The inclusive rent of this farm would be about 25s., I think. 5800. Mr. Anker Rimmon*: Over what area are these illustrations taken? — They spread over about 15 square miles. I should think. 5801. You have given uS five illustrations of the cost of growing wheat. They vary from £19 16s. 7d. to £11 8s. 6d. I take it that in your practice you have to value every year on a certain number of farms the tillages involved in wheat cultivation? — Yen. 5802. Have yon ever known a case where you have given or received £19 10s. 7d. as the cost of p re- dwing an acre of wheat? — All our valuations are at Michaelmas, so that we never have any costs of producing wheat. ho you think that 35s. an acre is really a f.iir price for a two-horso plough? I am satisfied that voii rould not do it under. ' Would you allow .Vis. if yon were valuing?- \V» should allow 32s 5805. For one plough? — Yes. 5806. What was your cost pre-yar P— 15s. We are up to 125 per cent, ; that is our valuer's increase. 5807. What county is this?— Sussex, Surrey, and Kent — the Valuers' Association. 5808. What kind of wheat is this where you esti- mate the crop at 9 quarters to 1 acre. It must be a mistake. I have been fanning for 45 years and I have never known of its being grown. I think I heard once of its being grown, but that would be coomb wheat. We will leave the question of the terms alone, because they have been estimated. I think you will agree that the cost of producing a crop, whether it is a good one or a bad one, would be the same? — Yes. 5809. Therefore in arriving at the cost of produc- tion it is safer to' make out calculations on the cost of producing a crop, be it good or bad, than upon the . actual results you might get in any one year?— 1 think so. 5810. It would not be fair to take the results of an abnormal year such as the present year, for example? — No. I think if you took the cost per a-?re and then the average yield per acre you would probably get a good deal nearer the fair price than by taking the eosi of producing per quarter in isolated cases. 5811. Taking those 15 square miles, what would you say would be an average return of wheat— how many quarters per acre— from your knowledge?— Over the average I should think four quarters. 5812. If you add together the figures you have given us you get a total of £78, which divided by five gives you an average cost of production of £15 12s. Would you say that that would be a fair average of the cost of producing an acre of wheat on that 15 square miles? Yes. I think the instances I have taken are about fair for the district. ; Is it customary in your district to manure .ire fallow?— Yes. I. In three of the five cases you have dung for wheat and in one of the other c:<«s it is very heavily dressed with artificial manures. You would make some allowance, would you not- T thought you did in Sussex, but I know they would in Surrey— for the succeeding crop? There' must be something left for the succeeding crop. Do you farm on a four field basis or a five field? Four". 5*15. On a four field basis there must be something left for the succeeding crop? — There would from the slag and the lime but it would be something very small from the dung. Speaking of lime, you based your estimate upon n five years' allowance. Would it not be nearer the mark to take the average on a 10 years' basis? In my own county we always estimate the value of lime at over 10 years?— No. t do not altogether agree with you there. 5*17. Mr. Overman : As to your ploughing cost what do you estimate you would plough in the case of No. 1, the light land with a pair of hordes and a man n day? Three quarters of an acre. 3. Is it customary in a case of light land 27. That u » hat you ntimuu-d it at •— Ye«. 6838. ii.ivo ;. ..vii utiio quartern of wheat to, thretli i> u ti-iv g. 6899. We khould'like to kn.>.. the 'results of tii.ii field. We are very much inu-iv -•». and al*o if you uould lot us know what »tovk ul whi- o »houiu very mucli like in obtain some • . vs. In No. 1 you charge OB. Gd. a load for tho yard dung carted and »i>i tar did it have to bo carted:' — I should say 100 to JUO yards. 6M1. Were those loads about a ton each?— They are yard loads. .. What v.ci-ht would they bo:-— About 15 cwt. ,:re no manures or dung of kind applied to that field .- No. ;. Does that account for the low yield of two quarter* per :n i< i .:m iiL'.-linocl ti lliink it has got a good deal to do with it. It is rye after wheat and dredge corn after a fallow. .No. t is a very good field. Tin- only arti- ficial manure it got was 1 cwt. of sulphate of ammonia per acre? — Yes. 6836. Nothing else?— No. 5837. In No. o there are no artificial manures? — 6838. Coming to No. 7, 300 yards of town refuse at 3s., can you give me any idea what tonnage there would bo in that? — That is what ho pays for it. I should think it would be about half a ton to the yard. It would not be any more— rather loss if any- . 1 should say. 6839. In that case there are no artificial manures? '. Tho yield there is 8 quarters of oats and barley to the acre? — Yes. -l"l. That is after potatoes?— Yes. .'. Have you any idea, roughly, what proportion of i lie residual value should be put against this crop? — This is a field that has not had a straw crop for 20 years, so that there would be, I should say, a very large proportion of residuals from this field — a great deal more than there would be from an ordinary wheat crop after fallow. 6843. Coming to No. 8, what kind of oats did you grow there? The yield is just over 7 quarters per acre. My reason for asking is that your seed cost 84s. a quarter? — I think they were Gorton's or Button's but I would not be certain. 6844. That is tho actual cost?— Yes. 6845. Then No. 9, 15 acres of wheat after mangolds. Tho yield there is only 3 quarters per acre ? — Yes. 6846. It there any reason that you know of why there should bo such a small yield? — That is on the chalk, and it has dried right out. 6847. The rent and rates are 11s., I see? — Yes, it is a hill farm. 6848. I see in No. 10 you have " Proportion of culti- vations and seed and manure for rope, £27 l"s. MM." Why do you put all that in?— The system we have in Sussex, where a man grows rape and folds it, is to reckon that one-third of the cost of the labour, seed, rent and rates is carried forward to the following year as in tho nature of organic action, and in addition v .• charge the folding it before midsummer at 40s. an acre and if after midsummer at Gd-. an -icre. w, that resents one-third of the previous crop. 6849. You have only 3$ quarter- • . Is not that a very |>oor yield:- Very poor indeed. 686<' ial reason for it? — It is the •amo noil nn tho previous piece. and I live in the samo dis- trict?— Yet. 6862. I suggest to you. you are very much over fttating tin- .if wheat, and that 3 quarters p«r acre would I You must re-m-mbiT that in tho 1." mile* I takp nil that district along •through HurU, and you get double the crop there thnt ..iir farm. 6863. I was not alluding to my own farm? I mean •our di-.tr 6664. I)o von know Mr. Prat- hing mnohire owner at Cnckfiddf Y«H-h in th. I ' f Commons, to get til* price fixed for this harvest— I am tell.n i'\ uay .if introduction to my question and Mr. I'm; • me oil iln- L'L'nd January as follows: "1 have owned and uoik.d ihre.simig machinery and have threshed by t1. i the average yield is li will agree with me that Mr. 1'rai forward, reliable man?— Yes. and lor ih.- disii has thi-.-hed in 1 entirely agree with hi. i sinuate, but ho has never gone south (!and. >. At any rate, you agree that a yield of 3 quarters for the district I am speaking of would bo right, and where you go nouth \ou get a better yield? —Yes. 5860. In some cases you give the rent as 12s. an acre? — Yes. 6861. That is not very good land, is it? — They are old tenants. 5862. ^Vitll nearly all the prices you have fixed in your estimates I agree, but as regards tractor plough- ing, 30s., is not the price asked today .T.N. ('. national circumstances for three \- running. and I did not ihink it was fair in order to get at the reasonable oott I > take cases where it would show a small yield owing to your taking a third straw crop. 5870. I do not care so much for the yield because it is tho average I "in*! with, but T think your principle is right, to take the an ram- cost of the average operations and then take the average yield. That is my own idea of the only way you can get at the cost of growing wheat. Hut be that as it may. taking your own principle of the avi" cost of the var: 'inns to grow the crop, yon have not given us an illustration of that principle applied to growing a crop of wheat on fallow in the •ivy land?— No. thnt is so. 5871. Would such a crop represent considerably more than tho Inchest of these costs of growing n crop on fallow? — You would not plough on Woalden MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 29 26 August, 1919.] MR. M. D. BANNISTER, F.S.I. [Continued. land more than half an acre a day, and that would make the cost very much heavier. 5872. Would the number of ploughings have to be very much more:' — If we were growing a fallow wheat we should have five ploughings. 5873. You only allow here for three? — Yes. 5874. There would be five ploughings therefore, and that would be much more costly:1 — Yes. The first ploughing would have to be with three horses half an acre a day, and as to the subsequent ploughing under favourable conditions they might do it with two horses, but it is extremely doubtful. 5875. You have been asked about the dung. I will not say anything about it except that in my view it ought to be worth more than 5s. 6d.? — It is worth in the market infinitely more. I do not base it on the market price, but we never pay outgoing tenants enough for the dang. 5S76. Take No. 4, wheat after mangolds and maize. Why do you not charge to the wheat crop some of the various ploughings and cleaning operations you had in growing the mangolds? — I think perhaps one should — in fact, I am sure one should. 5877. Olearly you ought to? — Yes. 5878. On each of these estimates you add nothing for any weeding or any hedging or ditching or road making that has to be done? — No. 5879. Nothing?— No. 5880. You have told us also that you have added nothing for interest on capital or for the farmer's management ? — No. I . Have you formed any idea as to what the guarantee ought to be to keep our Sussex land — this part that we know — in cultivation?— My opinion, which I submit with very great diffidence, is that you cannot grow wheat in our district under 80s. •~i--2. Your opinion and mine coincide? — But whether you can got a guarantee of that amount is a matter of very great doubt in my opinion. 5883. You think that a guarantee of that figure would keep this land in cultivation? — I think it would; I am not at all certain as to it. 5884,. But without something of the kind are you satisfied that land will go down to grass? — The land which I have in hand for owners. All the land that I have broken up I have put down again. 5885. Already? — No, I have got one field which goes down next spring. 5886. Your business takes you over a very wide district? — Yes, it is about 60 miles across. 5887. Could you tell us whether the farmers or owners are laying very heavy lands down to grass?— Yes. 5888. Are they laying the very light lands down to grass? — A good deal of it, but nothing like n> much as the heavy land. The heavy land is of course going down because the yield, except in a dry summer, is poor and the costs of cultivating it are so very much higher than in the case of light land. 5889. What do you say about our district becoming a larger dairying district or a smaller one? — A larger one considerably. I would not like to say it has become larger during the last eighteen months 'or two years, but up till then it was increasing very fast. I should think that for the last eighteen months or so it has been stationary, and this Michael- mas I am selling out several of the big dairies. 5890. You conduct all the farm sales in the district, do you not? — A very large proportion of them. 6891. Is it your experience that people are going out of dairying? — Yes, I have found that a tre- mendous lot of genuine tenant farmers are going out of the dairying business and out of arable land and going in for pedigree breeding on the basis that there is less labour entailed, less worry and rather bigger profits. 5892. What is the reason that induces these leading furriii-rs to give up the dairying business? — Partly the uncertainty from time to time as to what they arc going to get, and largely, I think,, the extra- ordinary difficulty that they are having over labour. '.. The land is not particularly suited to dairying is it. with the exception of that part which is situated nearest to London?— Yes, that is it. 6994. Is it your view that the controlled prices had a detrimental effect upon dairying? — Undoubtedly!, partly because although I thought when they were fixed it was quit© a good price for the summer, as the summer has turned out it has proved to Be an extremely bad price. 5895. That is as to the present summer? — Yes, and iu the preceding year I think it was very much prejudiced by the fact that the price was not fixed until the last moment, and the farmer did not know what was going to happen from day to day. 5896. Has the same 'thing happened with regard to this winter's prices? — Yes, they are not fixed to- day. 5897. In your view has the control of milk had the effect of lessening the supply instead of increasing it so far? — Yes, I think so. 5898. If the price had been fixed earlier do you think control would have had any damaging effect? — Nothing like so damaging an effect as it has had. 5899. Have you any opinion at all as to whether it would be possible to do without a controlled price of milk? — I believe if all control was done away with there would be an awful trouble for anything up to six months, but after that — if any of us were left alive —things would straighten out and be very much better. I think that control is an evil, but a necessary evil. 5900. Could you suggest anything that would im- prove the dairying industry in Sussex? — If the price was fixed at a price which would show a reasonable profit. In fact it has got to show a big profit and a good profit, because the dairying business is very hard work and very thankless work. If the price was fixed at such a figure and fixed at once for twelve months — the two prices — it would simplify matters very largely in dairy farming. 5901. You agree that milk is like other farm pro- duce, that if the price is satisfactory farmers will produce it? — Yes, if they get enough for it they will produce it. 5902. As regards the question whether the clay land in Sussex is to be kept in cultivation or not, the price of corn must be such as to give the farmer a profit, and the same with regard to milk? — Yes, unless the farmer is going to see a profit, he will do what suits him best. 5903. That is really at the bottom of the whole thing? — Yes; it is the natural business instincts which govern it, I think. 5904. Would any guarantee of cheese prices affect it? Supposing there was to be a guarantee of cheese prices so as to use up the surplus production of milk in the summer, would that stabilise the production of milk in the winter? — There is never in our district any difficulty in getting rid of our surplus milk. 5905. Not even in the summer? — No. 5906. Not before the war?— A little but very little. 5907. Before the war there has never been a short- age of cheese in this country, has there? — Not in the South, at any rate; probably there has been in the Midlands. . 5908. I think we may take it that since the war the consumption of milk has increased per head as well as the total consumption? — I should think so, I have seen no statistics. 5909. T believe that is so?— 1 think that the more wages a man has the better food he buys. 6910. A suggestion has been made that if the cheese price were guaranteed for the summer that would lead to a more stable production, and we should have a larger supply in the winter and be able to dispose of the surplus in the summer. Do you think that would have any effect in Sussex?— I do not think it -would affect it in Sussex. 5911. Mr. Dallas: You have suggested that if a guarantee were given it would have to be 80s. ? — Yes. 5912. You have also sa'd that the farmers and those who have control over lands are already laying these lands down to grass. Does that not show you that, in spite of the fact that a guarantee is given, farmers will act on the principle, as you have already stated, of doing what pays them best ?— They will un- doubtedly do that. 5913. So that even if the Government were in the future to guarantee a price, unless it was an extra- ordinarily high price so as to pay the farmers very so ROTAL COMMISSION ON AiiUK I Ml i;i . 1919.] MR. M. 1). BANM : i i I - I niifil. well, the chanors are that the farmers will continue to go in for stork breeding or lay their hind do« n to gran, but they corutiuly «ill not, go on with . I think -ho\\ mi i>i|ti»l pi. nearly an equal profit to milk, th. luimcr will i;i"» cereal* because the milk business m- Mi I'autK'v with regard to the extraordinary difficulty you have had in Sussex with laliour? We have had the same difficult. e> in farming' a> of ronr-e have been experienced in every other industry. It is no use saying there has not Wen a very great denl of unrest "not only among labour, but amongst every- body, and the unfortunate fanner ha.s had the share of the unrest amongst his labourers as well as tiny- body else. 6916. Would YOU not say that the farmers In Kast Suasex are to some extent responsible for the unrest? — No, I do not think BO. 5917. Are you aware that the whole of the I •Mjss.-x fanners have resigned from the Sussex Wages Committee? — I heard so the other day. 5914. Without any consultation with their col- leagues of West Sussex, although they sit on Ihe same Board?— I understand they have," but I do not know. 5019. I suppose you read the Sussex papers? Yes. 6920. You must have read some extraordinary statements by the East Sussex farmers about the Government and the labourers and everybody else connected with agriculture?— Of course one articles abusing everybody else. Whatever paper you look at vou find one side abusing the other side. 6921. Would you be surprised to hear that n West Sussex there have not been these extraordinary diffi- culties?—Yes, I should, from what some of the West farmers told m« not very long ap>. 5922. Mr. Ihtnrnn: On what principle did you these fields in respect of which you have esti- mated the coat of production in your Tables? I took farms where I had made valuations and in n spect of which I had the annual cultivations already recorded in my books before I was aaked to go into tin- niie, t ion;* so that I knew there was no possibility of ili> farmer giving me cultivat'ons which he had not done. That i* why I selected these particular fields. 6933. Would these five fields covering a distance of l.'i miles give a fair idea of the cost of cultivation of wheat over the whole area ?— Over the whole area it would. 6924. Are we to tnkn it that these five instances are »|.|.li< able generally to the area? — The average of them i» applicable to the average of the whole area. 5911. When you stated that n guaranteed price- of •¥)•. »n* neewwiry in your opinion, is that based on the average of the whole area? --Yes. The difficulty I tee in a guaranteed price of Sf>«. is that on the good land it will invariably show a good profit, whereas on poor land it will not. 8996. When you suggest a guarantee of 80s., is that with the object of keeping the poorer land in i nltivntion ' I would not say the poorer land, but the average land. 6027. I)o you think from your experience that it i* dmirnbh* froin the point of view of agriculture to keep land requiring a guarantee of 80s. in cultiva- tion for • ' think so. if vou want, to produce anything approaching a reasonable i|ii.intity of wheat in England to feed the imputation I look upon it that the wh^le thing r<*tx again on whether or not we are eoing to import wheat or grow it '•• \«>u think the figure of 80s. is applicable • mly to your district or that we should apply it more widely: I should not like to give an opinion beyond AH threo counties, Surrey, Sussex, and Kent. 'ion think it necessary in tli.- • three <••. and that nothing less would keep such land in culti- vation? I do not think anything loss-would keep the average land in cultivation. 693" -ate that farmers are putting down their land to grass and going in for breeding? — Yes. I . Would a guarantee of 80s. keep them from going in for breeding and induce them to keep their land in cultivation for cereals? — I think it would in the case of many of them. 5932. Mr. Edwards: You say you are selling or about to sell your dairy stock and that farmers are going in for pedigree breeding? — Yes. 8. Do you think that the fact that by selling their stock they "an realise a profit at the present timo which they could not otherwise get hnld of has anything to do with their decision?— I do not fancy w>. Of course, it is no use disguising the fact that if you cash your farm stock now you are cashing it at a very high price which mny, or may nut last ; it is a matter of opinion whether it will last or not. 5934. You do admit that n farmer who sells off hid stock at the present moment will got hold of a large sum of money by way of profit which might bi> lost to him in, say, five or ten years' time? "ifll"). Is there much land being sold in your areaP — \ i remendouB lot. .5036. Do you think that the game reason holds good in the case of land also, that people arc ailing their land now because they arc able to cash the value which might be lost in a short time? — I think they are selling it partly because there is not now the same social status attached to owning land that there was. and partly because the average landlord is responsible for all materiel, external repairs, and in many rases the internal repairs as well, and the cost of labour and materials has gone up so very mu'-h that at the price, at which one can sHI land say at nearly 20 years' purchase whereat the average land has not boon producing more than some 3 per cent, in the. past. Therefore, if there are no social amenities attached to the ownership of land one gete out and goes into other seruriti. 5037. Mr. Grrrn: There is a great variety of soil in the county of Sussex, and that accounts perhaps for M-at diversity there is in these costing accounts? —Yes. J, Have you anv estimates of the yield and the cost in the wonderful wheat belt south of Chicheste-r? Vo. T have not any farms down there on which I make annual valuations. ,vi.T>. 1 SM;'L-est that a guarantee of 80s. a (|iiartor t i a farmer on the Chichester l>rick earth would mean enormous profits to him?-- Yes. T should think he would do very well : T should be very pleased to farm these at that prirr. •i We have- heard n great deal about the poor Wealdon el ay from Mr. Cautloy. Would it surprise vou if I were to take you to a farm of 250 acres on that Wealden clay, of 'which the farmer cnme up 'JO ago from Devonshire with £100 in his pocket. He died during the war-time and left £5,000 in cash. IN put five sons into farms of 200 to 300 acres, and three d:ni"hters on to a VJfl acre farm. Since his father died during the war. his son. who took on Ins father's farm of 250 acres, has iKnieht that farm and •he farm occupied by the three sisters. I wonder vhether that would surprise you?- T am not quite luit I fancy T acted in connection with that fnrm : T am not certain. T think T know the farm yon are referring to. .YM I. You think my statement is correct? I think so, and T know a similar case if T do not know that identical one. IS. Rome of these estimates you have given arc in respect of farms upon the thin chalk. T supi • Yes. ,V>13. Would yon say as a general proposition, that the farmers on the chalk could not pay such high hose who are on the C'hichester wheat belt'- T should sav thev could not. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 26 August, 1919.] MB. M. D. BANNISTER, F.S.I. [Continued. 5944. I daresay you know the farmer as well as I do on the chalk who has been paying higher wages than some of the Chichester farmers. I am referring to the farmer who has taken one derelict farm after another ? — Yes. 5945-6. You probably know who he is? — Yes. 5947. It is not so largely the land itself, but a great deal to do with the organisation of labour whether a good profit is obtained from the land, is it not? — That particular farmer has an extraordinarily good outlet for his produce in the big towns on each side of him. 5948. He has not only got one farm but he has taken about five altogether? — I know. 5949. He has taken these derelict farms on the light chalk land one after the other, and slagged them, and done extraordinarily well? — Yes, and I am sure the farmer would be pleased to come here and give you any information you want. He is a most extra- ordinarily energetic and able farmer, and is always very pleased to do things that are helpful in any way. The Chairman : Thank you very much for the sug- gestion. 5950. Mr. Green : I suppose you do not know any- thing about the land to the south of Chichestsr? — Yes, I make valuations on it. 5951. What is the average yield per acre of wheat and oats would you'say? — I should think wheat would get up to six quarters pretty well ; it is the best wheat growing district we have got anywhere in the south. 5952. May I ask where this extraordinary yield of nine quarters to the acre comes from? — Hurstpier- point. 5953. Can you tell UB at all what accounts for the great yield? — The land was extraordinarily well done previously for his roots ; it waa dressed very very heavily both with dung and with artificial and it has gone right away ; it is a most extraordinary crop. 5954. Mr. Thomas Henderson: May these five ex- amples you give of wheat cultivation be taken as representing the average for that particular district? — Yee. 5955. So far as I can make out the average cost per quarter over the five examples is 102s. lOd. ? — I have not gone into that. 5956. Your average yield per acre is just exactly three quarters? — Yea. 5957. At 80s. a quarter what would that mean? — I do not suggest we are going to get another year like this again. 5958. But you have one example which is very much above the average and which would rather wc.ght the balance in favour of the average of your district as far as it goes? — Yes. 5959. What allowance do you make for the straw yield per acre — £3?— No, I have not worked out the cost per quarter. 5960. The cost shows a rather serious loss on your figures so that the 80s. would be the rock bottom guarantee according to your figures? — Yes. 5961. Do you think' it would have the effect of keeping that land in cultivation? — I think it might just do so, but : older or in the younger men? — In the younger men chiefly. 6900. What is it due to— indifference or what?— I think that during the war the younger men who were exempted, and who could, of course, command pretty nearly what they liked in the way of wages, are somewhat suffering from the effects of K«..,L.-U head which the older men do not suffer from — I mean men from 46 to 60 and 55. They alto were getting rery much higher wages and could get almost any place they liked during the war, but they did not suffer from the swollen head that one would expect a youngster to suffer from when he gets double ih.- **ges he has ever had in the past. 6991. Mr. Lang ford : You said just now that dairy farmers were buffering because milk prices were not fixed and made known to them much earlier than they hare been?— Yes. 5999. Is that your opinion?— Yes. 6993. Do you think the milk producer would have been better off if this coming winter's price had Keen fixed in May last? — No; that is going a very long way ahead. I should suggest by the beginning or the middle of August tie farmer ought to know where he U so that if he does not like his price he can get out in September. 6994. In the middle of August cake was selling at a yery much lower price than it is to-day, was it not? — No, I should say there was not very much difference, was there-' 6995. Yes, a considerable difference. You say if the prices had been fixed earlier it would have given greater confidence? — Yes. 6990. Mr. Cautlev seemed to agree with you. I should not regard tie middle of August as being very early; I thought you meant months back? No. I think farmers like to know by the beginning of August but I think the middle of August in the latest, because if they are going to sell or change their operation.* they ought to know by then. 6997. What difference would their knowing by the 1st August make to the winter supply of milk"?— It would make this difference: assuming an adequate price had been fixed which would keep the farmer in, it would have induced a number of farmers \> ho had already decided to go out because of the doubt- fulness of the position to stay in. I. I suggedt to you that it would not augment tie supply of cows?— You would not split one cow into two, but yon would keep more alive. 6999. Cows which were giving milk or approaching the stage of giving milk at the beginning of August would be kept for the sake of their milk in any case? -No. There are many cows four or five months gone in calf in meaty condition that go into the market. although wo know it is again* the regulations. 6000. I am sorry to learn that. I tiought thai practice was done away with, and I am sorry ti think that milk producers would resort to t:i of that kind to get rid of their cows?— I do not sav is done oy the milk producers. A man Mild hi, store cows and a certain type of dealer comes in and buy* anything that is meaty and it goes out of the district. 6001. I suggest to you tie later the prices fixed. Particularly in the cade of milk, the better it is for th« farmer? — Yes, if he has confidence. eooa. BecauM if tie prioa had be*n fixed in June >r July farmers did not then know how scarce root* 1 tx> during the ensuing season t— No. 600S. They also did not know that hay would be so»rai« up u, prje« and likely to go to the high price that u will go to and they also did not know that cak« would rum in pnro from £19 a ton to £26 10s •K it i» to-day?— That is so. 6004 TWrfore, I think th« milk producer is infinitely Wter off if tho price, are fixed later than • 7 »» '* '" «»rlier?-Y««, if he has confidence. «06. I agree. Mr. Green put n question to w... I a OerUin farmer who had only got £100 30 years ago and who died during the war, leaving no less than £5,000 — a huge fortune for a farmer 1 am sure you will agree? — Yes. OOUti. Mr. Green also put to you that that man had four or five sons whom he had placed out in farms of their own. I suggest to you that a farmer who has four or five sons is infinitely bettor off than a farmer who has no family to assist him? — That is so; h>- has no labour bill to pay. 6007. I suggest to you that a son working on a farm is worth as much to the farmer as a labourer at any rate? — More. 6008. He does not always want to leave off work after 8 hours? — No. I always consider that a work- ing fanner's son is worth at least one and a half any paid man however good he is. 6009. I put it to you that if a farmer has five hard working and willing sons to assist him each of them is north £3 a week to him anyhow? — Yea, on present wages. 6010. We are speaking of the present? — Certainly. 6011. If that is so the wages need not go out and as a matter of fact do not go out to those sons weekly ? —No. 6012. The father's capital is, therefore, increasing wed: by week and sometimes year by year and he has the use of it until he sets one of those boys up in farming. Is not that so? — Yes. Mi. (iri'cn: My point was that this farmer made his money apparently during the 30 years of agri- cultural depression. "The sons could only have cot £3 a week from say 1917. 6013. Mr. Longford : We are speaking of the future now, hut if the Chairman will allow me to go int > the past I would liko to do that with regard to the ? ue* t ion of a farmer with a number of working sons, submit to you that in the agricultural years of de- pression those farmers who did not go into the Bankruptcy Court were farmers who had large families to assist them and who, therefore, had not large wages bills to meet each Saturday night?— Yes. <«)! I. If that was useful to the farmer in the past it will be increasingly useful-to him now that wages have gone up I will not say too much, but to a con- siderable figure? — Yes. 6015. When a father sets up two or three sons in farms he sets them up on money that has been saved in consequence of no wages having had to go out? i es. 6016. A farmer with a big family is. therefore, considerably better off than & farmer who has no family ."—Undoubtedly. 6017. If I had not been one of a family of 13 and all hard working I certainly should not have been here to-day— I mean I should not have been in a position which enable? me to gain the knowledge I have of farming. That is the point I want to bring out. 6018. Mr. Lennard: You said in answer to Mr Dallas that you did not think it wise to keep land such i No. 1 land in tillage. Have you the same opinion about much of the heavy clay land in Sussex about which Mr. Cautley questioned you?— Yes, I have. «i(h this proviso, that if you wish to produce anything like the proportion of wheat that we need in England von have got to keep it in cultivation. If you are go'ing to import wheat by all means let it go out of cultiva- tion. 6019. If we are to feed ourselves?— If we are to feed ourselves this land must bo kept in cultivation, hut f we nre to run the risk of importing our food stuffs think this land should go out of cultivation. 6030. Your figure of nn 80s. guarantee is simply a igurc you think neces«nry if „,• nre to produce all the wheat Matured to feed our population ?— It Is a figure which I him- heard from various farmers that will keep them still growing eorn. I think thev will try and grow corn at SO*. It is so very much more than they over got in prewar d:ns that thev think th,.v enn do it whether thev will l,o nble to is another matter, but I think they will go on doing it. 6021. They will continue cultivating land which it onlv IK- worth while, cultivating if we were going in for th<- policy of feeding our population on home produce?— Yes, MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 33 26 August, 1919.] MR. M. D. BANNISTER, F.S.I. [Continued. 6022. Another advantage of the guarantee is that it would suffice to keep in tillage a greater proportion of land than was in tillage in the pre-war period — say, in the year 1913? — I think that question would depend upon what is going to be the price of beef and mutton. If beef and mutton is going to stay up at anything like the present prices I do not think people who were previously farming arable land would trouble to do so now, because they can make a very good price for their cattle by grazing. I quite realise that an arable farm carries more stock than a pasture farm, but a purely grazing farm carries much less trouble than an ara'ble farm. For that reason I think that farmers would be rather inclined to go in for pasture unless they get a guarantee somewhere in the neigh- bourhood of the figure I have mentioned. 0023. They would be inclined to turn the land down to grass? — Yes, they would rather produce beef on grass admittedly, perhaps not getting quite BO much profit as they would if they had it in arable, but they would have much less trouble and much less capital involved. 6024. It has been pointed out to us by a number of witnesses that the important thing is not so much to maintain the wheat area a; to maintain the arable area — to keep the land in tillage so that it could be switched on to wheat growing in an emergency. Do you consider that the high prices of beef and mutton would actually cause a great deal of the land to be turned down to permanent grass or will it be possible for the situation to be met by using the arable land for meat production and dairy farming? — Dairying undoubtedly will keep up the arable. The more milk we produce the more land \r9 shall have as arable, I think. 6025. That is very interesting. In the course of your business, I suppose you moot a large number of farmers and hear their "opinions about agricultural policy? — Yes. 6026. I suppose it is the case, as we are told it is with most farmers, that they feel insecure about the future of cereal farming? — Yes. 6027. Is it that they think cereal production — I am not meaning cereal production to such an extent as would feed the population, but such as would suffice to keep us, say, producing as much corn as we are producing at the present moment, or something mid- way betwen the present figure and tho figure for 1913 — but is it the case that they fear the future would make that nnremunerative, or is it that they think the future of beef and mutton prices would make the production of beef and mutton more remunerative?— I think very manv of the farmers have got it into their heads that when this year's guarantee has come tn an end, thev have to drop to 45s., unless they can niako more. They have the old 45s. of the Corn Production Act in their heads. That is what is reallv the matter with many of them. 6028. Is it really the fact that they fear a fall in the world's prices, or that they fear the Government stepping in and fixing maximum prices which would prevent them getting advantage of the world prices? —I think they fear the fall of prices here owing to the imported corn. 6029. And that fear has been to some extent in- duced, you consider, by the Corn Production Act having fixed prices which fell away from year to year, going down to 45s. ? — Yes, I think so. 6030. They have taken the figures of the Corn Pro- duction Act as indicating the opinion of experts as to the probable course of world prices? — I think so. 6031. If farmers had to choose between a guarantee of 60s. a quarter for wheat for four years, or no guarantee at all. which do you think they would prefer? — I should not like to answer that on the spur of the moment. It would need a good deal of think- ing about. 6032. Do you think if it is a guarantee of 60s. for four years, it would make them feel they would not run the risk of serious loss if they continued with cereal production ? I want you to leave out the idea of growing so much corn that we would actually feed ourselves? — Yes. f.033. It has been pointed out to us that a guarantee which lasted for four years, say, on a four-course system, is much better for farming than a shorter guarantee. A lower figure stretching ow several years would give a farmer more sense of security than a higher figure for a single year? — I think that per- haps would be so with the majority of farmers. I personally would prefer to gamble on the higher figure, if I could get it But I think on the whole farmers would prefer a lower guarantee for a longer time, although it is not a matter I have discussed with them. It is only my personal opinion that I am giving on the spur of the moment. 6034. Do you think the 60s. would give them a sort of feeling that they would not run the risk of having what was 'described to us the other day as the knock- out blow of a bad period? — I think it would make them think for some considerable time as to what was the wise thing to do under the circumstances. I think they would seriously consider going on. Whether they would finally decide that it was adequate or not, is another question. 6035. It would save them from this fear of world's prices tumbling down to 45s.? — Yes. 6036. You said just now in answer to one of the Commissioners, that you did not yourself put much faith in guaranteed prices even if they are high. Have you any alternative to suggest for them? — I am afraid I have not. 6037. 3/r. Nicholls: I only wanted to get clear on one or two points. Did I understand you to say that the ploughman in Sussex was working 6 days a week, seven hours a day, for 42s.? — This was previous to the last increase in wages. In that time he would be. 6038. And the seven hours apply to the time he is working in the field? — Yes, in the field. 6039. Does he get overtime for the hours beyond that seven, or what happens:' — No. I was taking it that he would work his nine hours, of which seven would be in the field. 6040. Mr. Dallas: On a point of order, surely Mr. Bannister is unconsciously making an error. Prior to the last increase in wages the rate for carters in Sussex was 48s. for all the hours they could work ; that is the customary hours wages? — Certainly; but on this farm they were paying 42s., and this was one man they were paying 4s. over the standard wage. 6041. Mr. Nicholls: Did 1 understand you to say that in that district the men were getting higher than the minimum? — In some cases; I mean the better farmer is paying higher wages and getting the better men. The worst farmer is paying the standard wages and getting the worst men. 6042. Your suggestion was that a few of the best type were really above the minimum? — Certainly. 6043. I was not quite clear about the " swelled head " business. I did not quite know to whom that applied. Does it apply to the young men or to the ordinary labourer? — The type of man I found it applied to was the youngster who had got his pro- tection certificate ; I mean admittedly it is the worst type of farm hand. But there was a considerable number — there must be black sheep in all classes — who did find he was practically indispensable and he was protected, and he began to think he was more indispensable than he really was ; whereas the older man, even if he was within the age limit and got his protection certificate, took a much better view of things and worked much better accordingly. 6044. What I wanted to get at was, was he worse during that period than you wfjuld suggest he is now? — He is beginning to come to reason again now — - very fast. 6045. Because my experience was that generally that type of young fellow was a better proposition to the farmer because he had got him exempted and he held the whip-hand over him, and there was a threat of the Army if he did not keep up to scratch. My experience was the very opposite from what you have suggested and I wondered whether there was anything special in that? — No; that has not been my ex- perience. 6046. In reply to Mr. Langford, 1 was not quite sure whether you have come to the conclusion that the chief guarantee which really a successful agri- culturist needs against depression is to have a large family, mostly sons? — I think that is. the best insur- ance you can have. 02 34 ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 86 Amgtut, 1919.] MR. M. D. BANNISTER, F.S.I. [Continued. 8047. You think that that would be safer than rually trusting to the Government? — I would rather trull to my" sons than to the Government. 6043. Mr. 1'arktr: I waut to get your opinion on on* point, and I will first a :,.n >.,;.n.il j,, r acre is required in your district for arable land. Would it be anything from £15 to £20?— 1 should sav 6049. Thon what capital would be required for the •ame land in grans : would it be a different < Yea; I waa rather thinking it would be under l'l(i. 6060. £l.j you oiiy for arable, and £10 for ^ — I should think i'.S would cover it for gram. 6051. It is more than I thought. Supposing a farmer has £20,000 capital in arable land at the pre- sent time and would only require, putting it at my £5 but you say a bigger difference, £15,000 for the same land in grass, it would be good business at the present prices for him to put that land down to grass and withdraw the £5,000 capital and invest it in something safer than farming:' — He has got to get it down to grass first. 6052. Yes; but is not there a strong temptation to a farmer, unless he is protected by a good guarantee, at the present time to put the land down to grass and withdraw so much capital;* — Yes, I think there U. 6053. Unless he is protected?— Yea. 6054. It seems to me a strong, point that many farmers make so as to realise some of their' capital .>'. very good prices and have a les, risky time in farm- ing. Would that I*- your opinion? — V. - 6055. Mr. Smith : I should like to get some clear idea with regard to these figures that you have placed before us. Do you suggest that these are actual figures of expenditure for the purposes enumerated? —I do not suggest that he has hired somebody to plough his land and paid him 36s. for doing it; because he employs his own horses and tackle and paya his men by tfie week, and they may be ploughing one day and doing something else the next. 6056. Do you seriously suggest that it costs 36s. an acre to plough light land? — I do. 6057. How much has the oost of ploughing in- creased since the war? — I should think somewhere from 125 to 150 per cent. 6058. Is not it generally taken by valuers that' the cost has doubled? — No; or not in my district. I do not know about others. 6059. Would the extra cost in your district be greater than in some other districts then?. \Ve are Here in private, so I think it is permissible for me to say that our Valuers' Association covering thi se three Counties, had our meeting the week before last to decide on the prices to be put for this current year's valuation. After A very long discussion, it wa« agreed on a 125 per cent, increase over pre-war prices. Personally, I was in favour of 150 per cent., as many others wore; but it was very close voting, and 125 per cent, won it. 6060. And that is the standard now taken for -vour County P— Ye«. 6061. Ig not it true that some valuers before i In- var, «ay in 1913, estimated tho oost of ploughing light Und at 10*. an acre?— They may have dono in •om* Counties ; I do not know. 6062. But are not thero what might be termed standard works which valuers to some extent take as their guide, which lay down that 10s. an acre for light land is a fair price?— You will find some ..Id standard works of many years ago whero they say 10m. ; in fart. I think yon could find some when- they •ajr 8«. I believe I could find you some. 6063. You would not call n work published in 1914 an old book, would you ? \ 0084. If f suggest that there are publications by rccogni^d authorities as recent as 191 I. where 10s. an ar re i> taken a* the cost for ploughing light land - f I should «ny they were undoubtedly wrong. 6065. I cannot deride between you. Still, it in a fact that has been stated. — I am quite prepared to take that from you. 6086. You hnve got a wonderful crop of wheat hero which has already bwn referred to in No. I. I von hnve got .V. 'quarters of wheat there On these heavy-bearing crops, is not thero generally (- much straw P— You, there is t.<-ua11v. 0007. Thon can you explain how it is that on a crop of 36 quarters thure are only 4 tons of straw, whilst on a poor crop of 124 quarters for 5 acres. - quarters to the acre as against U quarters, there are 3 tons of straw? — On the heavy -yielding crop then was very short .straw indeed and a thirk piant, wlioi. the other land thero was longer straw and ii MTV poor plant-, It It is rather a remarkable difference, is it not: :i ions of straw from 12J quarters and only 1 tons from .'tti quarters?- '. Then I see in No I you put do» 11 •'Cutting and binding and harvesting.'' \\hat exactly do you mean by that? You separate them. The two are generally considered as part of the harvesting opera- tion, are not they?— 1 have taken cutting and binding on the cost of doing it per acre. The cutting ana binding are done by two men and a boy, or one man and a boy and the horses, whereas when you come to the actual harvesting you have to have a big mini I NT of horses and a bigger number of men and work in a gang ; that is why 1 took it separately. 6070. What is your explanation of the fact that it takes just as much to harvest the corn per acre w hen there are only 2J quarters to the acre, as it does when there are 9 quarters? — It is a question of the distance from the buildings and the hilliuess of the land. Obviously, if you have a very heavy hilly district \ industry; what are they expecting or what are tin ir ideas in regard to farming in the future?- T tlrnk they are, on the whole, satisfied with the meat side of the question. I believe- those prices have ab~o- lutely satisfied them — or I will not say absolutely satisfied them, but satisfied them. UO7X. It would be almost too much to say that with regard to farmers?— Yes ; but taking them as a whole I think they are satisfied with those prices. As to milk. I believe they will be satisfied- or perhaps I ought not to mention any prices for milk ; but they .are rather doubtful almut milk, and T think they are very doubtful about corn. (1079. What do you think their trouble is with regard to corn? — I think they arc so frightened of imports and a very big drop in the price. i. Do you think then that they are expecting some help in that direction? — Expecting or hoping? 6081. Whichever you like. I am trying to learn what their opinions are?— 1 think they are hoping, but rather doubtful about expecting. 6082. Do you think they look forward with any lack of confidence to the future as far as the industry is concerned? — Yes, I do. 6083. Due to this uncertainty of price? — I think due to the whole uncertainty of everything at the, moment. There is the uncertainty of the | are going to realise; the uncertainty of the price's they have to give for all their feed ing 'stuffs and their implement*, and also the uncertainty of their labour. been '"-I Did T understand you to say that there had en sales of land in vour district?-' Yes. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 26 August. 1919.] MR M. O. BANNISTER, F.S.I. [Continued. 6085. Have many of the farmers bought their own farms? — A fair number. 6086. Would you suggest that that indicates a want of confidence ; when a man is prepared to purchase his holding, does not that suggest the opposite? — Yes ; but I have had some of them who have purchased who are trying to get out, which rather bears against it again. 6087. They have repented already of buying their farms? — There was one man bought a farm last year who had been the tenant of it for a very long time. I, as a matter of fact found him the whole of the money on mortgage, and only yesterday he came to me to say if I could possibly get him out again he would like to. 6088. Still, there is a good number purchasing their farms? — Yes, there are. 6089. And that would not suggest that they had any want of confidence in the industry in the future? — There is not the keenness to buy now that there was three months ago. 6090. But surely the happening the other day sug- gests just the opposite — that the farmers did want to buy their farms. They stopped the sale on the Beau- champ Estate? — That was nearly three months ago, was it not? 6091. No; 1 road it this week. Mr. Liinyford : There was another one last Satur- day?— I have not seen tliat case. 6092. Mr. Smith: They stopped the sale and thought they ought to be given the chance of pur- chasing their farms? — That is one I have not heard of. 6093. The fact that farmers desire to buy their land in that fashion rather suggests to my mind that they have confidence in the future rather that a lack of confidence? — A certain number. VPS. 6094. A man would not invest the whole of his capital in his farm if he did not feel fairly confident that the industry was going to be successful'* — Yes: but the proportion of men who are buying their farms is very small ill proportion to those who are farming. 6095. Would you «»y it is a fair proportion of those who have the opportunity, having regard to the amount that is being told? — I should say go; but I should think that at perhaps 30 per cent, of the sales the tenants have bought, taking it all round. 6096. That is a fairly gcod percentage for an in- dustry which is depressed and whose future ia rather black, is it not? — Yes 6097. Mr. Walker: These statement* you have put in are purely estimates, are not they? — The coste ar*. The work is actually what we have done. Where I have put prices against artificials and so on, they aro actual bills. 6098. Would it be true to say that valueri in the different areas agree from time to tinif on certain scales ? — Yes. 6099. And that these figures presented to us arc based on those scales for your particular area? — No: these are not based on these scales. In many cases they work out very near it, but they are not based upon it. I have based these figures upon what I have found a man does per day on any particular culti- vation on that particular farm, having regard to the rate of wage paid on the farm. 6100. Yes.; but, of course, under different headings you would have regard to this scale to which I have referred?--! am afraid I do not quite follow you. 6101. Take No. 1, for example. " Twice tractor ploughing, 30s." Is that fair?— That is the man's own tractor, and the Agricultural Executive Com- mittee wore doing work in that district nt that time and charging 30s. for it, so I based it upon that. 6102. That would be fairly clean land, would it not? —Yes. 6103. In your opinion was it necessary to twito tractor plough?— I think it was necessary to plough it three times. It is a question of whether you use the tractor or the horses. 6104. Going further down that table, you have " 2 years' rent and rates." Why 2 years:' J. da not quite follow that? — It was a clear fallow: it is wheat after a, clear fallow. 610o. Have you any particulars of actual financial results 2 — 1 have not of the wheat, because all my annual valuations in the past have been made at Michaelmas. Then when this last increase of farmers' Income Tax came in, and they were charged on double the rent, with the right to put in their accounts on the 1st June, there were a certain number of fresh farmers — if you remember that announcement came out in March, I think — who said: " Very well; I want you to make accounts for me as from the 1st June to 1st June." For that reason, I have only got just the one year. There was the 1st of this June and the 1st of last June; so I cannot produce any accounts showing the relation of this year's with the previous years — not on a June valua- tion. 6106. Could you supply the Commission with any particulars from the point of view of an actual balance sheet or balance sheets? — Subject to the farmei's con- sent, which I think I can get, I could send you prob- ably one man who deals with 5 or 6 different farms. I think he would allow me to send you the audited balance sheets of those farms for the year. I would ask him to do so. 6107. That would be very useful. Are there any others? — There are some others I could send you where balance sheets have been made out in my own office. They are not audited ; but my own clerks have done them, and I think I could send those to you. 6108. With their consent, you will send those up? — Yes. 6109. Mr. Edwards: I should like to add one supplementary question. I think I understood you to say, referring to a particular man, that you advanced all the purchase money of his farm? — Yes. 6110. Is that a typical case of men who are buying land in your district? — I was a fool to do it, but I was sorry for the old man being turned out. It was purely on that basis I did it. 6111. But is that typical? What is the proportion of farmers who are able to buy the land? 6112. Chairman: I think the witness answered that. It was a very small proportion, and they borrowed only a proportion of their purchase money? — Aa a business transaction, you could not possibly borrow more than two-thirds. 6113. Mr. Edininlx: Yrs ; but I want to know what proportion of the farmers are compelled to do that in purchasing their farms? — I should think 80 per cent, of the farmers have to get a mortgage. 6114. Chairman: I understand in 80 per cent, of the cases it does not exceed two-thirds? — No. If anyone came to me I could not advise them to advance more than two-thirds. 6115. Many farmers buy the land and take a mort- gage upon it. but the mortgage does not exceed two- thirds In the exceptional case you mention, the farmer borrowed the lot? — Yes. 6116. Whether the lender was wise or unwise? J do not think there was any doubt about that. 6117. Mr. Batchrlvr: With your permission, Mr Chairman, might I ask if the witness has had any experience of putting into the Inland Revenue Department this year accounts showing profits less than double rent? — I have some accounts that are going in. 6118. They show less than double the rent? — Yes. 6119. Could we have those; are they the same accounts? — You shall have all the accounts that I have got that I can get consent to put in, whether they show a profit or loss. 6120. Chairman: We are very much obliged to you. (The Witness withdrew.) nan 0 3 36 ROTAL COMMISSION ON AORICULTUBE. MR. THOMAS C. GOODWIN. EIGHTH DAY, WEDNESDAY, 27TH AUGUST, 1919. PRESENT : SIB W. B. PEAT (Chairman). SIB WILLIAM JAMES ASHLEY. DB. C. M. DOUGLAS, C.B. MR. G. G. REA, C.B.E. MB. W. ANKER SIMMONS, C.B.E. MB. H. OVERMAN, O.B.E. MB. A. W. A6HBY. MB. A. BATCHELOR. MB. H. S. CAUTLEY, K.C., M.P. MB. GEORGE DALLAS. MB. J. F. DUNCAN. MB. F. E. GREEN. MB. W. EDWARDS. MB. T. HENDERSON. MB. T. PROSSER JONES. MB. E. W. LANGFORD. MR. R. V LENNARD. MB. GEORGE N1CHOLLS. MB. E. H. PARKER. MB. R. R. ROBBINS. MB. W. R. SMITH, M.P. MB. R. B. WALKER. MB. THOMAS C. GOODWIN, Cheshire Chamber of Agriculture, called and examined. 0131. Chairman: Will you allow me to put your printed statement of evidence in as read 'f — Yes. (Evidence-in-chief handed in by Witnas.) ECONOMIC PBOSPKCTB or AGRICULTURE. 6133. (a) We all recognise the extreme difficulty of fixing prices and declaring an agriculture policy that will be fair to all concerned, all we ask is that the conditions of agriculture shall be made so stable, that out of its profits the worker can be assured a fair wage, the cultivator of the soil a fair return for his capital, energy and brains, and our Country made secure against a repetition of tho position we were in when war broke out in 1014. (b) With this aim in view it does appear to me only fair and just to those engaged in this work that some guarantee should be given (and that immediately) to secure the farmer against some of tho risk of keeping tho present acreage of land under arable cultivation said also to restore confidence to the farmer in the re- peated promises made to him, from high quarters of assist* m-e in hi* present uncertain position, which con- fidonce is at the moment very seriously shaken and unless this is done the land of this country u 11 go down to grass in an little time as it has been ploughed up. I would now submit for your consideration the costs of growing the most important of tho farm crop*. (e) Detailed statements 1 to 11 attached herewith. Potatoes: Main Crop, 1915, 38 acres highland, £93 11s. per acre. 1919, Medium Land, £63 6s. 9d. Wheat after roots, 1914, £8 17s. 3d. Wheat after clover, 191/5. light land, £9 10». 6d. Wheat afUr oats, old turf, 1919, £16 17s. 3d. I would draw vour nti.ntion More to th< higher • on light land with greater risk of getting a good crop and oven under favourable eondi- •ns a less yield than from the better wheat lands and unless in the fixing of prices you have regard to this fact you would miiu nails reduce tho acreage of wheat. (d) Cost of growing oats per acre, 1915, £7 3s. 6d., 1919, £14 6s. ad.* Clover hay, 1915, £4 17s., 1919, £11 13s. 9d., Mangolds, 1915, on medium light land, 30 acres, £15 19s. 3d., 191 9, £41 7s. 9d.* Swedes, 1915, £11 11s. 3d., 1919, .1:1! fc. ;id.» (e) Root crops are, of course, very expensive to grow and the risk of growing these crops when we got «Ji abnormally dry season like the present one will bo manifest to all and this very materially aifocts th-; cost of producing both milk, beef and mutton and never was tho position more serious than now. (f) The question of labour is most important and I sineeroly hope, that the present methods of tho Wages Board will not bo continued. I refer to the continual alteration in hours. So far as our district is con- n-rued tho men are satisfied on the question of hours and do not ask for any alteration, realising as they must do the impossibility of carrying on a dairy farm if tho hours are further reduced. (g) There is another serious aspect of tho labour question, the lessened output of work and the lack of interest and this is in turn lowering tho standard of farming. (h) The most encouraging fact to my mind is the strong co-pperntivo movement among farmers them- selves and' 1 hope the time will speedily come when in this way tho farmers will be able to handle and put on the market all their own produce and so bring the oon- MIIIHT iind producer closer together while not driving out the best fanner* as some other M stems might do, I hope to see agriculture so consolidate on thene line.s that in the future there will bo no need for a Royal Commission or in fact any other commission. * Corrected figures. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 27 August, 1919.] MR. THOMAS 0. GOODWIN. [Continued. Table No. 1. Cost of growing Main Crop Potatoes, Cost per acre. 1919. £ s. d. 2 10 3 1 10 0 1 10 0 0 7 0 15 0 076 0 15 0 15 0 0 300 6 Rent and rates After oat stubble ploughing (Autumn) Cross ploughing (Spring) Harrowing (twice) ... Cultivating (twice) Harrowing (twice) Drilling Manure, 20 tons at 15s.- Carting, 2s. 6d. per ton and spreading Artificial Manures. Five cwt. sup., one cwt. sulphate of am. ... 2 10 0 Sowing artificials ... ... ... ... 050 Potato seed — 15 cwt. per acre at £12 per ton 900 Boxing, holeing and planting 1 15 0 Covering 0 15 0 Harrowing down 050 Scuffling 0 10 0 Hoeing ... 040 Scuffling 0 10 0 Top dress — one cwt. sulphate of ammonia and sowing ... 126 Soil up with plough 0 15 0 •Sifting and hoeing ... ... ... ... 000 Riddling and putting in pit ... ... 600 Bagging, weighing and delivery 4 10 0 £59 16 0 P.S. — Where sold off field the last three items would be merged and reduced to £10, thus reducing total cost per acre to £53 6s. 9d. Table No. 2. Coit per Acre Main Crop Potatoes, Rents and rates After clover ley manuring Twenty tons per acre — 5s. per ton Carting and spreading ..." Ploughing (Autumn) Cross ploughing (Spring) Harrowing (twice) Cultivating (twice) ... Harrowing (once) Drilling Artificial manures 5 cwt. superphosphate and 1 sulphate Sowing Potato seeds 15 cwt. at £5 per ton Planting ... ... Covering Harrowing down Scuffling (twice) ... Hoeing Top dress 1 cwt. sulphate ammonia and sowing ... Soil up with plough Lifting and hodding Weighing and delivering ... 1915. £ s. d. 1 8 0 500 1 10 0 0 12 () 0 12 0 036 090 0 1 9 050 139 020 3 15 0 050 050 020 050 0 1 0 0 11 0 050 3 15 0 200 £22 11 0 Table No. 3. Cost per acre of Wheat-growing, 1914. Henhull Grange. — Wheat after Root*. £ s. d. Ploughing 0 12 0 Harrowing (twice) 030 Drilling 020 Harrowing (once) 016 S<.er acre. Table No. 8. Co$t of growing Clover Hay, 1916. Seeds for 1 or 2 years' ley Sowing, harrowing and rolling Cutting and harvesting Artificial manure, 5 cwt. superphosphate, 1 sulphate of ammonia (including sow- ing) 160 Rent, rates 180 £ s. d. 0 i:. o 030 1 5 0 £4 17 0 Table No. 9. Coit per acre of growing Clover, 1919. Seeds — 1 or 2 years! ley Sowing, harrowing and rolling Artificial manures and sowing— 5 cwt. superphosphate and 1 cwt. sulphate of ammonia Cutting and harvesting Rant and rates £ 3 0 s. d. 0 0 8 6 '2 I.'. 3 0 2 10 £11 13 9 Table No. 10. Coti per acre of groiriny M-im/ulils, 1915. Stoke Grange - 30 acres. £ s. .1. Rent and rates 180 Ploughing out of stubble (autumn) ... 0 12 0 Manure (20 tons per acre at 5s.)... ... 500 Carting and spreading 150 Cross-ploughing ... ... 0 12 0 Harrowing (twice) ... ... ... ... 0 .'t olicy to all concerned? — By that I mean a fair price to the producer and also a fair price to the consumer. 6129. .That does not take us far BO far as a policy is concerned. What would you suggest to secure that which you have just mentioned ae a policy? — If you go a little further on you will find that ns far a* fanners are concerned I strongly favour a strong oo- opi-rativc movement 6130. We will come to that in a moment. What is tho ]K>lioy you have at ihe back of your mind that \on mention here!- WTlmt I am aiming at thero is securing the fixing of prices— and I take it that is the chief object which is in view — on such a basis that will allow to the producer and the workers em- ployed a fair return for the-ir energy and labour and capital, and nUo what will In- fair' to the man who • consume the produce. I tliink it. is obvious to anyone reading the paragraph that that is the inten- tion. 6131. You are a dairy farmer, I take, it? — Yes. at the p recent time, Fnit 'i hnve had considerable e>- •i nil classes of farming. Up to the year I was a very largo proeluc-er of milk nn a mixed farm. Then 1 farmed a largie arable farm of 764 acres. with 440 acres on the plough. I was turned out of MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 39 27 August, 1919.] MR. THOMAS Cr GOODWIN. [Continued. that by the War Office, who took 300 acres for an aerodrome. I then bought a farm of my own. The 764 acre farm was at Stoke Grange in Shropshire. 6132. From that wide experience do you consider we can produce sufficient cereals in this country for home requirements, independent of foreign imports? — We can greatly increase the present production if sufficient capital and enterprise were employed in agriculture. 6133. You think that we could do it? — I do not think we could absolutely clear it, but I do think we could greatly increase the present production. 6134. Could we do it in time? — A great deal depends upon the methods that are carried out for the en- couragement of the man to do it. It is a very diffi- cult matter to tell what we can do. 6135. Could you suggest any method whereby it could be done?— At the present time we certainly need a great deal more encouragement and a grea't deal more confidence given to us to cover some of the risk we have. 6136. In what way?— The risk on the arable farm is very great at the present time chiefly owing to the rise in the cost of labour and everything connected with the production of cereals. 6137. What guarantee do you ask for? You refer in paragraph (6) to some guarantee ?— Certainly, nothing below the present guarantee; I think it should be over the present guarantee. Of course we cannot tell what the cost and the conditions of labour are going to be in the future, but in the present circumstances it certainly should be over the present guarantee. 38. Do you mean your confidence is shaken in the stability, as it were, of the industry itself?—! think that the confidence of the farmers generally is shaken to some extent owing to the fact that they are not sure, as to what is going to take place in the future in respect to the cereal crops, because, as i* obvious to anyone, there is a greater risk in the growing of cereals owing to the steasons and all the rest of it than there is in some other methods of farming. 6139. Your confidence seems to be shaken anyhow in the apparent promises of the Government? At the present time we have nothing very definite as to the future, have we? 6140. I think you will agree that farming during tho past few years has1 been very remunerative?— has certainly been better than over before, but up to the time the war broke out I do not think the agriculturist has ever had a sufficient return on hi« capital. In respect of the production of milk, may s;iy 1 .supplied th.- Liverpool hospitals and infirmaries with practically all the milk they wanted. Then I stopped because my farm was sold to the County Council. I then had to consider the question ns to whether it was going to pay me to continue during the remaining part of my time at that farm to produce the winter milk. My contract was for over 200 gallons a day for the winter, and 250 a day for tho summer. I went into the question very fully in the Autumn of 1913— apart from the need to keep up the fertility of the farm— and I came to the conclusion at once that it did not. As a going con- <•••! -n with tli<> need for keeping up the high fertility of tho farm that it had attained then, it was a dif- ferent matter, but simply as to the question of pro- ducing tho milk and whether it would pay me better to do that or to discontinue it, I came to the conclu- sion that it di'd not and at once sold my dairy cattle. 6141. Prior to the war the industry was fairly remunerative ?— Yes, but everything, of course, de- pended upon tho men 'engaged "in it as it did in every other industry. It was just the few heat men that were, perhaps, making a living, a great many others, in my opinion, were not doing so. 6142. On what evidence do you base your apparent assumption that during the next few years there will bo a tendency for the industry to become unremunorn- tive?— -If wo get the prices of cereals down through the bringing over of corn here from foreign countries. of course, that will materially affect the position hi-ro. and tho fart that we, with present costs, shall not be able to compete with thorn. 6143. Do you think there is a likelihood of prices falling during tho noxt year or two? I would not •ay that the prices may fall very much during the next year or two, but the farmer has got to look a long way ahead. He cannot reckon on one or two years in the course of his farming. He has to look a long way ahead, or he may find himself very materially wrong. 6144. In paragraph (/) you have someth:ng to say about the Wages Board. Could you tell the Commission how often hours have been altered by the Wages Board in your district since the inception of the Board?— I could not give you definitely the number of times there has been an alteration in the hours, but during the last twelve months we have had continued alterations in the hours. 6145. By the Wages Board?— Yes. 6145A. You cannot tell us how often?— In the first place we had them reduced to 61. 6146. When was that?— I have not the exact date, but it is within the last twelve months. Then we had them reduced to 60 — I am speaking of our own country. 6147. Since the inception of the Board am I not correct in saying that the hours have only been altered twice by the Board?— I think it is more than that. 6148. I am asking you ? — Are you taking into con- sideration the half-holiday— because that was one alteration? 6149. No, I am dealing with the general working hours?— I think they were altered about three times, taking the half-holiday as one alteration. 6150. Quite. That bears out my statement. Apart from the 6J hours' day they have only been altered twice. Am i correct in making that statement? Yes, I think you are, but I cannot say definitely as to that. 6151. So that the statement with regard to the con- tinued alteration of hours by the Wages Board is not quite correct when you look into it?— From the dairy- man's point of view it is disastrous that we should get three alterations of hours in twelve months. 6152. The Wages Board has been in existence more than twelve months? — Yes, but any alteration they made had not the same detrimental effect previously as it has had since. 6153. In paragraph (g) you talk about the lessening output of work? — Yes. 6154. Could you give the Commission' any concrete examples of what you mean by that? — There is a lack of interest in the work now. We never seemed to get that lack of interest in the old days. There is also a lack of efficiency; we cannot get the same efficient men able to perform and do the uork as we could in the old days. \Vlieii the old men pass off we cannot replace them with equally good men. 6155. Do you think the war has had any effect? — I certainly think this was going on to some extent prior to the war, but I do not think that the young men that are coming back, or many of them, show the interest that we expected them to do in their work, nor are they as efficient as we expected them to be. 6156. Have you fewer men on your farm now than you had prior to the war? — I was not farming on my present farm prior to the war. I have more men on my farm at the present time than used to be cm- ployed on the farm prior to tho war, but that does not say much, because it is under very different con- ditions now. Speaking generally, there are less men on the farms to-day than there were before the war. 6157. Did you read Mr. Lloyd George's speech in the House of Commons the other day ? Yes. 6158. Did you notice where he stated that there was only one industry which had increased its out- put?—Yes, I noticed that. 6159. That industry was? — Agriculture. 6160. That is rather remarkable in view of this lessened output statement of yours, is it not? It may be so, but at the same time I am speaking of the great dairying county of Cheshire in particular. \\hich take tin nn •;. away from the industry:- Of course where 1 nin now. I am close to Crcwe, the great railway works, and I think there is something of the 'kind in that immediate neighbourhood, but as a matter of fact, as far as labour iUwlf is concerned I think there has been more trouble and unrest in other parts of the county away from the industrial centres. 6180. Would that be because of dissatisfaction an applied to the industry it> If'-1. T do not think that. I think perhaps in Crewe they are able to get a little uioii- money m bomo cant* and they do uot value the extra that they would get when they arc employed mi the farms. 0161. Theru must be BOUIO explanation of this luck of interest, and I am rather anxious to know what it is — whether it is due to an attraction by oihei -mlu»- tries which tempts the men away from agriculture, and therefore does not impress weir minds with the necessity of looking upon agriculture .is their life's, work, or whether it is due to borne other reason? — I think one of the chief attractions is the fact that they have the week-ends to themselves and they have not any Sunday work in the industrial centres — that is one of the chief attractions whLh diuu.s the men :.uay. 6182. Do you think therefore it would help the in- dustry if the labour conditions were made as good as possible in order to retain the workmen and retain their interest? — I believe it is all to the benefit of the industry that we should pay the best wages we possibly can and make tho conditions as good as they can be made. 6183. Do you think this matter of interest is due to the abnormal circumstances, through which the nation has passed? — I think that has something to do with it. 6184. Therefore in that respect it may be only tem- porary? — Yes, it may be only teiii|x>rary. 6185. Coining to the figures yon have set out here it looks as though the rent of the land must have in- creased very substantially. I do not know whether we are comparing the same figures, but take example 2— rent and rates on the main crop of potatoes. £1 8s.— and example 1, which is £2 10s. 3d. P— That is owing to the fact that these are taken on my own farms. In 1916, I was farming tho large farm of 764 acres at lees rent than the one I am farming now — a different rent altogether. 618C. This is not a comparative statement on thu same farm? — No, it is the costs as they presented themselves to me on the two different farms. 6187. That makes it rather difficult to compare these figures to get a proper comparison. It ought to have been on the same farm, because the conditions might be quite different on the two farms as to soil .-uul things of that kind? — It would not have been fair for me to put the rent the same when I was on a different farm at a less rent. 6188. If it is a statement of fact nobody could take exception to it. My point is that to make a com- parison one would naturally conclude this referred to tin same farm? — No, it does not refer to the same, farm, but that only makes practically one point differ- ent. The greater increase conies from other factors. 6189. £1 2s. 6d. increase per acre from the point of view of rent is a rather substantial increase? — If I had put the rent the same on the light land farms it would have made the result worse, bwMM tho cost of producing on the lighter land is heavier than on the heavier lands for certain particular crops. 6190. What are we to understand by the term "drilling" in this potato cr<>|.:- That is drilling the drills out — ridging if you like. You have to ridge the- land first; then the manure is put on, and then the potatoes are dropped, and then the artificials, and then it is split end covered. 6191. I could not exactly gather if that was you- method by the use of the term " drilling " Then later on you state, " boxing, holeing and planting." —The up-to-date method is to have all your potato seta boxed. The holeing is done by an impttmaat \\hieh we have for going down the drills and making the holes and putting the seed in and keeping it in rows with exactly even distances apart and of tho •.Mine depth. 6192. The usual method is to drop the potato in as you go along out of a b»Rket?^That is out of date; that is not an up-to-date potato-growing method. '. I only want to know what these terms mean? This is the piaitiee adopted in all tin- up to date I'otato growing districts, because you get an e\. Ol depth and an equal distance between, and straight rows. 6194. I suppose the increase in labour would be one of the substantial items causing a difference in the figure*?- Yes. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 41 27 August, 1919.] MR. THOMAS C. GOODWIN. [Continued. 6195. Can you tell us what the increase in wages has been, either in actual figures or percentages? — I have not got the percentages, but in 1915 the average wage would be about one guinea a week on the large farm that I had in Shropshire. 6196. Not more than that? — No. 6197. Would that be a cash wage carrying any amount of extras? — There are always extras, which we do not count. 6198. You would count them now? — It was a cash wage ; the extras were not counted. 6199. Any extras that they obtained then would not count as part of the wage? — No. 6200. They would at the present time, would they not? — Yes. I find that the waggoners on this farm were getting 22s. a week then, and the workmen 19s. On a farm like that the bulk of your work is done piece-work, and an estimate like that is not a fair basis to take it on, because their wages would increase more than that. 6201. On the 1915 figures?— Yes. 6202. Are the 191.°t figures actual cost or an esti- mated cost ? — It is an estimated cost. 6203. The cost of labour has uniformly increased, has it not? That is to say, all classes of labour have had a proportionate increase in their wages? — Yes. 6204. Ought that not to reflect a similar uniform increase in the various operations? — In what way do you mean? 6205. To take " Cultivating, twice," that has in- creased 50 per cent? — Yes. G206. It has gone up from 9s. to 15s.? — Yes. 6207. When you come to hoeing it has increased from Is. to 4s.? — On that farm in 1915, as I said previously, the bulk of the work was done piecework. To-day we cannot get the piece-work done, the men do not want the piece-work. 6208. Take your drilling, that has increased three times ; that has gone from 5s. to 15s. ? — Yes, and where we used to get 3^ to 4 acres per day drilled in 1915 in Shropshire, to-day we are practically getting not 2 acres in some cases in Cheshire. 6209. I cannot understand why your cultivating should only increase from 9s. to I5s. while your drilling increases from 5s. to 15s. I should have thought that the same factors would operate in each case, and the increase would be reflected in the same way? — Not at all; there are so many different cir- cumstances to be taken into consideration— the land and the second time through of cultivating, and so on. It makes a great deal of difference. A man can do a great deal more of one job than he can of another. 6210. In so far as labour has varied, that varia- tion would not apply specially just to one operation and not to others? — Of course not, but there is a great deal of difference in the conditions under which you are doing your work. There is, for example, considerably greater difficulty now in getting men to do the drilling work than there is in the case of the cultivating work. It takes a more skilled man to do the drilling, work, and for drilling we often give a little extra on the farm for doing that work. 6211. Carting and spreading is exactly double — it has risen from £1 10s. to £3?— Yes. 6212. When you come to " Soil up with plough," that has increased three times — from 6s. to 15s.? — Yes, that is on the same basis as the ridging. 6213. Do you suggest that in these different opera- tions in the actual cost some of them have only doubled whereas others have increased three times? — Yes, I do. You cannot take the same basis all through. These estimates are based upon the amount of work that we actually find we can' get done by the men at present, and the amount of work that was done by the men in the other year. 0214. I cannot understand why there should be such a wide difference between the costs of the different operations? — It is owing to the different conditions under which we do them and the particular work at the time ; that accounts for it. 621/>. In sr>mc <-a.ses it is double and in other cases it i» four times. It is rather remarkable? — In 1915 I could get my swedes, for example, hoed twice over for- 9s. an acre, and the men would do well at it. This last year we have been paying £2 an acre for doing the same work once over, not twice, and I have not based it on the £2. That is one of the difficulties that farmers have to contend with. 6216. Take Table No. 2 and compare it with Table No. 1 in the same list of figures. In Table No. 2, 1915, you seem to have two items at the finish, lifting and hodding and weighing and delivering at a com- bined cost of £3 15s. ?— Yes. 6217. Those items seem to have increased three times in 1919. It costs £16 10s. What is the explana- tion of that? — There is a note at the bottom which explains some of it, but the explanation is that in 1915 that particular crop of potatoes was lifted at £3 15s. per acre at hand piece-work. The £2 covers the cost of weighing, bagging and delivering. To-day the potatoes we have to get with the potato getter, and you will find one acre is got in a day with two horses, one man and ten pickers. That accounts for the cost of £6 for lifting and hodding. It says sifting and hoeing in the print; that is a mistake, it should be lifting and hodding. You have to riddle the potatoes after that if you are going to keep them and put them in the pit, and then you have the bagging, weighing and delivering. If they are sold off the field the three items are merged in one and reduced to a cost of £10. 6218. I take it it is possible for the 1915 methods still to obtain, and does it not follow that the 1919 figures can under the same circumstances be reduced? —Yes, but where .are you going to get your potatoes . from in the spring if nobody keeps them? In one case they are sold straight off the field in the autumn, and in the other case the cost is shown if they are kept till the spring. 6219. My point is, if it is possible to weigh and deliver straight away in 1915 it is also possible for some of the potatoes to be dealt with in that way now, and in making comparative tables we want to be perfectly clear that everything is equal in the comparison and that we ought not to have the low cost in 1915 and all the higher figures put in in 1919 which might not obtain? — You have a note there on Table No. 1 that this cost may be reduced to £10 where the potatoes are sold off the field, making the total £53 6s. 9d. 6220. I see right t! rough on rave made the same difference in rent? — Yes. 6221. I suppose that is ;.n actual figure?— Yes, that is an actual figure. 6222. In regard to the last set of figures in Table No. 11, I see in the comparative figures you have at the finish you have three operations in 1919 and only two in 1915 ? — Yes. That is accounted for by the fact that in 1915 I grew 30 acres of mangolds there which were pulled, loaded in the carts and hodded by my men piece-work at £1 per acre, and the men got plenty of money at it. To-day you could not get that work done piece-work, or at anything like the price. It has to be done day-work, and it will cost you according to the estimate here, and you will be very fortunate if you get it done under those conditions. 6223. There is a wonderful difference between the two ? — I quite agree, but it is impossible to get it done at any less in Cheshire to-day. (i224. Would you suggest that the figures for this 1919 farm would be the same in 1915 as you suggest for the other farm? The difficulty is in comparing the two farms? — They might vary a little as they always do in different districts, but not very much. 6225. You put at the finish in Table No. 11 : " Less manurial residue left for corn crop, £1 Is.," but in 1914 when manure was one-third of the value you charge to the wheat crop, £1 15s.? — That is rather a special circumstance. That was grown on my original farm at Henhull where the roots had been specially dressed and more heavily manured and there was more residue. 6226. You have fairly heavy manure in 1919. You have 20 tons to the acre of natural manure and then you have your artificials. You have fairly substan- tial manuring in 1919? — Do you mean in the root growing? ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGHICULf UUK. XI IMl'J.] MR. THOMAS C. GOODWIN. [Continued. 6997. Yes, in Table 11?— Yes, that is fairly substan- tial manuring, but in this particular case 1 used to grow the roots there a great deal heavier than ne inch drills and they \vould be practically touching one another. You had to manure almost on a double basis for that. 1 used to manure twice over with the farmyard and we grow tremendously heavy roots under those conditions and the artificial's were almost doubled also. .Now nc daro not make tho drills less than 23 or 24 inches in order that wo can do more of tho work by horse work. 6338. In your Table No. 10 you show exactly the came amount of manure, 20 tons of natural and o cwt. of superphosphates and 1 cwt. of sulphate of ammonia:' — Yes, but that is on the other farm the Stoke Grange Farm. This is on tho first f;irm wliich is different Innd alt. ml under very dif- ferent conditions. 1 was producing on ihe first farm tho greatest quantity I possibly could for milk production in the winter. It was a very different thing from what I was doing when I went to the lieu- farm on the other system of farming. 6229. Do you not think it strange that the value of the manurial residue in 191 I should be charged at i'l l.>s. per acre, while manures were costing con- siderably less, and then in 1919 that according to your figures it is only worth £1 Is. per acre!- - It was on the quantity of manure used; that is where the increase comes in — the differences between the quan- tity of manures that were used then as compared to the quantity used now. 6230. Your figures rather suggest that the quantity of manure v. as the same in each case? — No, it was doable under those conditions. I used to manure1 twice with tho farmyard and on the same basis with the artificials. 6231. In the table with regard to mangolds the quantity of manure* is the same:1 — Yes, on that farm it is sou but on Henhull it was very much higher as it was under a different system. 6233. In regard to the question of some guarantee for the future, have you considered the natural play of the market in the future so far as agriculture is concerned? The open market to-day is very favour- able to the farmer, is it not, although I do not say you have the advantage of it?— We have not the open market and wo cannot judge as to what the open market would be; wo have no means of judging. 6239. The American prices generally determine the price of corn apart from the restrictions, and they would determine tho market price, would they not?— Yes, but it would he quite a different thing altogether if the markets in this country were open. 6334. Therefore, a guarantee would not help you at all to-day?— It would help us. For instance, at the present time if you take undeoorticated cotton cake I believe that is controlled at £19, whereas if you take the undeoorticated cotton rake which is im- ported you cannot buy it at anything like tin- money it is £23 I think. 6336. I want you to consider what tho future of the industry ii likely to be so far as open-market prices arc concerned ?— I think if we had got the market* ojM>n and we got a great quantity of stuff brought over it would have tho natural effect of re- ducing prices here. 6836. You think prices will be reduced?— I do; perhapn not immediately, but I think they will be reduced in the course of time. 6237. Hare you considered the eHWt of freight* on import*? --There is no doubt that freights will . Midorably, but is thorp any possible chance of freights being reduced to any extent? As far as 1 can tff, I do not think thoro'is. 9338. Therefore, that will have n tendency to keep up tho price of imported corn:- It might so far a-, tho frpight wa» concernod, 6939. Do you think that in tho next few y.nrs the natural conditions will be such that tho farmer will bo able to sell his produce apart from anv guarantees? It depend* upon how long you moan by " the noxt few Tears," because tho- farmor ha« to count in terms of yrnr W.- cannot lay a basis for our farming just for a year or two; we have to count on for years and have the whole plan of our farming system mapped out for years ahead in tho course of our cropping. i. l)» \ou think farmers consider that of great importance: It is a matter of uecc have to farm on up-to-date linos. 6211. \Vo have been told bore that the farmer has a great objection to taking his land on lease and that he prefers to take it on a yearly tenaiu • am not nblo to say much about that, because in our part of the country u. aro all of us practically cotn- |'< lied to buy our farms or else go out, nnd there will consequently very soon be neither taking a farm on lease nor on yearly tenancy in our part of the country ; they will all be on net s in a way. €242-3. Do you not think that suggests that the farmers have confidence in tie future of the industry by virtue of the fa<-t that they are content to pur- chase their holdings at the increased prices ill being asked,, which they do? — No; it is a case of compulsion. You have either to do it or go .out, and there are plenty of farmers who have had to buy their farm.s with borrowed money. I do not know what they will do in the future, but what can they do when they are facod with a sale over their heads? They either have to buy their farms or go out, and if they go out, where are they to get another!' (5214. Apparently they have to choose the lesser of the two evils?- A very largo nuiiil>er of the.-e farmers have been on their farms all their lives, and their fathers before them for a very long time, ami they have a great dislike to being tunienrhood altogether, and, although it is a very risky thing, they have faced the purchasing of their Holdings at the in- creased prices rather than be turned out of them. 6245. Have you kept accounts of your farm? — I have in a rough way. 6246. Have you anything in the nature of balance sheets showing the results from n profit and loss point of view? — I have not any balance sheets that would b, sufficiently developed to put before a body of experts. 6247. Would you agree that in the last few years th-> results of farming have been very good? — I agree that tho last few years have been more profit- able than before., but that does not say a great deal. fi24S. Would you not agree thai they "have been very good? — They have been good during the last fow years. We admit that fact certainly, but we also think that pre-war we did not get the return that we ought to have got on our capital and energy and brains. In fact generally I have held the- view that where n man in farming made £1 extra during the war tho merchant nr trie tradesman in the City with equal oner*-- ' pital at stake perhaps made £10 — and most likoly. 6249. Mr. Hiililihus: You speak in vour ;nvri.« about tho nee-ossity for a guaranty. and then I understood von. in answer to n question put to you In- Mr. Walker, spoko of the advisability of fixing prices There is a great difference in (lie two policies. Which do you favour, the fixing of prices or the giving of a guaranteed 'Minimum allowing tlie farmer the play of the market '- Then- is not, a great renl of difference between them. I hardly know how it would work Yon mean by the fixing of prices the fixing of a minimum price for whatever we have got to produce? 6250. T was not quito sure what you really moan by a fixed price. 1 understand you to advocate the fixing of prices? — Yes — the giving of a guaranteed minimum. 1. That is not quito the same thing, is it. as ft guaranteed minimum allowing the farmer above the minimum the' piny of the market? — Yes — why not? 2. 1 mint your view. You do not ad\ really the fixing of prices definitely, do you?— It Rooms to mo it is almost one and tho same thing. ^"2-Vl. Tt may he. but it does not follow necessarily. For instance, at the present time you have 'a guaranteed minimum under the Corn Production Act?— Yes. 6254. A figure very much below the actual market !>rico. nnd the Government are giving you this year n higher guarantee. You are not likely. T admit. to got vory much above this year's guarantee, but MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 43 27 August, 1919.] MR. THOMAS C. GOODWIN. [Continued. you get something very much more than the guarantee in the Corn Production Act? — Yes, but on last year's prices have we got more than the price fixed for last year? 6255. Yes?— Not that I am aware of; I have not received any yet. 6256. Would you advocate a guaranteed minimum, allowing the farmer the play of the market above the minimum? — Yes. 6257. Bo you think a guarantee will be necessary under present conditions and the probable conditions of the next few years if no pressure is brought upon the farmer to crop in certain directions — if he is allowed absolute freedom of cropping? — Yes, if you want to keep the arable land under cultivation. 6258. Supposing the Government allow you to crop the "land as you like and do not bring any pressure at all to bear upon you to induce you to crop in one way or another, do you still think that a guarantee is necessary? — Certainly, if you wish to keep the arable land under cultivation ; otherwise a large pro- portion will go down to grass. €259. You would say to the Government : " If you want to increase the area of tillage or if you want to maintain the present area you must give us a guarantee " ? — Yes. 6260. " But if you allow us to do as we like then we do not ask for a guarantee": is that your view? — Unless there is some guarantee for the next few years in regard to cereals a large proportion of the arable land will go down to grass. 6261. So long as the State does not complain about that, would the farmer complain if he did that with- out any guarantee? — What would be the use of him complaining? 6262. I am not suggesting that it would be of much use, but would he complain if he were allowed to d6 exactly as he liked? — I cannot answer for farmers generally, but BO far as my own point of view is con- cerned I should not consider that it was of any use. 6263. Your view is that the risks of tillage farming have so much increased that a guarantee is absolutely necessary if the farmer is to maintain the present area of tillage? — Yes. 6264. And you consider that the guarantee ought to be over the present guarantee, which is 75s. 6d.? — Yes — certainly not below. 6265. Otherwise the farmer will not maintain his present area and he will certainly not increase it? — That is so. 6266. With regard to hours, strictly speaking there is no Order of the Board which has affected the right of the farmer to contract with his labour for any number of hours he considers necessary for the proper conduct of his business? — That is so. 6267. As » matter of fact, the Board have altered the number of hours on three occasions in respect of which the minimum rate is paid? — Yes. 6268. I understand from one of your answers that that alteration has brought about an unwillingness on the part of the worker to work longer hours than those hours which are fixed for the minimum wage? — Yes, it has. 6269. You mean if you offer a labourer a sum which is at least equivalent to the minimum rate plus over- time rates for extra hours you cannot get him to work more than the 64 hours in the summer? — Of course a great deal depends upon the men and the masters. In some cases it can be managed all right, but what I specially refer to is the fact that these alterations in hours do create — certainly with a certain section of the men — a great deal of unrest. I think that it is the few that unfortunately cause trouble with the others. If the body of the men generally were left alone to make amicable arrange- ments with their employers as between master and man it would be very much better. 0270. Strictly speaking there is nothing to prevent master and man making any arrangements they like to make now. but you say the issue of the Board'c Order has made it more difficult for those arrange- ments to be entered into?- VPS. The same co"ri;Hons do not prevail on every farm ; they are different everywhere almost and in some cases where you get a lot of single men. through the isolation of the farm and other things they get dissatisfied; that is where the greatest difficulty cornea in. 6271. You say you had no difficulty in getting men to work overtime before the war, but there is a reluc- tance to do it now? — Yes. 6272. Will you explain that a little?— I think it is because they are getting higher wages in Cheshire and they are quite satisfied with the day rates and are content to go on easily and comfortably instead of exerting themselves more to earn the extra money. 6273. With regard to the lessened output, your view, I understand, is that the increase of output in the industry generally, which was referred to by the Prime Minister, is due very largely to the enormous amount of machinery which has been used during the war period? — Yes, to the machinery and to the exertions of the farmer and his own family. 6274. You think that the output of the individual labourer is undoubtedly less than it was before the war? — I do. 6275. Mr. Parker: What capital per acre is neces- sary in your district for proper farming? — Anything from £26 to £30 per acre at the present time. 6276. Do you think that farmers generally have that amount of capital embarked in their farms? — I think in Cheshire that the farms are just as well capitalised as they are in any county. 6277. You think they are commanding that amount of capital? — Yes, I think there is that amount of capital in the farms. Whether the farmers are pro- viding it themselves is a very difficult matter to find out. 6278. Are your rates increasing very much? — Very much. 6279. You put your rent and rates at £2 10s. 3d. an acre? — Yes. 6280. What proportion of that is rates?— 5s. 3d. 6281. Are they going up still more? — My rates are slightly more this year than last. 6282. They are generally getting higher? — Yes, the rates are getting higher as everyone knows; they are going up. 6283. Mr. NichoUit: Do the figures dealing with potatoes in your Table No. 1 and Table No. 2 apply to the same farm? — No. 6284. They are for different farms?— Yes, different farms; one is for the light-land farm and the other is in respect of the stronger farm. 628.5. Which is the strong one?— The first one. 6286. That is really strong land?— Not absoluteiv strong. You cannot grow potatoes on absolutely strong land, but it is stronger land than, the other; the second one is very light, sandv sub-soil. You have the costs of the growing of wheat on the light land and the costs on the heavier land, and the cost comes out lighter on the heavier land than on the light land because vou have to put more into the light land with a less yield. 6287. With regard to the drilling and covering up, how many horses do you work with your apparatus? —Two horses. 6288. And holeing up too? — Yes. 6289. And scuffling? — One for the scuffling. 6290. TV>r doing one row at a time? — Yes. 6291. You nlwavs do one TOW only? — Yes. 6292. Your land is too strong to go beyond that? — Yes. 6293. With regard to the manur'njr and the carb- ing and spreading at 2s. 6d. a ton, £3 an acre, do you not consider that rather high? — T5vervthing de- nends upon how far your homestead is from your land. 6294. I quite agree? — It is not too high in this case. 6296. How far would it be from the homestead? — Over two miles. 6296. It is hardly fair to give us the cost in that ease, because the cost would be verv hifh where you ' hove to cart a distance of two miles? — That is so. 6297. Do vou suggest to the Commission that with regard to this manuring, carting and spreading you cannot eet the men now to do it piecework? — No, Vou cannot get it done piecework in our county now. In 1915 T had over 200 acres done piecework — manured and carted — and some of it a mile and a half to two miles nwnv. We based our piecework rates in that case on an average. 6298. FTave vou frot. the pnme tvne flf man now that you had in, say, 1915, or did your best men go from 44 ROTAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 37 Auytui, 1919.] MR. THOMAB C. GOODWIN. [Continued. you during the war? — I have changed my farm since. I am in another district now, but the same type of men are at the farm I was at then to a large extent. 6989. We hare got a comparison of figures hero between these two farms which do not, until they are explained, present just the case We want. What I wanted to find out was, if the same typo of man was there, why there should bo a greater difficulty in getting him to work along the some lines as ho did in 1915? — Generally speaking we have not got the same type of man. For instance, during the war I had a lot of good young men leave — I had nine go in one fortnight — some of the best men on the farm, and quite a number of them hare never come back ; they were killed, and you have not got the same choice of men now. 6900. That means that the war did take away from you men who were eligible before — men of a more capable typo?— We have lost some of our best men. 6301. That accounts for some of your difficulties and for the large increase in the cost? — It certainly must account for the whole situation when you get a depletion of some of your best men. 6302. With regard to the question of guarantees, do you think that if farmers were guaranteed a certain price for cereal growing they, on their -id. would be prepared to guarantee the State a certain acreage of wheat, we will say? If the State w:nn so much wheat grown, and it saya to farmers, " To encourage you to grow wheat we are prepared to do so and so," you, on your side, ought to say to the State, " We are prepared to give you the acreage you want," do you not? Do you think the farmer would agree to that? — Tea, I think he would. He has always done his best in the post to carry out his side of a bargain, I think. 6303. Do you think that he would be prepared to have pressure put upon him to do that? — Do you moan more pressure than he has had during the war? I think he has responded wonderfully well during the war in the ploughing up of his old pasture and all the rest of it — which is a great sacrifice to make. 6304. A good deal of the response was due to the fact, was it not, that he had to do it because of the pressure brought to bear upon him? — In our county I knew a good deal about that. I was on the Com- mittee, and I am still on it, and I know there was very little indeed of that pressure that had to be brought. It was only in the case of a few out-of- date farmers who were not farming as they should have done where any pressure was needed to be put on. 6305. Could you say whether that side of it has been discussed by the farmers at all?— T do not think it has in our district, but I do not think there would be the least difficulty about it. 6306. Mr. Lennard : You spoke of a on-operative •ociety as being unable to get men of sufficient nbility to act as managers of farms? — Tes. 6307. Is that due, do you think, to the salaries offered being inadequate? It is n common charge niram"! co-opi •? flies that the salaries they offer are not enough? I could not say. I do not know what salaries are being paid by the co operative societies at the present time, tint in farming men must have a nnturnl ability which you very often do not get in the ordinary man and they do not get the best men certainly. 630R. You might get them if the position was made more attractive? — I question whether you would even then. 6309. Why?- There is a certain dislike amongst the farming oommunitv to tiike up these positions: ihev like to farm on their own, and not to be restrict eil I know that in mv own case it would go very much against the grain for me to have to farm under the conditions that these men I know have to farm under and the best men will not have it. You are always subject to a Committee «nd so on. and a man is not at liberty to farm, as he should be. under the best conditions. 6310. He is an emnlovce instead of an em plover? Ye.. 6311. I gathered from your answer to Mr. Walker that in your opinion cereal production is in danger because of farmers baring a feeling • • . Uy as to the future in respect of selling prices? — Yea. 6312. You said that the farmer had to look a long time ahead. Do you consider that corn production would be more encouraged by a moderate guarantee for a period of years than by a high guarantee for one year? — Unless the guarantee is fairly liberal for a number of years it will not have the desired effect. 6313. Have you considered the guarantee as an insurance against loss rather than as an assurance of gain? We have had it put before us that a guarantee may be regarded as an insurance against a slump of prices in a particular year to safeguard the farmer against very heavy loss? — Yes, and to cover some of the risk that he runs. 6314. Yes? — Of course, we have always the abnormal seasons to contend with, and we must have something allowed for that. 6315. The danger which the guarantee would guard you against is not so much the danger of a bad season in this country but the danger, if one may- put it so, of a very good season in America? — Yes. 6316. Do you think that a guarantee of 60s. a quarter for four years would make the farmer fairly secure against serious loss by a colla].- - in a particular year, if he was able at the same time to make full profit in years when prices high? — A minimum guarantee of 60s. for wheat ? 6317. For wheat for four years? — I do not think you would maintain the acreage of wheat under such a guarantee as that. 6318. Not even if the farmer had the free play of the market above that? — No, I do not think so. 6319. Do you think that the farmer would rather have a guarantee of 60s. for four years for wheat, or no guarantee at all?— I do not think there would be much to choose between the two. (i.'i20. You realise, I suppose, that a guarantee which was higher than the normal cost of wheat nt world prices in the future would involve a serious burden on the taxpayer? — Yes; if it was higher it would bo a burden there is no doubt, but is it n it a burden that is justified? 6321. Will you agree with me that the taxpayer is pretty heavily burdened already? — Yee. 6323. I want to make clear a point which was raised just now by Mr. Nidiolls. You agrei-d with him, I think, that if a guarantee were given by the Govern ment the Government in fairness to the community might require something from the farmer in return"- — Yes. 6323. Take an example: Do you think farmers \vould agree that it would lie a fair condition of the guarantee that farmers ought to maintain their present area under tillage and plough up any land the County Agricultural Committee considered should be ploughed up? I mean unless a man did this he should not be ent 'tied to nxeive any payment which ho might otherwise receive under the guarantee? — That is, if the market prices for the year fall belm\ the guarantee and he had to make his claim upon tho Government and unless ho had kept up his acre- age- he could not substantiate his chi'm:- 6324. Yes. unless he had kept up li • and done anything in the way of ploughing up frwh acreage that the County Committee told him to do. he would not be entitled to i-ix-eive payment ? --That would be having regard to what he had ploughed dur'ng the last two or time years. • With regard to that you would have to trust the wisdom of the County Committee, of course? — Yes. In the majority of rsi«t-< the plough has been put in to tho utmost limit unless vou want to endanger the milk supply. We have to have a cextain- amount of acreage of pasture for cattle in tho sum- mer time and for the feeding of the 1>< < f -.ittle too. ond if you extend it any further than it. is at the it time I think there would lie. a danger th«ro. but to maintain the present acreage is, of course, another thing. R32fi. You agree ;t would be considered a fnir c^n- dition in return for the guarantee thnt the ' should maintain his present acreage?- -Yes, I thin^ ft MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 45 27 August, 1919.] MR. THOMAS C. GOODWIN. [Continued. 6327. Do you not think it might also be made a condition that if it seems good to the County Agri- cultural Committee that more land should be ploughed up the farmer should consent? — I do not see any objection to that; I think that is quite reasonable. 6328. Your figures for 1915 and 1919 refer to dif- ferent farms, do they not? — Yes. 632J). I notice that you do not give the yield of the crops, and I suggest to you it would increase the possibility of our using your figures for comparative purposes if you told us the yield per acre on the two farms— not only the yields for the years in respect of which you have given us figures, but the average yield over a period of years, so that we should have some means of gauging the difference in the quality between the soils, and so on. Could you do that for ns? I only had the light-land farm for two years, and I used artificials very heavily on it. It had not been farmed much before. I could not give you the average for any number of years in that case, but the average for the two years would be barely four quarters of wheat. 6330. I am not asking you for figures at the moment, but could you supplement this information which you have very kindly given to us by adding such facts as you have in your possession with regard tx> the vields?— As far as I possibly can I will do so. 0331." Mr. Lanqford: In answer to Mr. Walker you f.aid it was possible to increase production. I under- stood that to mean upon the present tilled land: is that sof— Yes. I think that farming generally, although it has increased its production during the last few years there is room for still further im- provement. I mean if you get all the land farmed on the top it is possible to produce more than is being produced at present. 6332. Do you not regard the present conditions under which land is held as being somewhat against the farmer putting his best into it? Let me put it in this way: Do you think and expect that tinder the present conditions of tenure the farmer is likely considerably to increase production upon land which is under the plough at the present time? — No. 6333. You yourself have had the misfortune to have two farms sold over your head?— Not exactly sold. In the rase, of the Stoke Grange Farm they simply took 300 acres out of the heart of it and made it impossible for me to bold the rest. 6334. Your first farm was bought by the County Council, was it not? — Yes. 6335. For small holdings'—No, not for small hold- ings : it was bought for a farm institute. 6336. Then you took a farm of 764 acres, and for national reasons you had to give that up also?— Yes. 6337. In answer to Mr. Lennard you said that you had pui a great amount of energy and capital into that farm during the two years you had it?— Yes. 6338. I suppose you received some compensation when you left?— Yes, I got what I could get, but you know how the War Office pay. 6339. You got some compensation for your un- exhausted manures? — Yes. 6340. Did that compensate you for what you had put in?— No. 6341. Of course we all agree ithat for national purposes that farm was hound to be taken over? — Yes. 6342. But in any case you were the sufferer? — Yes. 6343. In consequence of the insecurity of your tenure you lost considerably? — That is so. 6344. Do you think that neighbouring farmers, knowing what happened to you in those two particular instances, are likely to farm on a high level if they are going to get inadequate compensation should they also be turned out of their farms? — No, I do not think so. Where we get the best farming now is whpre the farms belong to the farmers themselves. 6345. Yon said that a good deal of farms in Cheshire had been sold?— Yes. 6346. Would it be fair to suggest that a good deal more than 50 per cent, of the land in Cheshire has been sold recently? — I should not say recently. It has been going on in Cheshire for a long time, but 1 do not think 50 per cent, of the land has been sold recently. A large proportion • of it has, and it is going on all the time. 6347. Can you give the Commission any idea of what effect, capitalising the amount of money which has been paid for farms at 5 per cent., will have by way of increased rental -in the case of the new occu- piers compared with the rentals they previously paid? — I could not give you the figures now, but it will certainly mean a big increase in the rent in every case. 6348-9. The cost of production, therefore, in con- seqhence of farmers having been compelled to buy their land, will be considerably increased? — That is! so; it is bound to be. 6350. In answer to Mr. Walker you said that a guarantee to do the farmer any service should not be less than the amount of the present guarantee? — Yes. 6351. Had you in your mind the guarantee under the Corn Production Act or the present minimum price? — The present minimum price. 6352. That is 75s. 6d.?— Yes. 6353. You are in favour, if a guarantee is given, of the farmer being expected by the Government to keep a rather large proportion of his land under the plough? — Yes, I think that is quite reasonable. 6354. Would you agree with me that that guarantee to the Government on the part of the farmer would be sufficiently met however the farmer cropped that tiHage? It would not necessarily follow that he would have to grow a large quantity of wheat each year? — No, I do not think that he should be tied down in that respect. 6355. He could crop his land as ho liked so long as he kept it under the plough? — Yes; you cannot farm to the best advantage if you are tied down. 6356. Would you agree with me that the less wheat a farmer grows the better it would be in any national crisis which arose necessitating an increase in our Wheat production — that is to say, land which had not been under wheat would grow much greater crops of wheat than if it had been heavily wheated in the meantime? — Yes, if you heavily wheat your land you are taking a great deal out of it. 6357. You agreed with Mr. Lennard that the tax- payer is heavily burdened at the present time? Yes. 6358. Whon you said that you included the farmer as a taxpayer, of course? — Yes. 6359. I do not think you quite did justice to your- self, if I may say so, when you answered Mr. Nicholls as to the hauling of the manure at 2s. 6d. per ton. Do you suggest to the Commission that the cost of hauling manure two miles — which means a four miles' journey altogether — would be made by 2s. 6d. a Ion? — It would not all have to be carted two miles, perhaps. 6360. No, but he put it to you, and you said two miles? — It would not be met by 2s. 6d. if it were all two miles away. 6361. Mr. Duncan: Are they two miles away from the homestead on a 200-acre farm, to which I under- stand the 1919 figures apply? — Yes, but this one estimate is not only on the actual crop of my own farm at the present time, for the simple reason that last year, through the very abnormally wet season, I was not able to get the acreage of potatoes in that I should have liked, and this estimate is really taken on my own farm together with one of the most up-to- date potato-growing farms. 6362. Mr. Dallas : Surely we have been proceeding this morning under the impression that we were dealing with Mr. Goodwin's own farm of 200 acres, and now he changes the whole thing by saying it is not on his farm alone? — Not the whole of it. 6362A. The examination and cross-examination has all been on the assumption that these figures relate to Mr. Goodwin's own farm of 2DO acres. Now, in reply to Mr. Duncan's questioning as to the field being two miles away from the homestead. Mr. Goodwin says that the figures do not relate to his own farm alone, hut also to another farm. 46 ROTAI, COMMISSION ON AQBICULTURK. *7 1919.] MR. THOMAS C. GOODWIN. [Continued. Chairman : I think we must leave it to Mr. Lang- ford to get that out. 6363. Mr. Lamjforil : I put it to yon that you would not, in the case of fields a long distance away from the homestead, be able to cart your farmyard manure and spread it for 2s. 6d. a ton ? — The 2a. 6d. does not cover the spreading. 6864. You say so here?— No, it says, " Carting 2s. 6d. per ton and spreading £3 " per acre. 6365. Even assuming that the 2s. 6d. does not include spreading you would need to be very near the field to cart the manure at 2s. 6d. a tqn?— That is so. 6366. It could not possibly be carted anything approximating to a distance of two miles for that price ? — No. 6367. You spoke about the danger to the milk supply if more land is broken up. I take it that you refer particularly to your own county, which is a dairy county? — That is so. 6368. That would not be applicable to many other counties? — No. 6369. You speak of the lack of interest on the part of the agricultural labourer in his work at the present time. I am quite certain you want to do full justice to the labourer? — I do. 6370. Pre-war, when wages were very much lover than they are to-day, it was possible for the farmer to expect lees from his men than he is bound to expect from them to-day under revised and higher wages? — Yes. 6371. That may account, may it not, for what appears to be an apparent lack of. interest on the part of the labourer in his work? — That is so. I am afraid that many farmers do not realise the position from that aspect. 6372. With regard to co-operative farms you said that the bailiffs and managers put in by co-operative societies did not carry on the farming operations so sucessfully as the farmer himself would? — Yes. 6373. I put it to you that is not the fault of the bailiff himself, but very largely the fault of those who are over the bailiff who know nothing of agricul- ture?— Yes, that is quite right. I referred to him having to work under a Committee and to his not having any freedom at all. 6374. You as a farmer experience no difficulty in finding a suitable bailiff or a foreman to manage your farm, do you? — No. 6375. That is because you understand and are able to be reasonable with him and give him proper "oversight? — That is so. 6376. Which he does not get when he is farming under a Committee? — That is so. 6377. The Chairman : To what do your figures refer? Do they refer to three farms or to two farms or what?— To my own three farms, with the exception of potatoes. I wanted to base the figures exactly on {his year's crop, and through not being able myself to grow the quantity of potatoes that I thought would be a fair crop upon which to base the figures, I consulted with an up-to-date farmer with respect to those figures and included his results. 6378. Are the figures in Table No. 1 in respect of a particular farm or a selection of farms? — In respect of two particular farms. 6379. Not necessarily your own farms? — That is the only one which does not relate to my own farms. 6380. What sort of land is this other farm? — Medium land on the light side. I can give you the name of the farmer if you wish it. 6381. Yes, I should be much obliged if you would Hire us his name? — Mr. Peter Frith, of Organsdale, Kelsall, Chester. Mr. Sadler: The farm is under the Crown. 6382. Mr. Prouer Jones: I understood you to say in reply to one of the Commissioners, that you wen- in favour of a guaranteed price provided that it exceeded 60s. Is that so- I 'lid not say pr»>v • !• ! »h-xt it i-\"-'"!od 60». I think I said, nut below tin- present minimum price. 6383. 1 think 60s. was suggested to you, and you thought it wa» not of much value. Was not ihat "M>- — Ye«, I think that was so; but. my idoa w;u> that the a:..,.| pi €•,• must not be below the price of 76s. 6d. at present fixed for wheat. 6384. Would you agree with the suggestion that the guaranteed price the hours of labour, as well as tin- wages to be paid to the labourer, should cover a certain pen<>.) i think it is necessary that the guarantee should bo given for a certain period. 6385. For what number of years? — I would suggest not less than five. 6386. 1 think you said that the frequent changes in the hours of labour were a disturbing element in production ? — Yes. 6387. And you agree that the hours should not be interfered with except in vreey three or five years? — No, not in respect of hours. I thought you ret" to the guaranteed minimum for corn. 6388. I refer to the guarantee to cover four or five years; I also refer to the hours as well as tin remmif ration? — In respect of hours, I think certainly a yearly revision would bo quite reasonable. 6389. That they should sync -hron se. finish and com- mence at the same time? — Ye-;. You mmin the ques- tion of wages and hours in respect to the Wa^iv. Board, how often would I suggest a revision ? 6390. Yes. I think you suggested that farim rs were liable to revert to grass farming if a guarantee were not given P — Yes. 6391. AVhat effect would that havo on milk, cheese, and meat? — Certainly there would l>o more paMnraiy- for the production of milk, but there would not 1»- perhaps the same amount of provision for the winter months. 6392. Would not that set up a koon competition and reduce prices for milk and cheese, if a large number of farmers were to revert to grass farming? — Reduce the prices of milk? 6393. Yes? — We have not quite the same competi- tion in respect of milk, and ihere never can be. 6394. Would it not be home c-ompet itinnr Th< farmers would be competing one against the other:' I do not think it' would have that effect — not to the same extent. 6395. I notice in your Table No. 1, that you paid £2 10s. 3d. in rent and rates ; is not that rather a high rent? — No. In Cheshire the hulk of the farms are let at from £2 and upwards, a great many of them — the best farms. 6396. Have not we got here rent and rates at 28s. ? —That is on the other Inrge farm in Shropshire— a very different farm altogether. 6397. Did you tell us that you owned this farm when you paid £2 10s. 3d.?— Yes. 6398. How did you arrive at fixing this rent of £2 10s. 3d.?— Chiefly on the rent that was paid previous to my buying it, with an addition for the increase in capital at the present time. 6399. Did you buy this farm in the open market.. »>r was it a private transaction? — It was a private sale. 6400. Would you mind tolling the Commission how many years' purchase it meant? — I have not cal- culated ht>w many years' purchase, it was. 1 may say that a farm of 'this character at the present time would make £65 per acre without any difficulty- i; mi. That is over 30 years' purchase? Yes. T may point, out that one particular estimate does not refer to my farm. 6102. This £2 10s. 3d.?— No. r,KM. Does not it refer to your farm?— No. 0404. Does not it refer to the crop grown in 1919? . — Not that one particular estimate. Mv own farm is on the same basis with respect to rent. RO that the inn applies equally. 6405. What T wanted to find out was. whether this high ' paid on account of the, high price that you paid for the farm? Well, the bulk of the farms are let nt the present time at £2 an acre upwards. 6406. Would you be surprised to hear that we have had several instances given us here where good land in let at much leu* than this?— It must l>r-a very old 27 August, 1919.] MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. MR. THOMAS C. GOODWIN. 47 [Continued. take, where it has followed on from father to son ; and those are being rapidly brought into the market and the rent doubled in value when they have to purchase. 6407. Then taking your Table No. 1 again : Manure 20 tons at 15s. Is not that a high rate for manure!' — I do not think so. I know of cases where.it has been a great deal more— where farmers have had to pay more for manure. 6408. Is this the market value? — The market value would be rather higher than that at the present time if we had to buy the manure. 6409. What would you be able to do with this manure if you did not apply it to the land ; could you sell it in your district? — Yes. 6410. You told a member of the Commission that there was a falling off in (the efficiency of the workers in your employ? — Yes. 6411. Do you find the deterioration in the older men or in the younger men? — Not quite to the same extent in the older men. 6412. Do you find any at all in the older men? — I do not think they have realised that the high rate of wages demand higher service. 6413. So that chiefly it is amongst the younger men, is it? — I think it is amongst the older hands; they are not quite the same as the younger men. Of course I think it may pass. 6414. To what do you attribute this falling off ; how do you account for this indifference in the younger men? — I think, as I said before, that the war has a great bearing on it ; the effects of the war have some- thing to do with it. 6415. Would they be men who have been in the army? — Some of them. 6415A. I think you told us that the increased pro- duction was due in the main to the special efforts of the farmers and their families? — And machinery — im- proved methods of machinery. 6416. Does that mean that the farmers in pre- war times were indifferent?- -No, not at all. 6417. You told us, I think, that you could not get men to do piecework? — Not as we used to. 6418. Would the piecework that you usually got prior to war time bo as efficiently done as day work? — I should say perhaps not in all cases quite as well done; but taking it on the whole, there is no reason for complaint. 6419. Is not there a tendency as a rule to scamper over piecework and get it done? — You may have that in some cases; but I never had any great difficulty in that way whe'- I was working on piecework, as long as the men could be paid. 6420. It means more supervision, does it not? — Certainly, you do want some supervision ; but you want supervision in day work. 6421. So that what you gain by piecework you lose by paying supervision, do not you? — No, I do not think so — not to that extent. 6422. What wages do you pay to the men that you employ at the present time? — My men are receiving at the present time 50s. a week, house and garden rent freo, and thfir milk at 4d. a quart. There are a lot of extras; I do not know whether you wish me to enumerate them. 6423. That is considerably over the minimum, is it not? — It is over the minimum for Cheshire; but there is an arrangement come to, a properly drawn up agreement at the present time between the Workers' Union in Cheshire and the Farmers' Union, whereby 48s. is fixed as the price for 64 .lours all tho year round for first grade men, and that is being carried out, I think, loyally. I think at the present time there is a deputation of equal numbers of workers of the Cheshire Wages Board and employers, meeting tin- Central Wages Board with a view to pressvnp the whole of the question that the men do not wish for any alteration from that; that is for winter and summer. 6424. Do you mind telling the Commission what capital you use on this 200 acre farm? UN8 6425. The Chairman: He has answered that? — I said £25 to £30 was about what the capital was on these farms. 6426. Mr. Prosser Jones : How would that compare with the capital sunk in the larger farm per acre? — The capital on the larger farm would not be quite as big. Of course, that was at a time when the value was considerably less. 6427. Would tho increased capital invested in this farm account for the fact that you are now the owner and not the tenant farmer? — To some extent; but the values have altered altogether; it requires now an increased capital to stock a farm. In stock- ing a farm to-day it would take that amount of capital, whereas in 1915 it did not take that amount of capital. 6428. Is not it an increased capital from re- valuation— what we call " watered " capital? — You must take the capital at what it would cost you to start. 6429. But it does not mean that you actually go to the Bank and raise a certain sum of money? — I should have to do so if I were starting the farm. 6430. J/r. Thomas Henderson : I gather that you are a believer in" keeping up tillage at as high a point as possible? — Yes. 6431. For what reason? — Do you mean am I a believer in keeping up the present acreage of tillage from my own personal standpoint of farming? 6432. Yes? — Personally, I should not keep up the present acreage of tillage, if I considered my own interests. 6433. I understand you advocate the increase of tillage or maintenance of tillage for the national interest? — Yes. 6434. As an insurance against war risk? — Yes, and against the nation again being in the position it has boon in the past. 6435. Do you think that the present amount of tillage is quite sufficient for the purpose? — I think it could be made sufficient. At present, of course, there is a lot of land really that is not suitable for tillage. At the same time, there is a large quantity of land, in my opinion, in the better-tillage counties that is in grass — that is, not good grass land — that might be turned into tillage. 6436. Not necessarily under wheat? — Yes. 6437. Are you aware that it is estimated that it would take about 14 million acres to feed this country very, very inefficiently? — Yes. 6438. That is a long way above the present maxi- mum tillage, is it not? — Yes. 6439. So long as the farmer had a free hand and was allowed to till his land according to his own notions, that would secure the national interest, as you describe it? — Yes. 6440. How does that affect your claim for a guarantee? On the face of it a good deal of that land might be much better employed under tillage than in growing wheat? — Yes; but that would be to the advantage of growing wheat in time of necessity. 6441 I quite agree ; but the guarantee would have to be paid during time of peace? — Yes. 6442. How would it affect that in your opinion? Do you propose that the farmer ghould get his guarantee on his acreage tilled and not on the crop produced, or would you confine the guarantee to wheat and oats?— On tho crop. 6443. Whatever it was?— Yes. 6444. That is to say, you contemplate an extension of the policy of the Corn Production Act? — Yes. 6445. You would not confine it merely to wheat and oats? — No, not to wheat and: oats. 6446. Then you said in reply to Mr. Prosser Jones that at present the standard rate of wages fol Cheshire is 48s. for a»54 hours week?— Yes; that is all the year round. 6447. And I think you said in reply to someone else, that more or less the standard wage before the war was 21s. per week? — I was in Shropshire at that time. 6448. What about Cheshire?— In Cheshire, I think, it would be slightly higher. KuVAI. i t>MM|s.s.li>\ «'\ At. Kid 1.11 UK. MK. TlloMAH C. OixtliWIN. 0441J. C/i.iiriii oMTtime quite freely then!'- There was not much overtime then, with the exception ot harvi^i- J. I was asking you if they ekt- so. . Naturally they urn-. I put it to y>u H you _;.-ttmn Li1-, you Would be much more willing to work overtime than when gettin_ ^ • ! Might 1 ask what their wages were for over- litne in those days when the standard wage was at 22».P— It was generally lumped together— so nun h per harvest, and BO on. \V-.ulil yon mind giving us the figures:- In my own cii — I used to pay from £'2 to i'3 extra according to what the harvests were, for the different ham ' 6456. Whait othor pieces of work wore taken on the overtime l.a.-i- : what else was clone by way of overtime:- There would be only the Sunday milking. The Sunday milking was included in the weekly wage at that time. 6457. I am in some difficulty lien-. Yon -ay that overtime was confined entirely to the harvest, with the exception of Sunday milking:' Sunday Bilking was included then in the weekly wage. 6458. In that case overtime did not apply?— No. 6459. What is your complaint against the men not working overtime"? Are they refusing to work over- time in harvest now? — They do not like the overtime in the week besides the harvest time, if they can avoid it. 6460. What overtime in the week— working on what?- There is the milking from the Saturday at noon and the Sunday overtime then ; and there is a certain amount of overtime practically every night in the week. Your hours of milking for your dairy OOWB, if you are •.'<• i.< you -a no far as your district is concerned the men are hat's • •n the question of hours? — Yes. May I point out that that agreement that I have referred to has only recently been made; it has allayed the unrest for the moment'. 6467. That is to say, the unrest is settling down? Ye», in our part of tlie district. 640**. Now with regnrd to the question of tin i; ..f farm" to which yon referred, yon made -the |M)int. I think, quite legitimately, that the i production i* certainly increased by farmers having n ha«e the farms:- Yes. 6489. Judging from what you juiid just now, thnt rather etil values? — Yes. 6470. On the other hand, yon pointed out that there "•»• no question thnt the occupying owner was much the more efficient tiller of the noil?- Yes. : How do those two factors balance each othn - When he is occupying owner, he knows he will not I..- disturbed in the biuue way as ha may be under tiiv prevent land tenure and lose as the result of his own . i^ies during a iiumbur ol year*. M\ jHiint is this, tha: iln- etlicu-iu \ <.; -\-ti-m ol occupying ownership must certainly tend to pull dim n the cost of production obviously? — To pull down the c < -i <>l JH <.<|uc -tiun r 6173. If the occupying owner in a much moi. , i. nt person — much more alert to look after his own interest, it is much to his advantage to bring down the cost of production and thus increase hw profit .- Yes. But the buying on the present price* increases ihe cost of production. I. What is the effect ol tin- interplay ot these t\vo factors:- How far does one counterbalance the other? — Of course, we should want the cxprrien^p ol a tew years to test that. I have not that e\p. at the present time. (itr.'i. Then with regard to the cost of production of milk to which you referred. You mentioned Minn- Li verpool contract? — Yes. lil'l). I suppose you would get that contract on a Ka-i- of competition in the nutrket?- It was in this way : The Liverpool Corporation wanted their milk from approved farms— approved dairies, and it was in the face of competition. At the same time it v a very limited number of farms that could come up to their requirements. Mini in the competition it did not affect so much the price as the condition- under which it was produced. 6477. Still, the fact that the competition was limited would certainly lead to the contract being put through at a better rate? — It was cut fine. <;17<. Confined competition would put up the price slightly? — Yes. lil"(i. At any rate, the point is this: the price w.c.s fixed by open competition, and vet you allege that that price was unremuneratu V- No; 1 do not think I said that. I carried this work on for eight years, but then I came to the point when mv farm was -old and there was no need to keep up that fertility for the following year that 1 had to remain in that farm •ind that autumn I w:is faced with a position of this sort, that I had a large number of cows just on profit and coming in that I could put on the market, and I calculated on the basis of what their prodmtion would be, the cost of the food to feed them with and all the incidental costs, «nd I came to the conclusion that when the need for keeping up the fertility was gone it would not pay me to keep them. 6480. Just for that year? Yes; of course, I was not dairying on the arable farm ; and certainly I should not be prepared Again to go in for the heavy work that I had with the winter and summer milk production. I produce milk on a fairly large scale now. hut it is not so much winter milk production. It is a great deal of work very often for a very little result. 6481. I quite agree, but my point is that here is « case where you have only the home producer to force. and competition has that effect? — Yes. 0482. Somebody referred to Mr. Lloyd George - statement about the maintained productive -in farming during the war. You pointed out that in dairy fanning you thought it was due to the farmer's sons and daughters? Yen. nnd to an increase of machinery. 6483. Do you apply that to arable farming as well? Of course.' the machinery would play a larger part on the arable farm. c. HI. There were considerable difficulties with regard to machinery during the war. were there not? \ •«*! deal more thnn ever before. i;i-.Y What do you consider a fair return on your capital in your first paragraph here— what rate pet c cut - Not li-ss than 10 p.-i Would that be absolutely clear profit, or have you to take all your incidental expenses out of that - Is that to be your gross return on cnpitnl or you? net return?—!" am afrnid we shall not see tho day when we pet the net rettirn. " You mean tho 10 per cent, is the grow return? — Yes. 64W. Mr. (Srrrn : You have not a balance sheet to present us w'th, have you?- No. 64 WV Could you give us any idea of the compara- tive figures between your profit per acre before the MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 49 27 August, 1919.] MR. THOMAS C. GOODWIN. [Continued. war and your profrfc per acre now? — I am afraid I could not. I have not the books here that would give me that. 6490. When you were disturbed from the 300 acres on one of your farms by the building of an aerodrome, did you put in any statement to the War Office as to the profits you were losing on those 300 acres? — To some extent. The War Office paid compensation as an act of grace. 6491. Do you mind telling us what you stated were your profits on those 300 acres?— We did not take the profits on the whole of the 300 acres. You have to prove direct loss, and the War Office pay, I think it is, a year's rent, and so much depends upon the time' at which the land is taken off you and when you are allowed to cease cultivating. We did not get any claim on that basis. 6492. You did not put in any statement as to your loss of income?— Loss of profits on certain land we did. 6493. Do you mind telling us what that averaged out at per acre?— I could not tell you without the papers. 6494. You could not give us those figures?— Not from memory. 6495. Are you not rather nervous about the im- portation of foreign corn unduly nervous, I mean, as to low prices? Chairman: I think he answered that question by saying that he feared the reduction in prices of foreign corn would interfere with the prices at which he was able to grow corn in this country. 649C. Mr. Green: Yes. I wish to assure Mr. Good- win that freights have risen from America more than four times. We got these figures just recently, and the costs of production are apparently very much heavier in America than they are here. I only put tliat for your satisfaction, perhaps. You have a good many grass farms in Cheshire, have you not?— Yes. 6497. What is the average size of these small grass farms?— I do not think I could give you the average size. A very large proportion of the farms in Cheshire are small farms under 50 acres. I could give them to you in a moment or two. 6498. I will ask you another question then. The personal element comes in in keeping a few cows much more than on an arable farm. That is your point about a family working on a small farm? — Yes. These figures will show you directly the almost amazing position in that respect in Cheshire. 6499. With regard to efficiency of the men, do not you think the efficiency largely depends upon the effi- ciency of the farmer ; I mean, for instance, take the neighbouring county of Leicestershire. The Board's Reporters have recently reported to us that the Leicestershire agricultural labourers complain of the inefficient machinery and lack of organisation on many farms as tending to affect adversely the output per man and efficiency. Would you say that that was true of Cheshire?— Not to the same extent, 1 think, but it has the same effect. For instance, if I could have the training of the older men from their youth, I think I should benefit thereby. 6500. These small farms could be made more re- munerative, do not you think, by better transport and more co-operation? — Yes. 6501. I want to ask you if you do not think a system of continuous cropping might not be very economically applied to the Cheshire farms for milk production? — If your land is suitable, possibly it may. We are now just starting experimental work in that way under the County Council, but the difficulty is that the large proportion of Cheshire land is too strong for the purpose, and certainly the labour is very heavy under tliat system. 6502. Do you believe in a system of keeping land under the plough quite irrespective of whether the ernp grown is corn or any other crop? — I believe in freedom of cropping. 6503. I was wondering whether you had ever entertained the idea, instead of guaranteed price in order to keep more land under the plough, a system of abatement under the Income Tax of more 2R329 land brought under the plough? — That no doubt would have an effect upon it. I have not considered that point. 6504. With regard to wages, I see that this Board's Report states the wages in Cheshire in 1917 at 30s. to 33s. for the ordinary labourer, and only 30s. for the stockman, horseman, and shepherd. Can you account for that? — I cannot; I think there must be thrown out ol hi.s farm and li.i- soiuewhcre, he i» naturally on the look-out i< bait bargain ho can make. II. li.i- _;••! to m.ik. .. :iving <>r trv to do so under KMIIC cireumstam . s. • \iiii thc\ are buying the tend to farm itp — What else? "i.'U say thin in qiiiu> n iiiiinlMT of oases they liave got to got money on lonn before they can buy the farm?— I nm not in a posit 'on to state thnt they have to get money on lonn. hut I should judge so. .. thai in-ides tln> actual t'liriners who art engaged in farming, those who have got money to lend arc prewired to lend it on tin- prospects of farm- ing even nt enhanced rent-- I take it that •iiiyone who lends money wants wM-urity other than tin prospects ol agriculture; they wan! other security than that. 6521. What other security do they have- The man must be able to offer some security in some way. and there arc various ways of doing it. 6522. If a farmer wanted to buy a farm and wanted to raise part of the purchase price which he is r.ot able to find himself, he goes into the money market, .•UK! naturally the security he has to offer is the industry he is going into?— Yes ; he has to take up n mortgage and gives securities. ..I. He takes « mortgage on the farm?— Yes, in various ways. He has to hand over his policies and that sort of thing. : So that tested in the ordinary market way. people generally, fanners and others, think that farm- ing is n sufficiently safe investment even at the enhanced rente of Cheshire ?— I think that the money lent is on security already in hnnd; it must he of ( ourse. 6525. And quite independent of farming— quite independent of the subject on which the mortgage is taken?— To a large extent. 0526. Is that the usual way business is done in Cheshire when mortgages are got?— I am not able to answer that question from an outside commercial i-oint of view. 6527. You made the statement that a good deal of increased productivity in farming was due to the increase in machinery. In what particular direction have we had an increase in machinery during the war?— We have had improved methods, and improved machinery to some extent; Government tractors and kind of implement that has been made have Wn brought into play to help the farmer in the increased acreage of arable land a* evinced by the large amount of that kind of machinery that is now being put on the market. 6528. Apart from the tractors, what was your experience in Cheshire in securing either implements or replacement of machinery during the war?— I>o MMI mean buying new machinery? ' 652P-. Yes; was it difficult or easy?— It was difficult to get at times, certainly 6530. Is there an actual increase in the amount of machinery U'ing used on the farm apart from tractors during the war period ?— Yen. 1 Will you specify the type of machinery thnt :.i increase of cultivation during the warP— • just give you the particulars at the present but all kinds of machinery that have ti in get t inn work through have been brought into play. C.Vtt. Hut has there been an increase of that machinery during the period of the war? — Yes; people in some cases had no machinery at all, and the\ bnve got machinery. In other cast* where they bare hat) out-of-date machinery altogether, and ha\r not been able to rope with the work, then they have taken measure* to secure more efficient machinery. 6583. And it has been possible to secure machinery P — You. There nre always difficulties more or lew; they are worse at some times than at others. • We have had an increase of productivity • luring the war at a time when it was difficult to get machinery. Oo you think it likely thnt we .-an se the amount of machinery being used and «o increase the productivity ? — I have no doubt that as time goes on there will IK* a gradual increase and improvement of machinery used in agriculture. 5. Have you considered uhut the effect will lio ill" the increased rat< <.l wages in increasing the amount of machinery used on ihe (arms? — Not the i t.iinly they will use every means to bring all machinery into play that u of any value. (>.">.'!<>. If 1 put it to you that there hag been a certain difficulty in getting nupnued machinery on the farms previously, would that IK- due to th. that labour was so cheap in the past that there was not the same pressure on farmers to get lalioiir-saving machinery:- — On the most up-to-date farms, you see, that machinery has generally been in use for a great number of years. Then you always , certain amount of land and farms that have not been up-to-date, and they have been brought more up to tile line. 6537. What would be the proportion of up-to-date farms? — I could not give you the proportion. It is very patent to the eye as you go about where the up-to-date-farms are and where they are not. 6538. Are one-half of the farms up-to-date? — Yes, I should say so. I could not give you the proportion. i. Then with regard to the efficiency of labour, is this a new difficulty that you are faced with in Cheshire, that the labour is not so efficient as it was? Is this the first time that complaints have become ireiieral in the county;' — It is more marked than ever ill-tore. 6540. Can you ever remember a time when the same was not said as to the efficiency of labour? — Yes. I never heard so many complaints in my experience previously ; of course, it is not a long one. ti.MI. I do not know whether you have ever read reports of previous Commissions dealing with agri- culture at any time during the last century, but I have never seen a report in which the same com- ]ilainl was not made. Is it not a complaint that has always been made by the older men that the younger generation coining up is not so good as the previous generation was? — That may have been so in the good old days. We have not all lived in the good old days. I 1 would not be a report of a Commission if there Here not Mime complaint of .some character. 6542. Is it more than that in the meantime in Cheshire? — At the present time I think it is. 6543. I put it to you that the period during which you have had experience of high wages in Cheshire has been a very short one, according to your statement, just during ihe last year, you have been paying these rates? — Yes, but not compared with other counties. 6544. I am not making a personal attack, but the increase of wages has been very recent? — That applies, generally speaking, not simply to Cheshire. 6545. Do you think you have had sufficient ex- perience of the increased rate of wages to bo able to say that the higher the rate the lower the effi- ciency of the worker? — We do not object to the higher rate of wages. What we want is something like reasonable hours and the work done. 6546. Pardon me; but that i.s hardly an answer to the question I put to you. The general trend of your answers has been that the iin-Hiciency of the younger workers is due to the fact that they are now getting higher rates of wa^es, and I think you put it in so many words by saying that they do not realise that the higher tin- riute of wages the higher the service. My question is. have y2. \\ould the farmers be prepared to allow either the consumers or their workmen any share in the control of such a scheme of marketing their pro- duce?— I do not anticipate that we shall ever it. Imt I thini the time is a, long way off before we shall l«> able to get that control. •I. So that wo cannot look to much improve- ment in agriculture from that.9 — Certainly it will !>ring about a great improvement in the way I stip- ulation of prices instead <>t' the waste that you get at tin' present time. iV5->5. Mr. l>*ill-).Vj. Therefore the inefficiency of labour is more apparent than actually real? — I think it will I think it is passing. 7 F suppose you know, like the rest of us, that in other industries as well as agriculture, we «r< I with this fact, that working people are i;ot going to work the long hours they worked in days j;ono by?- Quite so. 'i55**. And that employers in agr culture must face that position.- Ye-. ' \\ith regard to tl>'-. di -content in Cheshire •!•• not think it i.s due to one side alone? Talk- ing «l>out labour nnn-st and discontent, you do not think that it is dm- to the labourer* alone; for HI-KIM.,., they hnvo not all the vices and the em- i the virtues? No, certainly not. You ;m> ;,u;ire that an agreement was arrived •••entry on a Saturday and was broken by a large number of the employers on the Monday:' l> rofer to the agreement that, 1 have mentioned? 6561. I think so; between the Cheshire Farmers' Union and the Workers' Union? — Not that I am aware of. 1 was not aware that it had been broken at all. I thought that all the farmers were carrying it out loyally. 6562. That is not the fact that is placed in front of me or in front of Sir Henry Rew as representing the Board of Agriculture? — I am very much surprised to hear that, because I thought it was working most satisfactorily at the present time. 6563. Probably, yes. Mr. Sadler and Mr. Jones and a number of the best farmers brought the others into line, but that led to a lot of discontent. What I want to suggest to you is this, that unless there i.s good faith on both sides ? — Quite so. We should. certainly not uphold that sort of thing, and I was not aware that that had taken place. As far as we have any knowledge, it is loyally carried out. 6564. It is now? — Yes; in fact, we have recom- mended it to be loyally carried out all the time since the agreement was made. 6565. I am sure of that. Now just one other point. You know, that this year the farmers have been laying a lot of land down to grass ? — Yes, there is quite a lot of land that has been laid down, but I may say that there is ever so much accounted tor by the fact that a lot of land that should have gone down to the ordinary course to seeds has been kept up, and we have suffered as result in our clo-.vr. hay, and fodder. The same rotation has not I/i.-eii followed up to the same extent, and now farmers have returned more to their normal system of farm- ing on whatever course system it is. 6566. \"ou think that would account for tin majority of it this year? — I think it would account for a very large percentage. Of course, you will always get cases where men will immediately lay down some of their land to grass; in other cases you have farms that are really over-ploughed. 6567. I was aware of how it was: that in spite ot tlie fact on the one hand the farmers have a definite guarantee for this year's and nexIT year's crop, and also that there is a world's shortage of food production. why it was they were letting this land go down to grass? — You mean land that has been laid per- manently down to grass? 6568. Yes? — I think that would apply in some of the districts where they have been chiefly grass and where they are isolated, and as a result they are more heavily hit, because they have had a great assistance during the period of the war from the Executive Committees in carrying out their ploughing pro- gramme. 6-560. A final word about the guarantee. Do you think it would be right for the manufacturers who manufacture ploughs and drills and harrows and all your machinery that they should have a guaranteed price and be subsidised by the State? — For their machinery p 6570. Yes?— Is there any need for that? (!571. That is a matter of opinion, of course. I am not here to answer questions. I am here to ask them. Some of these manufacturers, and especially manufacturers in this country who are now manu- facturing tractors are subject, as you know, to very severe foreign competition ? — Yes. <>o72. Do not you think they would be entitled to get some protection from the State? — Really, I do not quite know how I should answer that question, if I had a little more time to think about it. 6573. I only suggest to you that for all the things you buy as an employer, as a farmer, you do not want to buy them in a protected market; you want to puy them in an open free market as cheaply as you possibly can. Is not that so?— We naturally all want to liny in the cheapest market we can. 6574. But for the products that you sell you want to get the best price and you want to get the market protected in your interest? — We want a price to live at, whatever way it comes. Mr. J)allns : Nobody on this Commission would ever object to that. (!.)/.>. Mr. I'tnilli'i/: Do you come here as a repre- sentative of any public bodies in Cheshire, or only D 3 . L91 • i;.^ \l. COMMISSION ON A(.i:l< I I.TURK. MR. THOMAS C. GOODWIN • nurd. on your ownHccvuut, M it were?— As a representa- .,t tho Cheshire Chamber ..i Agriculture. 6676. You arc deputed by them to oome here.- 6577. Any other agricultural body?— The Milk Producers " I am a im-mln-i of all the agricultural bodif* and the C..MHU IVmmiu.e 6678 But are the figure* that you have put before this Commiuoo approved by the Cheshire Oumbai of Agriculture?— They have not been submitted UK. Chamber of Agriculture. 6679. Or to any of the other bodies ?— No. 6680. They are your own figures!'- Yea. 6581 I.- MOT farm a similar farm to the bulk a •farms in Cheshire ?— It is similar to a great many of them, but there is a large proportion of the Cheshire farms that are milk selling farms all the year round. Mm,, is not a milk wiling farm all the year round. 6683. I was alluding rather to the land? a little on the strong side. 6583. But you can plough it with two horses.1' — Yes. under certain conditions. 1 mean If the weather conditions are favourable. 6584. But otherwise you use three?- Otherwise w< •hould have to use more. 6585. I have only one question to ask you about the figures you put before us. I notice you only put down a price of £1 10s. Od. an acre for ploughing?— Yes. 6686. Is that for two-horse ploughing or three- horse ploughing? — You see we cannot base it on the one, be. •!«> not know what the conditions are that we are going to plough under. In some cases we want more and in some cases we do not; but even with two horses I should put that down. 6587. So should I. I do not think you could do it at lesa. Would you tell me what the Agricultural Committee of Cheshire charges for tractor ploughing to-day, not last year?— I take it this is the rn whicli 1 not think has been revised for this year. 6588. Then that is last year's?- This will be last year's; from 22s. 6d. to 27s. 6d. 6689. An acre?*- Yes, that is down hero. But even then they lost thousands of pound-. 6690. they did lose thousands of pounds? — Yes. 6591. In my county it was 32s. 6d., ami then they did not cut at all. and it had to be finished off? — There was a great deal of finishing it off here. 6593. However, if you toll mo they lost thousands of pounds it i- no use to me. You put down £1 10s. :««» horses?— Yes; in some cases you have to use more, but, generally speaking, it i- two. 6693. Have you allowed for the depreciation of the horses?-No. 6694. Then will you tell mo if you give £100 for a hone to-day do you expect him to be worth £100 five years hence?— No. I do not. There is that fart to be taken into consideration. 6595. You have left that mit?— Yes. Of course. personally, as far a* possible, I always work with .•*. which appreciate in value :u> a rule. 6696. It seems to be a very low figure, or I think it UP— Yes. 6697. The Kind you have told me in a little on the* Yes. I.V.M I), yon use it partly as a dairy farm?— Yes, I milk ri> rat tip on it. 6690. Ami you soil tho milk wholesale. I MI|I; iko it into cheMe. 6600. Oheeac nil the year round.- You eannot make M. in the winter, «iirt»ly:- We .-an make cheese all i he year round. 6601. I know it M poMihle . out i- it possible pnu ti- ralh - in the winter we do with what milk we have, but we do not go in f.|x>eially for winter .. I. 6609. But are you no« making ehooKo in tin- winter* No. last winter UP did not. 6603. Yon sold your milk? — We sold our milk 6604. And this next winter I . . n hardly tell you what wo will do; so much depend*. 6606. I am not so much oonrornod with yours. )nit I am taking it n» a • "• mixed farm f»rmpn« in ('benn'm make ohi^-e in tin- winter ? Horn* f*w of thorn, but I think the majority " thrir milk in tin- win* oovu. Ami make cheese in the sumin- r \ ca, I think so. Ol course, there h«.- boon a grout deal leas cheeso making on n »•'•. 6607. Of course; but tho r.-.-t <•! the larm piodi.oe. the ceroab which you grow, you sell in the ordinary course?— Yes. 6608. You do not grow the cereals for the purpose of your milk farm?- Of course, w« naturally use some. \ on use your root-.- Ye-, and some oats. I» it, roughly, a typical 1 he-hire farm? — Yes, , \i ept tluii we have not the same percentage of suit- able land lor tho plough as -01.10 I arms have. It is land as to which so much depend- on tho seasons. in the spring, with a wet spring and drying up so quickly, we were at a great disad- \antage. course, a lot of that 'and has only come under (ho plough during the war. (Milil. As I understand, you ask for a guarantee of about 7'is.r Yes. not le-s than that. M). You would like more? — Yes. 6621. The trouble that I have is. assutirng «ueh n thing wen' po-sihle. that that would honelit the better lands much more than it would the poor lands? Just so. That is proved by the fact of the moreaiM of growing wheat on the light land we had to put more manure into it. Can you suggest any way by which that • Miarantoe ini-ht be differentiated at all in favour of The worst land? 1 have not any suggestion to offer at the moment I. Put on a sliding scale in any way?— I think it is (jllite reasonable. Ha« it ever been considered by your ( hamtx of Agriculture? T am afraid not. (if>2o. I do not suppose you ever realised that this was the sort of question whi-h was important? — No. I may say I was amazed when I came to find out the cost was so much higher on the light land with the worst yield. 6626. This is a question which docs not only apply to Cheshire, but applies all over?— Yes, I was amazed to find it was so. 6627. Would it be possible for you to get out at all the portion of the labour costs of growing an acre of wheat?— Yes. I think so. I will do my best to do so. 6628. Chairman: As Mr. C'autloy has asked you. .ind I am sure it will bo of interest, to the Cmimis- sion. will \ou U> kind enough to do W. and .seacl it to the Soereiario-? Ye-. Do yon want it both for heavy and light land? Mi-.". i. Mr. f'mitlry: Yes. I understand you are not prepared to suggest . and you hove not really, or \olir Chamber ,,| Agriculture" has not, considered as to whether it would be possible' to have a. different rate of guarantee, as it were, for the poor land as com- pared with the good land? No. wo have not con- ' :it. and that will br ji roved to you by th. fact that I had no knowledge of coming hero until .ihout eight days ago. and 1 have had very llttl • time for anything of the sort. fX>.in We arc- going to have the Board of Agricul- ture re-organised, I understand, and County Coinn e going in take a more prominent part MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 27 August, 1919.] MR. THOMAS C. GOODWIN. [Continued. in agriculture. Would it be possible to make any differentiation as between two-horse land and three- horse land as a practical proposition? — I think so. 6631. Do not answer hurriedly? — Of course, it is a point that would have to be considered. 6632. Coming to your milk production, can you tell me at all what the increase in the price has been that you are receiving for milk as compared with what it was in pre-war times I' — I have not the figures by me. I have not my books when I was producing milk winter and summer. Mr. Sadler will be able to give them to you, and Mr. Clarkson will be able to deal with that subject more fully than I can, because I am not practically doing it. 6633. Do you in Cheshire buy many feeding stuffs? — Yes, we buy rather heavily. 6634. I take it that the difference in the cost of feeding stuffs now and pre-war is very, very high I' Very high. 6635. Have you figures to give me? — I have not Mr. Clarkson will give them to you ; but I know that within the last few weeks they have risen pounds a ton. 6636. Linseed cake is £25 a ton?— Yes, and then by the time you get it 6637. There is a great deal more on it by the time you get it? — Yes. All through the war in the fixing of these prices for our feeding stuffs, there has been so much allowed by the Government for the millers, or whoever deals with it in the interval, to charge for sacks. 6638. That is right. I will ask Mr. Ciarksou about that? — As a matter of fact it is equal to so much a sack on your stuff, because when you come to return your sacks now we get about 4d. a-piece for them, whereas we have been paying 9d., Is., and Is. 3d. a-piece. 6639. The extra that you have to pay on the sacks and the loss you make nn the sacks, and the extras vnii have to pay for getting the feeding stuffs from the warehouse to the farm, make a very considerable difference? — Yes, a very considerable difference per ton. It might just as well be placed on the stuff, and then we should know what we are doing. 6640. Will Mr Clarkson also have the difference in the . For how many hours? — The hours worked generally then were 66, I think. In some cases in dairying it WHS half past 6 to 6. 6646. I do not want the dairying particularly, hut I want the 'average. What was a day's work in Cheshire befoto the war — what was the ordinary week's work? — Generally speaking, I think it would be 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. It may have applied in some parts, but my own experience pre-war was that my »wn men worked from half-pnst 5 to 6 and had 1J MI r.-. for meal-. 6047. Sixty-*!* hours a week, we will say, for £1? —Yes. 6648. What :* it to-day?— 48s. for 54 hours; Is. an hour overtime in the week ,and Is 3d. an hour on >unday and harvest. 6640. You would have to add that Is. an hour for 12 hours to mak.- up the total hours?— Yes. «650. That uoiild bring it to 60s. as against 20s.. or ju«t 200 per cent, increase?— Yes. Then thero is » •«. for the P.inday overtime. 6651 . The Sunday overtime was not paid for before, was it? — No. 6652. Has your Chamber considered at all as to whether a guaranteed price for English cheese would make the milk production more stable? — I do not think we have considered that point as a Chamber. 6653. It has never occurred to you? — We have not had a discussion on it. 6654. Have you heard the suggestion made? — No, 1 have not. 6'655. If there was a guaranteed price for the cheese in the summer, would that facilitate and make easier the production of milk? — It would prevent the flooding of the market with milk at certain periods of the year, in the summer time chiefly. 6656. That is obvious; but I do not want your off- hand opinion just now, unless you have really con- sidered it? — We have not considered it. That would lie a point that would be considered more by the milk producers than by the Chamber, I think. 6657. Has the working of the fixed prices, as carried out by the Food Controller, been satisfactory to the milk producers in Cheshire? — I think, perhaps, Mr. Sadler would answer that question better than I. 6657A. Mr. Ashby. I understood you to say a few moments ago that you thought a guarantee for cereals should be given for at least five years? — Yes. 6658. On the ground that farmers had to set out their system of farming for at least that number of years? Do you think as a financial policy it .would be wise on the part of any large number of fanners to set out a policy of cultivation on a five years' legisla- tive guarantee for which there is absolutely no further guarantee? For instance, the Government may change, or the opinion of the public may change in the meantime. Do you think that is sufficient? — It would certainly help very considerably. You see, you want the present acreage maintained, and it would help in maintaining that acreage very con- siderably if wo had that guarantee. 0659. But I am not considering for the moment tho national interests; I am considering the farmers' interests? — Do not the two go together. 6660. Do they? Are you quite sure about that? — They have some effect on one another. 0661. Are you quite sure it would pay the farmers of Cheshire to increase their cereal acreage and cut out some of their dairy stock? — You have to take the system of farming that the land is suitable for, and which we have carried out in the past. 6662. Your laud is more suitable, perhaps, than any other land in this country for dairying purposes? — Yes, for mixed farming. 6663. But tho chief product is milk or cheese? — Yes, but there are fairly large arable farms. 6664. Supposing that at any given time the market is more or less against cereal farming, and you were able to carry it on because of a legal guarantee which through some change in public opinion or some change in Government may be withdrawn very shortly, or with three months' notice, or with no notice whatever at the end of the stated period, would not tho final position of the farmer under those circumstances be worse than his first position? — It would certainly be bad. 6665. I wish you would turn to some of your esti- mates for a moment. In Table No. 1 there are oat-,, double ploughing, autumn, 3<>s. an acre. That was last year. Could you give me any idea how much could be ploughed in a day?- Not an acre. It would be half an acre, or a little over perhaps, under the present hours. 6666. How many horses? — Two horses. i;i;r,7. And one man?— Yes. 6668. You do not know, perhaps, what charge per day per horse is in that figure? — I have not taken it in that way. I have taken it on the cost that the ploughing was taking into consideration the man's wages and the hoixe, allowing nothing, as was mentioned by the previous Commissioner, for the depreciation of horse and implements. D 4 1919.] IMYAI. CiiMMlSSliiN i>N .UiKK'UI.Tl Kl . MK. THOMAS « . <;<•<, i,\\ is 0009. But bow do you know you have not allowed anything for depreciation if you do not know how much you havo charged per horse? — Tho man's wages Mould be 8s. to start with. 6670. Mr. i nuthy: If ho only does half 1111 acre it would be IGs.? — Yes, it would bo llis. to the acre t- start with, and then it does not leave you a great deal for *ho horse. 6671. Mr. Athby: But you have not really cal- culated what was the cost of the horse? — I think it is :t \<-ry low estimate of 30s. per acre. 6672. But you did not do it carefully in any <,,~. . whether it is low or high:' Not linking them sepa- rately. 6673. Take the next item, harrowing twice. How many acres a day would you do on that;' -Every- thing depends on the harrowing und the condition of it. JL'OII can got heavy harrowing and light harrow ing. It is so difficult ito anyone who understands the position. 6674. It is also difficult under those circumstances to state the cost. If you do not know the amount <>1 work done, how can you state the cost? — We know the amount that we expect to be done. We expect a certain amount of work, knowing the conditions of the work. 6675. That is what I am asking for — the amount you would expect to be done. How much harrowing per day would you expect to get done? — Taking it on the average we might get 6 or 8 acres. 6676. Shall we say 7 acres, which is 26s. 3d. a day :- It would be 3s. 9d. per acre, not 7s. 6d., so that would be 36s. 6677. 26s. for two horses and a man? — Yes. 6678. Yet up above you only charge for ploughing 15s. for two horses and a man? — No. As I said he would plough over half an acre, but so much depends upon your ploughman. Some ploughmen will do very much more than others. 6679. Then will you look at manure, 20 tons at 15s. Is that the value of the dung, or does that include the value of the straw? — That is the value of the dung as it is. 6680. Have you compared that on any comparative basis with the market price? — I wo have simply taken it a* an estimate, and rather a low one. 6683. When you have manures to the value of about £90 10s., you have a considerable sum? — If we had taken the manurial residue on the basis that a valuer «..uM havo taken it, it would have increased the cost further than is stated in these particulars. 6684. On the potato crop?_It would have in- creaaed the cost on the ; but many farmer* do spray their potatoes and that would add to the cost. Of course that is tin- up-to-date method. 6680. Y..U are aware tho4 in the Corn Produ.-iion Art thp rereaU dealt with are wheat and ,,ais. an, I tn.il in tin- temporal y g.iaiantee given for 1919 there has also been added barley • Yes. 6690. Is it only in regard to those three crops that you suggest there ahould be a guarantee given; or do you suggest, as 1 rather think you did in answer : Mi Thomas Henderson, that nil crops should have a minimum guarantee;" Did voii mean tliatr -No, 1 did not mean to suggest that. •1. Duly cereab?- 1 liODL'. Mr. Ufi iiunit -. Air. Ashhy hat> taken you through your course ol growing ufiout; but there is one item on No. ."> which you begin with " ( leaning htubblos " ; does that Cultivation.- It i.- nocessary to clean that stubble for wheat. That is grown, as 1 state here, on land ploughed up during tin w«r — turf; and it is necessary for tho benotit <>! the (Topping and the yield that that land should be (leaned. ()<>!>:}. But what form did it take? — Tho laud was ploughed with the ordinary plough skimped, and then worked through all the course with the different implements, and then reploughed for wheat. We have had some very serious failures in our district through land not being properly dealt with in that way, and being ploughed up just one furrow. 6694. I quite agree with you ; but that -torn appears to me to be very low just as ploughing, because it includes ploughing and no doubt several harrowings. Y\ o ploughed with the double ploughs, and that would make a little difference, whereas we could not plough with the double furrow ploughs — not one furrow. 6695. Then, your weeding is again Is. Is that simply stubbing the thistles? — Yes, docks, or any- thing there is. 6696. Have you ever looked into the cost of your weeding to see whether you could got a man u> walk over, say, eight acres a day? — Yes, I think we can do that. I mean if the land is properly cultivated, that lessens the cost of weeding. On the land which is not properly cultivated, it would cost a great deal more. 6C97. Your land is more suitable to growing wheat than growing oats, is not it? — Yes, very much more. 669?. You do not grow very heavy crops of oats? —No. 6699. What would you average? — The average is rather low. I am afraid five quarters would t>e a fairly good average. 6700. What is the tonnage of potatoes that you generally grow per acre? — You mean the average? (i"()l . Yes- It is a good crop, 10 tons to the acre'. \Ve .should nut get that average. .Ifr. llr:7o-i. They do not /xvoperate; they do not earn- out their own system lus regards the farms, and co- • iperato as to the uso of machinery, and so on? Xo 6709. You say that you have hopes of the extension of co-operation among farmers? Y. 6710. ^\'ill you develop thai, a little and say whnt lines they could do it on P— You see there is a strong movement ;n starting milk factories for one thing; and then I think thoy could do very good work in starting wholesale slaughter houses among (hi farmers themselves. 27 August, 1919.] MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. MK. THOMAS 0. GOODWIN. 00 [Continued. 6711. Have you any organisation to-day for the purpose of buying cakes, manures, and so on? — Yes, we have the Farmers' Association. We have what is called the Cheshire, Shropshire and North Wales Farmers' Association, which does a very big work in that way. I am one of the directors of that Asso- ciation. 6712. Then you find you can get your material- more cheaply through the Association than through dealers:1 — Yes, and then we have the advantage of getting our stuff at the lowest market price, and being sure of the quality. We analyse free of cost, and all that kind of thing, and if it is not up to standard, of course returns are made. That is the way in which it is worked for the benefit of the farmers. 6713. Do the farmers take to it pretty kindly? Are most of the farmers members? — Yes, we have a very large membership. I could not give you the number now. but pre-war our turnover wa- !j2o().(XX> a year in our own concern. 6714. One has heard hints in some places that there is a difficulty in getting members, because many of the farmers are in debt to private traders and cannot very well leave them. You have not any such experience? — No; and at every directors' meeting we have had for a long time now, I have not been at one but wliat we have had a fresh application for shares. 6715. You have been asked a good many questions about the sale of farms, and farmers buying their own land. I think you have given your opinion that farmers do not buy their farms because they want to, but because otherwise they would be faced by being thrown out of occupation ? — Yes. 6716. And as a rule, I suppose, they do not know :iny other business? — That is so. 6fl7. And they have to work at this? — Yes. 6718. So that if they do not buy their farms, they are faced possibly with the workhouse? — Yes. 6719. It is really a matter of necessity a/id not a matter of choice? — Yes. 6720. On the question of guaranteed prices for corn, I think the only iigure which has been put before you was for four years. Do you think that is long enough? — No, I do not. IJ721. ])o not you think the tanner- want right or ten years to give them confidence? — Yes, it would be very niurh better. I stated not loss than live years. 6722. You do not think five is enough? — No. C>723. It wants eight or ten years, you think? — Ye-. 1 quite agree. 6724. Dr. Dniii/liix: Yen -aid t«i ti-. I think, if I quite understood you, that if there were no guarantees, it would be your intention and policy to reduce your production of cereals? — That would be the natural consequence. 6725. And that would be general? — Yes. 6726. In your district, would that mean a consider- able reduction of employment? — Not necessarily so. 6727. Why not?— On the large dairy farms "they need the labour for the other work. It would mean a reduction in the machinery that would be needed for dealing with this work. 6728. Do you conduct your dairy farms partly by arable production? Do you use a good deal of your own material? — Yes; we use a good deal of our own oats and roots for the winter milk production. 0720. I think, in aiiMvor to \Tr Thoin-i- Hondoi--.ni. T understood you to -av that you propose a guarante not on the acreage cultivated, but on the actual crop produced ? — Yes. 6730. Do you not think that would be very difficult to administer? You recognise that that would be a departure from the method of the Corn Production Art:-- Yev it may be difficult to administer; but I think it would be fairer. 6731. Let us take that point. If you give a guarantee necording to the amount of production, would not that give a larger advantage to the man who«e Land produces, say, 10 quarters of oats to the arro. than to the mnn whose land produces four quarters?- -If he could produce 10 quarters to the a<-ro. he must have been patting in a great deal more energy. 6732. He may have had better landP — Yes, he may have had better land. There might be a disadvantage to the nian with poor laud in that respect. 6733. But docs the man with good land need any encouragement ? — In some cases he does. 6734. Does not he generally need Ies9 encouragement than the man with poor land ? — The man with poor land certainly needs more encouragement than the other. 6735. Take it from the point of view of production. If you want to increase production, to whom would you need to offer the inducement — to the man with good and suitable laud, or the man with the less suitable land? — The greater encouragement, cer- tainly, to the n-:ui with poor land. 6736. And your suggestion would have the opposite effect? — My suggestion of paying on the crop? 6737. Yes? — It might to some extent. 6738. Do not you think that is rather a serious objection? — It might be. 6739. Do not you think it would entail a consider- able waste of public money, if the guarantee ever did fall to be paid, that it should be paid to the nun who did not neei it at all rather than to the man who needed it most? — You see it is very difficult >o answer that question, because even the man with the poor laud by good farming can bring his yield of crops up. 6740. When laud fell out of cultivation on accou it of the fall in prices, was it chiefly the less -productive land, or the more productive land ? — The less pro- ductive land. 6741. And is not that land the problem you have to deal with? — Yes; that is, to a large extent, thi difficulty. 6742. Do not you think that points rather to a guarantee by acreage cultivated, subject to security being taken that the land is well-cultivated, than a guarantee on the total amount produced? — Yes; from that point of view it certainly would be better for the man with poor land. 6743. And you agree also that the purchase of the entire crop, which would be the only method of administering a guarantee on the amount produced, would be a very complicated transaction for the S.tate to enter into? — Yes. D7II. Have you ever thought how it could be administered? — No, I have not thought that out. 6745. Do not you think it would be rather difficult for this Commission to recommend a method of deal- ing with the subject, without being able to suggest a plan as to how it could be administered? — Yes. 6746. You spoko about the necessity for co-opera- tion, as to which I think there is pretty general agreement, in theory at all events; and you spoke particularly of co-operation in the use of machinery. What size of farms were you referring to when you spoke of the matter of co-operation in the use of machinery? I want to know what is in your mind? —I think it referred chiefly to the buying of the machinery for the farmers. 6747. There was that point also; and there is no difference between the buying co-operatively of cake, or manures, or anything else. I think it was Mr. Walker who asked the question,, and I think he in- tended to refer to the co-operative use of machinery. Did you understand him so?— No, not quite in that way. Of course that would apply more to the smaller farms. Mr. Parker : T*he question was put and he answered " yes." 6748. Dr. Uouglas: Yes; I rather wondered whether he understood the question? — It would apply in that way to the smaller farms. 6749. But only a limited number of implements? - Yes. i;7"il). You could not have a number of farms sharing a reaper and hinder, because they would all want it at the same time? — Yes. 6751. May I take it you wish to add to your former answer, that it will only apply to a very limited number of implements? — Yes, in the smaller farms; but, of course, we have a very large percentage of 56 27 . 1919.] KoTAI. COMMISSION OK AGRICULTURE.. MK. THOMAS C. GOODWIN [Conlinurtl. •mall farms in Cheshire I think it would be of advantage if the figures you asked for were given now. 8763. Yes; but J take it you agree it would be a limited number of implements? — Yes. 6753. 31 r. Ren • You said you estimate the necessary capital ax from £25 to £30 per acre. Did you mean that to apply to dairy farms only, or to all farms!' — Mi\i-d dairy and arable farms. Ttit I'hairinnn: The Coiniiiih-niii are much olilited to yonP — Will you now allow n.. put in these figures P (The Witness withdrew.) 0766. The Chairman. foQowi YcsP— The figures are M NUMBER AND ACREAGE OF FARMS Ai n 5-20 UNI J.MI 1-6 3,139 60-100 1,716 20-50 9,148 931 Over 300 76 701 Mi I' \\ < i UIKMIN. 'the Milk Producers' Association, called and examined. • I'huii niiiit . You will allm mi- to put in :hi- . to !R> r«M>nled with your evidence? — Yea. iKridencc-in-chief handed in by Witneu.) i. I i MILK PRODUCTION. • • of farm, 141 acres. ' Rental, £249 per annum. Chiefly heavy soil and part very wet. Ai Cropped in 1918. Cow pasture Horses and stock Wheat ... Oats Mixed corn Roots ... Potatoes Clover young 37 24 27 Yield per acre, 3J qrs. 12 ,, nearly 1 7 . : 6 Estimated crop. 180 tons. 6 •iinate.1 i rop. ;«> :t7 ton-. Average number of stock kept: 35 cows, 20 young 5 horses. 3 colte. r-'l Mill- ,,irl,l fr<.i,, M'l/i N/, 1918 to May : I./. I'.U'.I. — GalU. Cost of production. Receipts. £ B. d. £ s. d. From ;-• M:,x to BOtfa Sept. .. . 10,499 654 18 5 689 17 1 Krom 1st Oct. 31st Jan. 5,848 898 1 6 589 3 ; From 1st Feb. to 30th April ... 8to 1 J f, 5411 6 0 Totals 21.030 2,178 12 5 1,828 6 5 Los*. L.TiO . (3) t'irrt \< \.t I,, September Total yield of milk, 10,499 galk>: Average per cow per day. 2 gallons. £ 8. d. Receipts 689 17 1 Costa 664 18 5 1918. £84 18 8 nil of costings- May 1st to 12th— 1 ton hay ...... 1 ,, straw 4 tonv roo^ a I - Ii- Whole period— -Cake, meals, Ac. Panture I including niiiiiuri-s .m.: Aftvnn.-ilh (21 a<-re«) ......... Df ... Deprci -iation IOKH on cows. . . ... . lii-iit and rates on buildingH .. l)>'|irpciation of machinery and dairy utpn*iU at 10 per cent.... Repairs ......... Washing utensils Whitewashing ship{x>nn. t»i- !)••! tntion, at Jd. per gallon £ ». d. 600 .'i 0 ii Hi 281 0 0 •'• u 21 0 0 7ii IL' n 106 O <> 7 10 7 7 '< \" 2 10 0 II 2 ' 71 22 1<> o 689 5 11 :.« 10 calves Manurial valuer 7 6 16 o 0 . 34 7 «; £664 I" .1 (4) .So"M./ I'eriod: October lit 1918, to January Total quantiiy oi milk produced, 5,848 gallons. Yield per cow per day. 1-4 gaUons. >. d Receipto ......... 589 3 4 Costs 898 1 6 £308 18 2 Details of costing t — Home-grown fodder, including hay, straw and roots Home-grown grains Cakes, meal, &c., purchased Pasture (14 acres close root at 10s. per MM, and 5 acres rape at 40s. per acre Labour Depreciation and loss on cows ... Rent and rates on buildings Depreciation on machinery and ilairy utensils Repairs Washing utensils, -'-k. £ s. d. I'.T \Vi-rk £ a. d. Mnn anil youtli ing rows at 12«. per .lav Tlirrc inilkiiiK^ nt Xil. per hour. 3 houi oarh •^n tn relay afternoon, 3 1 ' linns nt 9d ^niidny. 3 men and voitth 4 hours at lOd. 3 12 0 440 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 57 27 Auguit, my.] MR. P. W. [Continued. 6. d. Increase per week 6 days, £1 4s. ... 4 0 per day. Add increase Saturday and Sunday 0 10£ „ Equals £80 per annum. (This concludes the evidence-in-chief.) Chairman: Dr. Douglas will begin the questions. 6757. Dr. Douglas : You are, to a very large ex- tent, a dairy farmer, I think? — Yes. 6758. Your chief product is milk, is it not? — Yes. 6759. I see the total size of your farm is 141 acres, of which 37 acres is cow pasture. Do you find that a sufficient amount of pasture ; or do you supplement it largely? — The shortage of pasture is due chiefly to the War Executive begging us to plough all the land that we could plough ; and we have had to manage with as little pasture as possible and help them as much as possible with artificials, trusting to the aftermath to help us out. 6760. But it is less pasture than you would wishr — Yes. 6761. And you do have to supplement it by feeding all summer? — Yes. very heavily. 6762. Then I come to your returns. I see you milk 35 cows? — Yes. 6763. Your total of milk from the 1st May, 1918, to the 1st May, 1919, was about 21,000 gallons. Was that given by these 36 cows? — -Yes. 6764. And was that about 600 gallons for each cow .- — I change my cows very frequently ; they are not all the same cows. 6765. Do you breed your own young atock? — A few of them. 6766. But I take it you do not keep a cow during her dry period, or at all events you do not carry on the same cow from year to year? — No; I change about one-third of them as a rule, not always. 6767. So this represents not simply a lactation from each of 35 cows; but it represents that, supple- mented by part of the lactation of other cows pro- duce?—Yes. 6768. So that the total yield per cow is not 600 gallons? — I have not worked it out. 6769. Your results over the year show a loss of something like £10 a cow. Have you any previous figures to compare that with — I mean pre-war figures? — No. This is the only year I have figured out. 6770. May I take it that you have been conducting a dairy on these same lines more or less for some time? — Have you been on your present farm for some time? — I have been on the present farm four years last March. 6771. And previously were you dairying? — I was 10 years in Nottingham on an arable farm there; but previous to that I had lived on a dairy farm all my life. 6772. You were conducting this dairy four years ago?— Yes. 6773. Has your experience during the previous years been the same financially, that you have lost money on your dairy? — No, much better. This last year has been very exceptional. 6774. But that was before the drought of this summer. These figures do not Include the drought of the present summer? — No; they include from May, 1918, to May, 1919. 6775. Then why do you think the dairy has been so much less profitable during that period than it was before? — Last summer we were short of pasture. In the August of last y«nr we had a very unfavourable season for producing milk. We had n lot of wet weather about August, and I had rather a big loss in cattle just abont that time. The cows broke to the bull did not come quite under notice as they should have done at the back end, and the COWR were not in condition to sell off without great loss nnc! refilling them. My dairy should bo kept up at two-thirds in the winter to what it is in the siiminor -•> F could not change, ta my cowsheds were full up and T had to use a tremendous lot of com ;md artificial feeding. 6776. Generally, do you wish us to take it that there were a number of special circumstances con- nected with this year's working, so that it is not really representative? Did all these unfortunate things happen to other people as well? — Yes. 6777. Some of them, but not all? — I was not the only one in our district who had a bad time of it the latter part of last year. 6778. Really on account of prices being inadequate? Yes. IS779. How do you make up the depreciation or loss on cows which you mention in your third para- graph? Was that normal or special? Was it accidents of some kind? Is it an actual figure or calculation, the £106?— I will tell you the basis I worked on. During that period, that is, from May to the end of September, I bought six cows for £288 10s., the average cost of which was £48 le. 8d. I sold three for £38 5s. during last Dimmer. Three of those I bought in at the average of £48 Is. 8d. would realise €114 os. The three 1 sold for £38 5s. deducted from the £144 leaves a balance of £106. I might add to that statement, that in the latter part of August I had a very good cow, for which I had given £40 the year previous when cows were much cheaper. I found her with a very bad cold a few days off calving. She had pneumonia, and she died in a few hours. Then a little previous I lost another cow through a bad udder. These are the things we have to contend with. 6780. Then these represent incidental accidents that happen? — .The actual loss in that period on cows. 6781. On the next page you have, " Home-grown fodder, including hay, straw and roots." How are those charged? — The home-grown fodder is charged at £7 15s. per ton. It was worth £8 at the station, and I only live a mile away. 6782. You charged it at rather less than market price? — Yes, I have charged £7 15s. 6783. And straw ?— Straw, £4 a ton. 6784. That was in excess of the restricted price, was it not? — Later on I had to pay 85s. I bought a lot of oat straw later on. • 6786. So that you average it between the £3 15s. to which you were entitled for your own and the £4 5s. you paid? — -Yes. 6786. Have you or have other dairymen in your district, considered the question that you have heard put to-day, about the possibility of a Government guarantee for cheese? — Cheese does not concern me at all. (1787. Vo ; but the price of cheese very closely nnVcts the price of milk, does it not? — Yes, it does. 6788. If cheese was at a high price during thfl -spring and summer months, that absorbs a consider- able amount of milk and takes it out of market competition P — Yes, that is true. 6789. In that way it is suggested that at that period of the year the price of milk might be steadied if the Government guaranteed the price of cheese? Has the subject been considered at all in your dis- trict, or have you anything to say about it? — The only way in which it has been considered is that we think the cheesemakers are having the better of it. \\V do not think it is quite fair. That is the only aspect of the case we have considered. 6790. You have not considered it in its more general aspect? — No. Mr. Sadler would perhaps answer further on that question later on. 6791. Mr. Rea: Your losses on the whole of tho year last year were in the last two quarters,- or at least two-thirds? — Yes. 6792. In spite of the bad summer you made a profit in the summer? — Yes. 6793. And in the other two periods you made a loss?— -Yes. 6794. Is that a usual thing in your dairying, I mean that you look to the summer to make a suffi- cient profit to carry the winter losses? — Not alto gether. What I have tried to show in these figures is this, that it has not paid the dairy farmer to feed his cattle with his produce. It would have paid him better to have been without the milk and to hav sold his produce. That is the main point I want t'i show in regard to last winter's production of milk. •\uyutl. I . n.MMI>M"N "\ M.KICI I.TUKK. MK 1'. W. t i*i.K GTtti. In the aeoond period from the l»t October to the 31st January, the co»t of production ha* been alnio*t exactly %. • gallon, on your figure.- 1 lm\.- not worked it out in detail. 6796. I hare work.il it one Hi n on the IMU.U ol prx»« of thu year compared with last year, d<> think tho owl of production will be greater than 3». r1 —I am afraid that the cost will be much greater for the coming winter than it wins last winter. The root irop in Cheshire -n many platvs will not bo a third of what it was la«t year;' and we tunl that cakes and meal* are up quiu« i'"> per ton. with the exception of bean Hour. I might have pointed out that in tln- seoood quotation that 1 have made out, at one j I wm* forced to buy beau flour, a thine I did noi want to touch, which cost JL"J7 a ton. No one cjin produce milk on bean flour at that price; but feeding stuffs »•!•• \«-ry scarce about Christmas. With the MOD ol In-all tlour. I tliink other cakes and meals .IK- up .lU.iit to a ton to what they were last \M 9o that the cost of production will U> great. -r : — Ye»; and, of course, the nay crop is not more than two- thirds. 6798. Then from the 1st February to the 3rd April. the cost of production decreases somewhat, about .'('I a gallon, roughly. 1 think:-— The milk went up some- what. The cows began to calve about the latter end of January. 6799. So that vou had a bigger yield per cow .- Yes. 6800. Otherwise the cost of the' actual feeding would be as great in that period? — Yes. '>nl .Wi. Batchelor: Would you look at your state- ment for the 1st May to the 30th September, 1918 • You start from May 1st to May ll'th— 1 ton of hay •hat would l>e 1917 hay, I presume? — Yes. 6802. Then : 1 ton of straw £3, and 1 ton of roots at 50s. ; but the figure extended is £10. Is that I tons of roots?— Yes, it is a mistake; it should have been 4 tons. 6803. What value of machinery and dairy utensil*, altogether, have you in your premises? — £170. 6804. Have you a milking machine:- N<- 6805. What is the largest item making up then tl70:- I have an engine pulper, mcal-ake crusher, chop cutter, refrigerator, milking cans, and about It) • hums, milking cans, etc. 6806. In each of the two detailed statement-, am I right in understa nding that tho item called " Depro- i. ,ti. .n loss on rows," £106 in the one case, and £80 7s. lOd. in the other are actual losses sustained :- -. that is ao. 6807. In the second of these periods, you have already told us what the price for hay and -n.iu WM. What are you putting the prices of roots at? — 50». 6808. Was that u market price?— In our district they were selling swedes when they were pulling them up, at £3 a ton, put on rail. 6809. Right up to that period?— Yes, right up to ( 'hrUtmas. 6809A. You have pretty heavy cake bills?— Yes. 88H>. Would theso l»e" at the controlled pri. V.. 6811. What particular kind of cake did vim Was it liuseed cake? — In the summer time when 1 c»n get it. I nnually use undecortii ated cotton lake Indian moal. When I lannot yet these I use or inenl. •.our cows pretty heavily:' The ilxnit 7 Dm. of cake and meal |x-r day. I i- that, uli.it i|iiantity of milk do you . \ |xi t |n i day two gallons in the summer period and one. and a half gallons in the u inter- It would average about a gallon and a half in the uin: 1 r 7 ll.s .-i ated f.-odill^ ^ you think you get full \alue for your ti-d foodstuffs 'if that is all the milk tli^y I think you know HX well .,- I •! • that .. i the' foodstuffs have not hail tin- \alue in them uwd to have with _MHI. Have you any idea if y.u hail put in (mine-glow n fodder nn hiding hay root* at what it would cost you to produce them what .-If,- t that would h.-nc on tin. amount o! l"»p, or profit? I have n..l worked it out on thai 1 i, lost February when the Coin- n.i-i-.n was asking for evidence, tin;, gave ]>ci mis-ion to the i.inniM.s to charge tiien j line t<. • :ln> .s.iini- |.i i. rs they could .sell it at. and 1 tliink it ill the only tan way. 0817. So that is the basis you have gone • 081J*. .!/»•. Athby: Are these yields stated in your . \ idem, iii-chiel in throe periods actually refolded \ields ,-ithci from cows or receipts from nnlkr They are the actual yields from the receipts for milk. 68H). Vou charge your hay, straw and roots at market price*:- -Yo». 0820. If you wore .selling them as you are selling them to your cow >' ai-eoniit. would thero bo some pi ..lit M« cultivation of the hay, strawy and roote? — I lino would have been u very good pix.lit ..n the roots. I had a tremendoudy heavy crop., 6821. You show, roughly, a loss of £3oO on these eows, which is very closely £2 10s. an acre on the farm. As you have made a considerable pro' your roots and hay, that loss on the farm is IK 10s., but aonie lower figure? — I wanted to point out this, that we have been to a lot of expense and trouble ill producing this milk last winter, when we might have- taken it far more ea.siiy, and .sold our produce without trouble. That is what I have tried to show. Does that answer your question? 6822. Is your ordinary business dairying business:- - Yes; it is rather a mixed farm, but chiefly dairy- ing. 6823. But on the 141 acres, where you have 35 cows. much the biggest proportion of the business must be the dairy business? — Yes; that is due to tho AVai Executive. 6824. Did they make you keep the cows?— Tin y made me plough this land. It is like this: I have one of the best dairymen that ever had a pair ol boots on; and I know if I lessened his supply lie would not get another dairy, and it i.s my dir him to stand by him. 6825. But you would have been able to stand by him without meeting so much loss yourself, had it not been for the expense with the cows at the end of last summer? — I admit that the cows served me rather badly at the back end of the year; but these are difficulties that we are often faced with. 6826. But the depreciation ou your cows last year was much more than the average and ordinary depreciation? — If you take a dairy farm for a number of years, you may get one year that is perhaps three times as bad as the other three or four years. They never run in a line. 6827. This was the year which was three or four times as bad as the other years?— It was very bad. 6828. So that your average depreciation is about one-third or one-fourth of this? — I am not going to say that. 6829. This is quite an extraordinary account, which you could uot apply generally to the farms in Cheshire, even last year, and you could not apply it as regards the yield of milk on your own farm for a number of years, because of the peculiar con- ditions in the herd at the end of last summer? — I •-aid before. I admitted my cows had not done quite as «ell as they iiii^ht have done at the hack of the xear: but I do know of other dairy farms where they have even done worse than mine. 6830. To i-onie back to the question of loss, have you any account in any farm uhatev. • n say a bank pass-book, which would show this actual loss ..t t:«.Vir I do not tlv that the bank pass iMMik would have a deal to do with the dairy part of the business, becau-e I have the other part of the larm. I have not t \\ o si-parate accounts. Then you do not know that \ou have lost this • MI the whole of the farm:- I have not !o-t the 0 .,n the «hole of the farm. a matter of tact, the farming biisini-NH is much U-tter than is shown on this mi-lit for the dairy? — Yes, I agree with you. I1H:U Mi. <;:„!>,:,• Is this a typical Cheshire dairy larm:- Yes. in my district it is. ..re a great many more like it? — Yes, there are. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 59 27 August, 1919.] MR. P. W. CLARKSON. [Continued. 6835. Do you put your cows to the bull again, or do you sell them out? — As a rule, I change about one-third of them.. 0836. Do they then go to the butcher, or are they sold to other dairy farmers ? — They are then sold to the butcher. 6837. It is not what they call town dairying, where they simply buy the new calf-cow, feed it all the time, and sell it to the butcher? — No, I sell only about one-third of the stock. Perhaps 1 may sell a few calvers in the spring. 1 do not usually keep as many cows in the summer as 1 do in the winter. 6838. Do you bring up calves and breed them, or do you sell them? — 1 sell the majority of them. I rear perhaps six or eight per year. 6839. The heifer calves? — Yes. 6840. And the rest you sell? — Yes. 6841. Is this milk that you give us, the milk that you sell, or the milk that the cows give? — It is the milk I have sold. 6842. So, in addition to this milk, you have also had the milk which has been used to bring up calves? —My calves do not get much milk. 6843. They must get it for three or four weeks, anyway, do not they? — Yes; it is an error on my part that I have not included this milk in the costings. 1 bring them on to calves' meal in about a fort- night. 6844. I notice it works out at about 600 gallons a year. Is that a good yield or a bad yield or an average yield in your country? — Under the circum- stances 1 should consider it fair. We have not had pasture enough. We have not been able to get hold of the right class of cake that we should like to have done sometimes; and all these things have materially decreased the output of milk. 694."). Cheshire is a good dairy country, is it not? -Yes. 6846. And would these be average fanners' cows ; they are a good class of cows, are not they? — Yes. 'XI7. And these would be the average in the country? — .Yes. 6848. Do yon tell us you have done as well as the average dairy farmer ?— It is rather a difficult ques- tion to answer, because I have not had the privilege of looking at other people's books; but I should con- viilor I have done about the average that other farmers have done. 6849. As a matter of fact, you would have been £350 better off if you had not been in the dairy business at all? — Yes, that is so. 6850. Were you satisfied with the prices that were fixed last year? — No. 6851. They were too low?— Yes. . •J. Were thoy too low for an average year, or simply because you had a bad season? — They were too low for a winter like last winter, when the diffi- culties were so great. At the beginning of the winter I advocated nothing loss than 2s. 6d. I could see it was not going to pay at 2s. 3d. I think that that was what our Association recommended. 6853. What difficulties do you specially refer to? — Th.-re was a great difficulty in getting Indian meal about Christmas. 6854. In getting feeding-stuffs?— Yes, in getting feeding-stuffs. Thorp was great difficulty. 6855. And that continued?— That continued most of the wint 6856. That is one difficulty. What is the next diffi- culty?—I ought to mention there, that the difficulty was increased owing to the fact that we could not the de<-ordicatfd cotton rni-al and Indian meal I think, are the two finest milk producers tbere are. and we hnd to fall back on compounds and bean flour, which is excessively dear. Then at Christmas we began to feel a little the effect of the shortage of the hours and the increased wages of labour. . Those were the two chief difficulties?— Yes. i. How much labour do you use for your 35 cows?— Do you mean apart from the milking? ' V". including tho milking?- About two men MHOM myself and a youth. WflO. Do you milk yourself?— I do. 6861. Do you find any difficulty in getting labour? — Yes. It has been very unsettled in our district for this last couple of years. We find a great difficulty in getting the skilled men. There are very few cottages on our farms. 6862. 1 am speaking of dairy labour for looking after cows, and not ordinary farm labour. Has that got worse during the last year or 'so? — Yes. 6863. Can you give me any reason why it has got worse? — A lot of the men went away to the war, and they have not returned, or those who have returned, have not all settled down back to the farm industry. They have not in our district ; and the outsde labourers that you get are, of course, inefficient milkers. There is no question we have been bothered for skilled labour. 6864. Has that improved : is the labour prospect improving or getting worse? — 1 think generally there is a slight improvement. 6865. Is that any objection to the Sunday labour necessary in milk production? — I know in some cases where there has been so little profit out of the milk business, speaking now of the smaller dairies, the farmer and his family have done all the milking from Saturday noon to Monday morning instead of paying overtime. 6866. That is to save the overtime? — Yes; but in my case I have not found any difficulty in the men coming at the week-end. 6867. In your own case you have found no diffi- culty; but I am asking you generally as you come to speak for the county generally ?— Yes. 6868. Is there a complaint about the difficulty of getting milkers over the week-end for Sunday labour ? — Yes, there iff. 6869. Can you suggest any remedy for that? — I think the chief remedy in regard to skilled labour in our part of Cheshire wquld be the erection of cottages on the farms. There are very few farms with cottages to them. 6870. How would the building of cottages get over the objection to working on the Sunday? — You sec the young single men we have to trust to, when they get to a certain age generally get married and leave farming work altogether, and go somewhere else where they can get a house. 6871. You are short of houses there? — Yes. I think that difficulty in regard to the skilled farming part of the business would be got over by the erection of cottages on the farms. 6872. Then there is not really the objection to Sunday labour in milking? — No, not generally. 6873. la there any trouble about the Saturday half- holiday?— It is not generally followed out. The farmers prefer paying overtime till 4 o'clock on a Saturday. I think they take this view of it ; that it is far better to keep the men on the place till 4 o'clock than lose the men at 12 on Saturday, and have them return again in the evening to do the milking. 374. Can the milking be done before 4 ? — It is done. ?75. And the men are content to do that? — Yes. 6876. Do you think that is a satisfactory arrange- ment, and that the men will not insist on their Saturday half -holiday?— No. You see, that is the rule they are following out. 6877. You say there is a great desire now that men should have a half-holiday? -It is a thing that I have never agreed with — finishing at noon on a Saturday. 6878. I was going to ask you whether you have a'ny suggestion to make to meet that difficulty; but the difficulty. I understand, has not arisen in Cheshire? — No, with exceptional cases. 1 do know one farm where they have a milking plant, where the men do leave on Saturday at noon, and the master and the boy attends to milking in the afternoon. 6879. But the boy has to miss his Saturday after- noon ? — Yes. 6880. Is there any plan which the Cheshire Dairy Farmers have for getting over this trouble so that the men may have a half-holiday on Saturday? — No, I do not think 1 can Miii^ost anything. 6881. What in your view is it that the milk fanner requires to put his industry into a satisfactory con- dition ; is it better prices? Yes. I think the diffi- culty as regards summer-time will bo overcome some- what by getting a little bit more land down to grass again undoubtedly. ROTAL COMMISSION ON AORICULTUKE. 27 A*9»M, 1919.] Mr P. W. CLARKSON. 6885. Stopping there for one moment, the general opinion is that milk can be produced better on arable land than on grass: Ye- ; !• • all I-1"1' il'-'i ia suitable for catch cropping, and our land it not -iiu.ihle for catch cropping. 688.'i. You think, although your land is two-l land, it is too strong for catch cropping!- YOB; it is too wet. 6884. I sliould like you to see our land in Sussex. 1 was usking you if you could tell me what it i- the Chethire Dairy Farmer.* want to put their in- dustry on a satisfactory businesslike footing!' ---Either the p'riee of corn nml cake will have to he brought down during the winter months, or otherwise tin of milk will have to go "P 'f l^e Awry in- . lu-try is to be stimulated in our county. 6886. It comes to this, that yon want cheaper feeding-stuffs or better prices for milk, or both? That is so. 6886. It U a pure question of price then, in your view of it?— Yes. 68*7. If the price were satisfactory. have you any doubt that the Cheshire milk farming would he stimulated nnd would increa.se and supply tin- n U nf the people!- 1 have no doubt of that whatever. 6888. Do you consider there is any difficulty in dis- posing of the summer milk a- a|>art from tin- winter milk!-' No. My own opinion is that rather too much milk is getting' into the hands of the big dealers. I l>een surprised this last few weeks on getting the Board's returns to see that milk was very plentiful in the large towns. I do know the fact that the re- tailers are very short of milk, hut it is the whole- salers who have this milk in their hands. 6889. You, as a dairyman, are afraid of the Com- bine?— I am. 6890. The Combine amongst the middlemen!- 1 know tli at in one ease i* particular a wholesale man is getting hold of all the milk he can. I have a neighbour to whom if he has any particular flush he sends him word to make cheese of it. and gives him a penny a gallon to make the cheese. They are send- ing it "to the factories and losing a penny a gallon on it there. 6891. That is done at the wholesaler's request, I understand ? — Yes. 6892. Take the position of the Cheshire small dairy farmers: how would you suggest that they net rid of their flush of spring and early summer? — My sug- gestion is this, that every farmer should have a cheese vat in the house. We have, and we make a n the summer. We make as much as ,11 that will last us all the winter. 6893. You think it ought to be made into cheese in the summer no that the winter and the summer might balance? — Yes: I think it is a most useful thing. A farmer can have a cheese vat. so that when plentiful ho can make a cheese or two. 6894. In your opinion, would the ordinary price which you can get for Knglish cheese conduce to that being done, or would the price of cheese subject to outside competition be so low that that it ought not to be done? I will refer that question to Mr. Sadler 6895. But you have no other suggestion to make about the d*iry business except prices. I understand :i pure question of price?- That is all. T think. fiflW,. Mr. IMla* : I want to ask you one or two on some things which you have replied to Cnutley about. You talk about cottages, and that vou thought a remedy won to have cottages on n farm? Yen. •7. Are yon not aware that we have cottages on the farms in' the town or wherever they could get bonnes. i. But I think vou would probably nnd great difficulty in getting the men to live in tied cot- tages, because everywhere where they are living in tied cottages to-day they want to get out of them the i:r-i liniment they can;'- -That is the tirst time I have known of that dilln nlty. 0899. It is a very serious question down South ; in fact, if you ask the men, they will tell you there i- probnbly no ijuehtion they feel stronger on than the ij lie* t ion ol the. tied cottage, and Air. Duncan tell- me it is the same thing in Scotland, so I do not think you will find that is any remedy. You woul'l probably find that the nnieds was worse than the evil itself? — Well, we do want a more .stable class of men in Cheshire. (i!XM». Would vou not agree that that has been due and is due to the long hours and relatively low lati of wages? — It may be. We have not hud time to ei tie down again yet after the war. 6901. For instance, take your wages to-day : 48s. a week. The Board of Trade figures are that the cost of living has gone up 115 per cent, during the period of the war, so that as a matter of actual fact your workers' wages are barely increased. There is a slight increase on what they were getting before the war. but very little? — I might say. that we do not object to paying these wages, but we do not want the hours shortened too much. 6902. I know that; but what I want to say is this. that I think as the best men can get higher wages in other industries they will naturally go to tin- industries that pay them best, and that is why ; may be something in what you say alwnit the [MOOT? —I agree there. 6903. Mr. Jhuinin: Is it necessary that an% t ages you get should he on the farm: V- 6904. So that even if you had cottages, even if i hey were not tied cottages, they might have the of giving a married man the opportunity of -'•; down?— Yes. Of course, the only objection to that i- this, that if you have not cottages on the hum and it a man loaves you, you cannot get a cottage for his successor. 6906. What would the man remain there for if he was out of a job in the district? 1 have known instances where it has been a job to get ti. for a successor. 6906. Taking the county BK a whole, that is> a difficulty which would settle itself pretty easily if you had cottage* available P—l think it, would get over the difficulty very greatly in our part of (lie-hire if t lii-re were more cottages in the immediate- vicinity nf the farms. i;'."i7. Do you have any women milking on your forms?— Not often, except niv wife. 6908. Is it possible to get the wives of the married men to milk? — Just at present I have no married men. I have never known it in our part of Cheshire where the married men's wives have gone out milking. 6909. You have given us evidence here as to the dairy side of your farm. Have you any statement covering the period from the 1-' May. 1918, to the 1st May, 1919. showing the result of the whole of your operations? No 1 was onl\ asked to get out the costs of the milk production nlone during 12 months. 6010. Could yen get out for us the cost of the whole of the operations for the same period? — T daresay T could. 6911. Would you supply those to the Secretary of the Commission?- Y 6912. Mr. Thomas JTfnt1fr/1.1. And a crop of 180 tons?- Yes. i!!M I Ts that mangolds ami swedes, or mixed? — It is mixed: part mangolds and part sw. 601 5. And you debit those to ycur cows. I think, at £21 IK. a ton'?— Yen. 6916. That would give you a total value of root* of £.150?— Yes. ' 6917. £75 an acre?—! have not worked it out, but vour figures may ho correct. ' 691 R T will work it out. £2 10s. a ton on 180 tons i, £450, T think : that in to «ay. there is a yield of £75 per acre?— Yes. 691!). T suppose you concur in Mr. Goodwin s evi- dence, on the cost of production? — Yes. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 61 27 August, 1919.] MR. I'. W. CLARKSON. [Continued. 6920. In 1915 the cost of production of mangolds was £15 9s. 3d. You do not say what it was in 191", but it would be a good deal less than the 1919 figure, which was £41 7s. 9d.? — Yes. 6921. Then swedes in 1915 were £11 11s. 3d., and in 1919 £31 "s. 9d. Could you tell us how much of these 180 tons were mangolds and how much were swedes'" — I can tell you this, that there was an excep- tionally good crop. This year 1 shall not average 10 tons. 6922. I am not disputing that. I am merely tak- ing the figures you have given us? — I had one of the best crops of roots that I ever grew. I had 4 acres of mangolds and 2 acres of turnips. 6923. Taking it at the top figure of £41 7s. 9d. for mangolds, that would give you a profit of how much per acre on these figures? Your highest figure of cost of production for mangolds is £41, and that was the 1919 cost of production. I suggest that you can scale that down considerably for your 1917 cost of production ? — I bought the 4 tons of roots that I used in May. 6924. You sowed your own roots the previous year? — Yes, and I bought these 4 tons in May, and I had to buy in May this year. too. 6925. Could you tell us what you sold your own old, roots at? — -I use them; I did not sell them. t>!»26. Did you put 50s. on these? — I cannot go back that far into" the 1917 and 1918 winter. 6927. But, at any rate, taking these figures, that .showed a very big profit on 6 acres of roots? — Some seasons we get a good crop of one variety and some seasons a had one. 6928. I quite agree ; but I am discussing your own figures. \Vas this an exceptionally heavy crop of • ? — I will take you back to, I think it was, 1915 or 1916. I had only 27 tons of mangolds on 6 acres. It was a very wet field. So you see we do not always grow a very big crop. fi929. No; lint I suggest to you that it' you work out the figures you will find it a great deal more than mad.- up the l'>s^ in your milk? — No. 'I'ln I'luiiriiiini : He will give us the accounts on the whole of the farm. :md it will then be clear. 6930. Mr. Prottfi .Imirx: You show us on page -I that it cost you Cl^ to convey the milk to the station. Could you tell us why in delivering 5,848 gallons it cost you £18, whereas 10,000 gallons are delivered at £22 10s. Is it so much per gallon or so much per journey? — I will tell you the basis on which I calcu- lated the cost of delivery. In the summer time I maintain that you ran deliver milk cheaper than you can in the winter because you take perhaps one-third more milk to the station, and the cost of keeping your pony is heavier in the winter time. I have only charged 3s. per day for the delivery of the milk in the winter time and id. per gallon in the summer. 6931. I think you told one of the Commissioners that there are quite a number of farms in your County that are engaged in dairy work. Is there no room for organisation so that many of these journeys could bo avoided? Could not one journey do for two or three farmers? — Not very well. The farms lie very widely apart. In some eases it might be done with a oouple of farmers. But there is another thing to be con- sidered. T'nless you use motor | ower a farmer generally fills his float, and if he gets four or five tan- kards iii his own float he has no room for anybody Nearly all the milk is now delivered once a day, or it is in the winter time. 6932. Improved transportation would cheapen the delivery, would it not? — It is very questionable whether it rould he cheapened unless you took it right through to Manchester. It is very questionable whether it could he cheapened just to deliver it to the station. 6933. Do you keep a record of the vield from each cow?- No. "934. Then you may have, amongst your herd a very poor milker? Yes. And it has not been (iuite so easy this last couple of years to dispose of your had milkers m it was in previous years, for this reason : there have been no eows allowed to be graded for slaughter that have had n calf in them. Tn Cheshire most of the hulk run out with the herds in the .summer time, and • •'iws mav have bad to be kept until they have been five months in calf before you could get any meat on them, and when you took them to the auction they would not grade them, because they could feel the calf, and you had to take that cow back again. 6935. Did you tell ua you were suffering from scarcity of labour;' — We are suffering from a scarcity of skilled labour. 6936. Even wilh reduced hours and increased wages? — Yes. Labour has not settled down again to its former course of things. We have not as good a class of labour now as we had three years ago. 1 milk on an average myself every night and morning. 6937. Do you agree with me that were it not for the reduced hours and increased wages 3-011 would find that you would be far shorter of labour? — You would not get any, especially in the vicinity of the towns. For instance, opposite me there are four cottages ; I have not been able to get one of them yet, but there is a railwayman who lives in one. He has to get to work at eight and finishes at five, and I believe he draws about 53s. a week, and his time is his own from Satur- day at noon till Monday morning. That is an advance on our men. 6938. What capital do you sink per acre in your farm? — I think that the price in our case is much the same as Mr. Goodwin's — about £25 per acre. 6939. What interest do you expect on your capital? — That is a bit of a puzzler. It is not what we expect ; it is what we get. 6940. But what would you expect, being a risky industry? — I do not feel disposed to answer that question. We generally make as much out of it as we can, nnd it has not been so much as some people think this last few years in regard to the dairying industry. 6941. Would you tell us what salary a farmer in your position is entitled to, apart from interest, for his labour and oversight? — T should not think I was well paid along with the price of the ordinary agri- cultural labourer if it was not over £3 per week. Mr. /'rower Jones: That is very moderate, I think. 6942. Mr. Lennard : You spoke just now of cottages on the farm. I suppose you would agree that such cottages are often isolated and stand some distance from the village?- — Yes. 6943. Do not you think that men who have left the villages for service in the Forces and have become accustomed during the war to camp life and having plenty of companions will greatly dislike the loneliness of isolated cottages? — There may he something in that. 6944. I suggest that if we are to attract the soldiers back to agriculture and keep them in the industry, one of the most important things of all is that they should have company and the chance of associating with their fellows without having to go a long walk to reach the village club or inn. Do you think there, is something in that? — There is a lot of divergence in natures. Some men can spend their time at home and in the garden and with their family quite as much as others would seek the company of their fellow men. 6! 1 15. Yes ; but do not you think that the experience of the war has rather increased the number of men who feel the need of what we might call club life? — Yes, perhaps so ; but I do remember when I was in Nottingham, the men never seemed to hanker at all after club life; but that was before the war. 6946. Mr. Pnrker : I only want to ask you about those 4 cottages near the farm ; to whom do they belong? — I am in the either happy position or un- happy position of living under 5 landlords, and these 4 cottages are really under one of them. I hold about 10 acres under this landlord, but the land and the cottages have been in the market for a number of years, and they have a lot of old tenants in them, and they did not want to let me have a cottage until there was one of them went out. 6947. With regard to the railway man : the Com- pany have no houses to put their men in, I suppose? — No, I have never heard tell of any in our district. 6948. I think you said that you had not a married man? — Not at present. 6949. Where does the man who does your milking live; does he lodge with someone? — He sleeps on the farm. 6950. He live* with you and the boy? — Yes. KOYAI. . ..\IMIsSI.-.N ,,\ Ai.KH I'LTUHE. A*g**, llM'.i.; MB. P. W. [Conlinutd. 0961. I wanted to ask yon aim about the straw, which I was not quite clear about. I understood the restrict.sd price lor ittraw was £3 IS«. ?— Was that at the latter end of the year!' 6052. Yea?— After the turn of th.- year I bought. I think it wag, 6 or 8 tons, and I hud to pay 85s. for it then. 8963. That was the thing that puntled me. If the restricted price was '_:< I ".- . who was to blame for (barging you i'4 5s. ?— I do not know. i .!'•"> I. />/-. /><>i/i/'«i- : Dealers' profit* are allowed?— I bought 8 tons, I believe, after Christ nine 8966. Air. Parkn : And it was not produced verv near to you? — No. 6966. Mr. Smith : Could you Ml us what price you are getting for your milk to-day? — IB. 8d. \Ve generally calculate by the down quarts in Cheshire. Rave you any figures worked up how mu'-li the cost of production has increased in dairy farm- ing?— I do not know whether it will answer your question, but I hare some figures here. Some gentle- man asked about it earlier on. These are the pri'-c* in 191.V I got lOd. per gallon for my milk in the summer. I have not the figure for the winter at that period. Dairy meal was £6 7s. 6d. Decorti- cated cotton, £9; Indian meal, 10 guineas; and linseed, £10 7s. 6d. It averaged £9 IB. 3d. per ton. Sow in 191!) the price for the summer works out at Is. 7d. per gallon. I must include in that one-half- penny for carriage. We did not get the carriage in I'.'l'i. The price of cake to-day is: dairy meal. £20; decorticated cotton cake, . £25 10s. ; Indian meal, £25 10s.. and linseed £27. £JW the lot. The average is £24 10s. to-day. The increase in corn and cake is about 170 per cent. Labour has gone up from 25s. to about .Vis., with overtime; and rates are up another Is. in the £ from last year; so that you see milk did not increase 100 per cent., bnt corn and cake have gone up 170 per cent., and labour over 100 per cent. 6958. Of «ourse, that would not cover all your costs: they would only bo part of the costs? — These have lieen only part of the costs. I have been very rushed for time, and it is a terrible thing getting these statistics out for milk. You speak of tho desirability of labour not being disturbed so much from the point of view of the farmer. Do not you think it desirable for you to lie able to retain the best labour as far as possible !J Ye«. 6960. Do you think you will be able to do that unlew the labour condition* are sufficiently attractive from the point of view of hours aa well as. wages?— This being a new phase and something we hare not been accustomed to. we cannot yet fall in with it. The greatest objection I havo to this labour busineM has lii-oii this stopping at noon on a Sat unlay, and, of coiirs... »e have not observed it, as it is very nearly unworkable on our farms. .-.(.., i.,ll\ on isolated farms. What are the youths to <|i> on a Saturday till milking at night? If they h.m- to hang about they are i working, and if they go away, tin-re i* no Ml ing whether they will come back; they are several miles away from the town. The majority of us on the dairy farms run on to I o'clock ano! pay them over time for it. It is a very great question, and I have never been in favour of this noon on Saturday. My men are quite willing to go on till -1 o'clock, nnd 1 have put it to them l>otli wavs. 6961. But do not you think there will IM> n ten- dency for the young men, especially those who have taken part in the war and have associated with men from towns, to desire a week-end, and if in the • or in the large centres close by they are working a 48-hour week and having a <-Ienr week-end, that rnnv lie a temptation for them to leave the count' and go to the town? — I quite agree. 6962. Do you also agree that the men who have the tendency to go are generally the tetter workmen ; that is. the men with morn initiative in them? — As a rule, if a man takes to his work on the farm, he would not shift unless he has good reasons for shift- ing. Does that answer your question? 6i)63. I am just wondering whether it is vour ex- perience and your opinion that the man who would shift because lie was dissatisfied or because he thought he would get something better, on the average ' e th« better type of workman. It would not be gord for the industry to be left with the inferior type and nil the best go? — I do not think that in many cases the lietter class of man would leave the countryside if he was getting a wage, we will say. equal to tho town wage, which although it might 'be a shilling or two less reckoned in the main would be as good, for ihe snke of having 1m week-end out. I do not think In- would leave the country for the town for that reason, because the conditions are much healthier in the country than in the town. nOfil Do you think that would applv to the young man ? The younger man is not a.s reliable : you cannot vouch for Rim. Tlif Chairman : Wo are very much obliged to yon. (The Witnem left the chair.) Mr .1 . SMH.F.H. S,K retary. Cheshire Chamber of Agriculture, and Cheshire Milk Producers' Association, called and examined. 6965. The Chairman: May we put in the print of the opinions which you desire to put before us without reading it? — Yea. [Evidtnee-in-chirf handrd in by the Witntu.] I desire to put before the Commission the opinion of the two bodies I represent on two matters only ill Thr If'iiii.i n Farm*. I would lay down it general principle that tin ordinary hours of labour in any industry should be regulated by the conditions controlling that particular industry and any departure from or modification of Mich principle would IK- injurious to the industry ami all those dependent upon it. The county of Cheshire is largely devoted to dairv farming, of which the hours of milking form an intc gril part. An »hc secretion of milk by the cow is controlled absolutely by nature and is unalterable, it follows that the intervals between the milkings on each and every day should be as nearly equal as possible and «ny serious departure from such equal m'« rvals between the two daily milkings being against nature produces ill results winch m.iy lie Mimniarised as follows : <") The butter fat content of the milk produced after the longer interval is decreased, while the butter fat n-nti-nt of the milk produced aftor the shorter period in increased, causing grave risk of prosecution to the producer (b) In the full flush of the milking season con- siderable inconvenience and discomfort is caused to the cow. i' l This has a distinct tendency to reduce tho quantity of milk secreted and thus reduce the total output of milk in the country. < . KK I I. TUSK. VJ Any**, 1919.] MR. J. >.\i'i i i:. 6984. I just wanted to niako sure that that was your view? — Ye»; the natural conditions. 6966. Mr. Protitr Junti : In Cheshire we have some large induatriea in addition to agriculture? — Yes. 0066. And labour, which is the only commodity a man has to offer, has two markets. He can either offer it to the railway men, or soap factory, or engineering factory, or to the farmer? — Yes. 6967. The railway men are offered 63s. up to 60s., and the farmers offer 33s. to 43s., say?— We have no such wages as those in Cheshire. 6968. What have you?— 48s. for first grade of men. 6989. Is that the maximum? — No, by no means. That i« the minimum for the first grade men. 6990. Is it near the 53s. that we were given by Mr. Clarkson? — 48s. is the present arrangement for first grade men as a minimum. 6991. As compared with 53s. in the railway near by? — I do not know whether that is tho minimum 6993. We were given that figure by someone. What I wanted to ask was this : Would not a man naturally go where he will get tho t>est price? — Ye*. 6993. And do you blame the farm labourer for doing the same thing? — Not a bit. 6994. la there any hope of an increased supply of farm labourers whilst the wages are below those paid in other industries? — I think the only consideration should be as to whether the competing employment is equally, shall we say. agreeable. You could not compare a farm labourer with a miner, for instance. That would apply in a lesser degree to other indus- tries, and that ought to be taken into consideration when comparing the two wages; or, as you quite properly put it. the two markets that the man lias for his labour. On general principles, if the ron-li- tions of employment arc equal, then I should say that the worker would naturally and instinctively, aa I should myself, select that field for his labour where he could get the most money and work the least number of hours. I am not sure if that quite answer* your question. Mr. Prosser Jonei : Yes. 6995. Mr. Lennard : In general, would you agree that in dairy farming you need a particularly good type of labourer, as the work is so largely of a respon- sible kind?— For the looking after your cattle and the management of your horses, undoubtedly you do. You want rather nbove the ordinary rough and tumble man ; but outside of that I do not" see that you do. 6998. To secure a good type of men, it is necessary, of course, to make the position of labour attractive? Yes. 6997. And that is specially necessary in dairy farm- ing, because of the exacting nature of the hours?— 1 I'1*. 8998. Yon are aware, I suppose, that the soldiers during the war have had considerable opportunities of taking part in games and sports in their camps. Would you agree that to make agricultural employ- ment attractive to them it is very necessary that even-thing possible shouid be .lone to make recreation of that kind available for them?— Yes; and it has been done to a very large extent long before the war. 6999. But yon have found Jifficultv with regard to the Saturday half-ho]iday?-Tho Saturday half-holi- day is, as Mr. CTarkson has said, a new feature and there n an unwillingness to take on a new feature and I am afraid that for dairy farm purposes it is impracticable. 7000. You do not thin* it could ho managed at all? —Would yon like me to amplify it? 7001. No. It if your opinion. I want to tell voTT hing that is in my mind that I am afraid of, and would like to know your opinion about it. I have •eon a good deal of young men who have served in th- ranks and my impression is that when they are first lemobihsed their only desire is to get home, and that they are very willing to go back to their old employ- ment and old village life, for a time. But I am rather afraid that farmers maj bo somewhat deceived bv that and not realise the importance of making the cond.tion, specially attractive to retain them on tho ,r i I *,? T v to.r,nmc Wk Bt *"*••' but i •«>• Mlbtfd whether tnev „ |, ,„ .,,„,, ,,.,,pn t))p beauty of the return h me has r.ithor worn off. Do you think there is much in that?- Yes, I think thcro is. 7UI-J. Mr. Xicholis: What do you think with regard to the future prospect in the case of the man referred to by Mr. Ixmnard? Do you really think that some of these men have had tho impression lately that they can get almost anything they want by going to some other particular industry or some town near by, and that when they discover there are not the same open- ings for them that they really thought there were, and they discover there is unemployment in the town, and on going to the Exchanges for jobs they cannot get them, they will be more inclined to come back again to the farm? — Yes; it is a passing phase. 7003. Then I want to ask you whether you think it possible, with a view to making the Saturday change possible, to arrange for one man to have his turn off, because really the milking must be done on the Satur- day afternoon. We all admit that. Is it possible. (In you think, to organise and arrange it so that the man in turn has his time off? — That would be quite on a fairly large farm, NO that you did not send too many away on each Saturday afternoon. I am not sure that the men would agree to that though ; luit on a smaller farm where you cannot spare one, the. liility of an arrangement seems rather remote. 7004. Have you found any desire on the part of the men and the farmers to make an arrangement for the former to have their holiday in one strcU li instead of having half a day a week?- -It has been suggested by the farmers in quite a number of in- rtanj 7005. What about the o'.her side? This has not been very fully considered. I think, but may be in the future. I am inclined to th'nk that that is a way out of tho difficulty. 7006. Do I understand that you are in favour of the fixed prices for milk ; I mean for the Government to control it and go on fixing a standard price for it? — Permanently ? 7007. Y.<' I think under all the circumstances I should have to answer Yes to the first part of the <|in->tion, hut I am not in favour of Government control. 7008. I was wondering whether after your long cr- perience you had come to the conclusion, with the desiro of Governments and Departments to leave labour alone, it would be better to leave everything else alone, and let farmers have the freo play of the market, and let the Government take its hands off, and the farmers negotiate with the Unions without any Wages Board or anything else? — That is as to labour you mean? 7009. Yes ; the Farmers' Union negotiate with the Workers' Union? — I am inclined to think that, with- out the intervention of the Wages Board, the two bodies which are now fairly organised in the counties— I am speaking largely with reference to Cheshire now — would be able to manage that business quite well ns to wages and hours and con- ditions of employment. 7010. Would yon be prepared in that case to say, " Leave us alone with our labour, and we will take the risks in the market "?- Yes. 7011. Mr. Smith : 1 notice you state in the main part of your evidence when you are referring to )>cttcr method* of organisation and train service, that it would reduce largely the very serious quantity of sour milk. Have you any idea 'of the extent to which takes place in that respect?- No, we have no statistics: but it is a very heavy charge upon the industry as a whole. 7012. And therefore .with this letter organisation in reaching market*, great economies could bo effected? Undoubtedly. 7013. Which would help the farmer to meet these • '1 labnm- i c.sta? — Yes. 7014. I notice you rather suggest a 58 hour week?— 1 1**. 7015. Are vou convinced that that is reallv necessarv for the well being ,rf the industry?- If 'you follow follows, of course, on my first statement the general principle, and it is "the natural con- itions controlling ,1,0 industry that T am referring Fhe cows have to be milked twice each day, and you cannot get away from that no matter what arrange- ments you mnke. Then in carrying that out, yon see MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 65 27 Auguit, 1919.] MK. J. SADLER. [Continued. you get intervals even with a 58 hour week of 10 and 14 hours between the milkings, which is rather further than we ought to go in that direction. 7016. Could not the whole system be organised whereby the needs of the farm could be met so far as the times of milking are concerned, and yet reduce the hours? — I am afraid not. I do not see how you could do it. You would want additional labour at your disposal, milkers, and that sort of thing, and the additional milkers are not available. In fact they are not go much available now as they were a few years ago. 7017. Do you know that in other industries when those changes have been suggested, it has been very frequently stated that the new arrangement could not possibly work, but they have found ultimately they could do it by applying their minds to it and finding some way out? — I have no doubt that is so. 7018. Do not you think the same thing might apply here in the course of time; that by some methods of organisation, especially if you got better facilities in transport, all these things could be worked satis- factorily?— I should be delighted if I could see my way to favour such an arrangement, but I cannot at the moment. 7019. You would agree it is desirable to retain as good labour as you can upon the farm? — Yes. 7020. And to do that you want conditions that will be attractive? — Yes, that is so. 7021. In a reply to a question by Mr. Lennard, you said you thought the men might return to the land after their first disappointment with the towns? — Yes. 7022. Is not there a tendency that they might seek to go further and emigrate, after their past ex- perience?— It is possible. 7023. I mean men who have never left their own surroundings view things differently after they have had experience of travel, and possibly they will never return, and therefore it is better to keep them when you have got them? — I quite agree in going as far as possible in that direction. 7024. Dr. Douglas: Did I understand you to say that you were in favour of a guarantee for the price of cheese? — Yes. 7025. Would not it be possible to fix anything like an equal value for all cheese? — It would have to be graded. 7026. And that would mean a guaranteed market. A guaranteed price would involve a guaranteed market, would not it?— Yes, I think it would. 7027. That is to say, the Government would need to become the sole purchaser of cheese? — Yes, it looks like it at the. moment. 7028. What is the object of that?— I would like to amend that answer. A minimum guarantee would not involve the Government as a purchaser. It would be on exactly the same basis as a minimum guarantee for corn. 7029. Yes; l>ut in giving the minimum guarantee for corn, the Government does not become the pur- chaser at all. There is no such average price for cheese as there is for wheat, let us say, to serve as a datum line? — Yes, cheese can be imported from a good many quarters of the Globe. 7030. Obviously ; but there is no average price of cheese struck, because cheese is of very various values, is it not? — Yes. 7081. .Each farm lot of cheese would need to be valued and graded separately, just as cattle are now. is not that so? — Yes, but it would not be a very serious matter. Cheese that are made on farms have a pretty regular quality. 7039. Do you say that even adjoining farms make cheese of similar quality generally? — Not necessarily. 7033. Are not there very great variations in the skill of cheese makers? — Yes. 7034. WoulS you find that sometimes the difference in value in normal times would be 30 per cent, of the total value of the cheese? — That might be so in a very extreme case, but it would be very exceptional. 7036. So that it would require skilled buying on the part of the Government? — If the Government had to buy it would certainly. 7096. If the Government guaranteed a price, it would need to buy at that price, would not it?— If it guaranteed a minimum price I suppose it would 26329 have to make up the difference if the farmer could not get that price. It would not necessitate the Govern- ment buying I think. 7037. If the seller failed to find a purchaser at his price, he would then have a right to go to the Government? — He would be able to sell his cheese at market price. 7038. Yes; but I do not understand what your scheme is. You have, no doubt, thought out how such a scheme would be administered? — No, I could not say I have thought out a scheme. I am simply speaking on the principle. 7039. What would be the ground on which you would advocate this? — The ground that if you give a guarantee for the. growing of cereals, there is equal claim on the part of the dairy farmer to have his cheese guaranteed. I see no difference. 7040. You put it as a right of the farmer to have a guarantee? — As a right of the farmer if he is to be kept on his legs in farming. 7041. You put it that it is the farmers' interest that is in your mind ? — Not altogether. 7042. But that is what you nave said?— Yes; but a farmer's interest in this respect is only leading up to the Nation's interest. 7043. You put it as a matter of equality of treat- ment between two classes of farmers. You assume that the ground of guarantees is to increase or assure the profits of farmers. — It is to increase production in the first place. 7044. Yes; but when you put it as a matter of justice between farmers, that has nothing to do with production. It is a question of equity between different farmers? — I am quite content to accept that as a matter of equity between one class of farmer and another, because the two classes of farmers are sub- ject to the same sort of outside competition. 7045. You put that forward definitely simply as a protective policy for the dairy farmers? — Yes, but I would not confine myself to that. 7046. And you think the State should undertake an obligation to buy all cheese which may he produced, whatever its value may be, at a minimum price? — I do not think so. 7047. I have difficulty in understanding what you do say ? — I say that I have not worked out a scheme. I simply content myself with saying at the moment that the State should guarantee the cheese making farmer a minimum price for his cheese to enable him to compete with outside sources), just as the State is asked to guarantee the corn growing fanner to enable him to compete. 7048. Has anyone ever advocated that the State should guarantee a profit to the corn growing farmer ? — I never mentioned profit. 7049. I think you answered one of my questions a few moments ago in that sense. You do not suggest that the corn guarantee has been advocated as pro- viding a profit for farmers? — The corn guarantee, if I understand it aright, is to be given in order that the land can be made and kept productive, and in order that sufficient quantity of corn can be pro- duced in this country, at any rate as near as we can get, to provide for the needs of the population. I do not say for a moment that we can supply thje whole of tne needs of the population, of course. 7050. And do you say a similar justification to that of the Corn Production Act exists for guaranteeing cheese? — Yes. 7051. Then I will take that as your reply. Is that the same ground on which you advocate the Govern- ment control of milk prices? — No, it is not. — I think Government control of milk prices would be on a different footing altogether. 7052. Do you think the control of milk prices by the Government ought to be made permanent? — I would rather it was not. 7053. Do you think it would encourage production to make that control permanent? — I think perhaps it would not. 7054. Do yon think producers would like to have their prices permanently fixed by Government De- partments?— They would rather be free as producers. 7055. So that they would be more likely to pro- duce, would they not? — That seems to be a natural corollary. E 2 ,«*/, U'l'.t.j U'-VAI. iOMMI»l"N OH AGRICULTURE. MIL J. SAIU.RK. [Continued. 7056. Mi. /.'«u: In the firat part of jour evidence, yon raise the difficulty of following out the milk in- dustry under the new system of nouns and so on. That of course has • tendency i.. im lease the cost of production ? — Yes. 7057. And consequently a tandaMj)) to tower the profit* of the dairy farmers?- Yes. 7036. On the figures that have been put before us this afternoon, those protiU do not any means to be exhorbitant, as matters are!'- They are difficult to find. 7009. Will there be a danger, do you think, of many men going out of the Industry P are going out 7060. Do you find that in Cheshire now?— Yes. 7061. Throughout the war, have not they been making fair profits on the whole:'— Oh, yes. 7062. As other farmers have:-- Yes. 7063. That is an agreed fact:-— Yes, 1 think there is no doubt about that, but nothing like the enormous profits they are credited with. 7064. That is the next question I was going to ask you? — But they have been IIM d to working for nothing so long', that the little makes them think they are doing very well. 7065. One hears every now and then, not infrequent ly, about the enormous" profits that farmers have been making during the war. Do you think those profits are anything like what they are represented to be in some quarters? — I know they are not. 7086. You have had a very long experience, and that is why I am putting these questions to you. Do you think' that the profits made during the war by the farming community will equal the losses sustained by the farming community during the previous 35 years?— No. 7067. They really have not got their own back?— No. 7068. With regard to transport, have you considered the question generally, or only in relation to the getting of milk to the market?— Chiefly with regard to milk ; but I think it applies generally. 7069. Do you think a system of Light Railways or of motor vans would be the I" st :- A little while ago, I think it was the Board of Agriculture, made an enquiry as to the laying down of Light Railways by the side of the existing main roads. Another suggestion was that ordinary light railways should be laid with an independent line. The main road idea would entail narrow gauge which would mean twice trans-shipping the produce between the place of loading and its destination. That would be waste- ful. Do you think that is a system yon would a'dvo- c*te?— No, I do not think that would be a good system. 7070. Do you think light railways with the ordinary gauge, so that the waggons could bo shifted from the. line on to the main railway is preferable? — Yes. The main difficulty in the farmer getting his goods and delivering his goods to the purchaser, is tho question of trans-shipment, and that particularly applies to smaller quantities of stuff. He not only suffers in delay, but he suffers in very serious damage to his goods. For instance, take the sending of cheese. He does not know his own cheese when tln-v get to the end of the railway journey by tho lime they have been transshipped twice, which h.ippcns very frequently now. 7071. What I want to get is your opinion as to the belt method of transport. As against the light rail- ways there is the possibility, either under (!nvern ment management or by some other means, of estab- lishing a service of motor lorries or motor vehicles of •nme sort to travel along the existing nmd- tho damage that would lie done to the roads and tho cost of repairs necessary, nhich. in your opinion would be the better system, tho light railway system or the motor lorry system ? For prnrt irid purpose* the lorry system would be far preferable ; but it does appear to me that there are serious dillic iilties in the way of utilising tho present roads for lorry traffic, because it does very serious dnmngo to the roads. Tn order to make the roads w> tluit they would stand the heavy lorry traffic, you would have to treat them in such a way that they are almost useless, and are T«ry dangerous for hor«o traffic : so it looks an though you would have to selert certain roads, and sporinllv construct them for motor traffic for this through • •. and reserve tho other roads for the sake of ili.' burses. At present accident* are happening frr ,|ii. inly on the roads that are made specially suitable for motor vehicles. 707-'. It would mean a very heavy cost in bottoming the roads? — I do not think it is so much the bottom ing as the surface. 7073. Unless there is a bottom it would go through any surface V it is a big undertaking uhiH uay it is looked at. fn;i. My own opinion rather was, that in view of the heavy cost and difficulties of the roads, a light railway system might be better generally? — I would not like to express an opinion on that at the moment. 7070. Mi .l'/j/: You represent the Cheshire Milk Producers' Association, which is chiefly concerned with the dairy business? — Yes. 7076. And the Cheshire Chamber of Agriculture, which is concerned with the general interests ot farming industry? — Yes. 7077. In normal times the chief financial interest of the average farmer in Cheshire was the dairy business, was it not? — Yes, and potatoes. There is quite a fair -sized area in addition to that, where they pursue arable farming and sell all the crops .off and cart the manure back again. 7078. Which part of Cheshire is that?— That is Altrijicham way. 7079. North-west?— Yes. 7080. Then, except for a district in the north-west of the county, the chief interest is in the live-stock and dairying business? — Yes. 7081. That would have continued to have been the chief interest during the war, would it not, had it not been for the action of the Executive Commit toe :- I ' you think that that is still when- the interests of the Cheshire farmer lies? — Yes, I think that that is so. 7082. I have just been running through the statis- tics with which no doubt you are acquainted; and 1 find, taking tho average of the county, in each 100 there is roughly about CO acres of pasture and about 40 acres of arable. Then on each 100 acres there are only about 4 acres of wheat and about 11 acres of oats ; about 5 acres of potatoes, 15 acres of clover, and 3 acres of roots, but there are 21 cows and heifers on 100 acres. So that really you have no barley, practically speaking, in the county? — No, we do not grow any barley. 7083. So that what we have heard about the crops which would be affected by a guarantee, applies to about 15 acres of oats and wheat, which is quite a small matter in the total business of th farmer of the county, is not u- Yes. 7084. So that you are roally concerned chiefly with the price of milk, of store stock, and of potatoes? — YOB, and cheese. 7085. I mean milk products. Then so far as the financial interests of the Cheshire farmer are oon- n rued, who is one of the best farmers in the country on the average, the guarantees do not affect him very seriously? — Not to the same extent as in some other counties. 7086. You recognise that behind the guarantees are two principles, more or less; the principle of MM-iiring a national food supply up to a point, and tho principle of securing tho financial interests of the arable farmer under the Corn Production Act? — V,- 7087. Can you give any reason wh\ th* i a -HUTS. a- business men, are so frequently concerned with tho first principle, the cultivation for defence pur- poses?— I am sorry to break the Miles, but are those statistics old statistics or n< 7088. liil.V- The situation > :,l,h rod now. 7d-!>. In what proporlon:- The .'liable farming lias increased very largely. Tho corn growing area has increased very largely; but I do not know what the figures are. They are very large. 7090. But you stated just now that that was due entirely to the action of the Executive Committee, and not to any desire on tho part of the farmers to cultivate cereals as a business proposition? — Yes, it was due largely to the action of the Kxeoutive Com- mittee for national purposes. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 67 27 Augutt, 1919.] MR. J. SADLER. [Continued. 7091. And the farmers, as a matter of fact, in pre-war times were studying their financial interests in developing the dairy business? — -Yes. 7092. They would have continued to develop that business as their best financial interest during the war, had it not been for the action of the Executive Committee? — I would not say that; I do not think I should say that. • 7093. Then you think that Cheshire farmers, on the whole, are .willing to grow more cereal crops, even though it may not be to their financial interest? — They are growing more cereal crops, and have been for the last two years. Their one anxiety now is to know whether the continuing of growing those crops is going to be to their financial benefit or not. If not, they will be compelled to go back to their grass farming. 7094. Are you sure about that? Is there not an alternative where you have a highly developed dairy system, as you have in Cheshire, by which you have, as a matter of fact, from pre-war times been growing a considerable^ acreage of crops for consumption by the cows? — Yes. 7095. Are you sure, if the guarantees under the Corn Production Act arc not raised or are withdraw n. that the farmers of Cheshire will let that land revert to. grass rather than to maintain it in arable culti- vation for the production of food for their cows? — The growing of arable crops for the uee of cattle is no doubt a sound business proposition, and I say quite frankly I have thought for a long time that the best method of carrying on a dairy farm where the land is suitable is by increasing the arable and reduc- ing the pasture for purely dairy purposes. 1 agree with you, therefore, that there would not be that wholesale reversion to grass. 7090. There would not be necessarily a reversion to grass? — No, not on a wholesale scale. 7( (97. Mr. Duncan: I think you said you were in favour of retaining the fixed price for milk. Will you tell us the reason why you are in favour of that? —I have very distinct recollections of the terrific con- flicts we used to have periodically with the traders in milk, and I am not sure whether it would not be simpler, after due enquiry as to costings, for the price of milk to be fixed by a well constituted Board to obviate that constant scrimmage between the pro- ducers and the purchasers of milk. Sometimes one side gets the better of the other, according to the state of the market, and sometimes the other side 7098. Your fear is that if the fixed price is with- drawn the want of organisation in the industry and the competition amongst the producers may bring down the price to a figure at which it will not be remunerative? — Not in the immediate future, but in years to come. 7099. Do you think it is not possible for the farmers themselves to create the amount of organisation neces- sary to prevent this cutting of price? — I think they have made a start in that direction already by estab- lishing tho co-operative societies. In that way they become the marketers of their own produce and supply the market with what milk is required as milk and the rest they manufacture into cheese. 7100. You do not think that will .be sufficient in itself? — If it was widely enough developed I think perhaps it would be sufficient. 7101. Do you .think there is any reason for having the interests of the consumer consulted in the matter of tho fixing of price? Do you think that is a matter which ought not to be entirely in the hands of the producer? — Quite. 7102. Was there any difficulty in securing labour on the dairy farms in Cheshire before the war? — No, I do not know that there was any serious difficulty. 7103. These are all difficulties which have arisen recently? — There was always a general sort of diffi- culty because of the competing industries, which at that time could always afford to pay a good deal more money to the man and give him his week end off than the farmer could possibly afford to pay. 7104. Do you think that the prVsont difficulty is due to thn complete upsetting ef -.1) our affairs through the war conditions or is it a growing feeling amongst the workers themselves on the farmi that they ought to have conditions approximating to tne oOudiiuwurf which obtain in other industries? — I think it is very largely due to the upset through the war. 7106. Was there no movement prior to the war for shorter hours and more leisure in Cheshire? — Nothing very definite. 7106. I seem to remember that there was a good deal of agitation in Cheshire prior to the outbreak of war — that the workers had an organisation of their own in that county which afterwards became a part of the Workers' Union? — I do not think there was anything that was worth mentioning. My recollection does not serve me at all in calling it to mind. 7107. These hours that are now fixed are not hours fixed by Statute. There has been no interference with your working hours by any statutory body ?— They are minimum hours fixed by the Wages Board — but what does that involve? I beg your pardon, for asking a question again. 7108. The only hours fixed are hours upon which the minimum rate is to be calculated. There is no statutory limitation of the number of hours that may be worked by any workman or the hours which any employer may work his workmen? — So that really the argument in favour of longer hours in order to secure the men at their employment during what we may call the necessary operations, in view of what you say, rather falls to the ground ? 7109. My point is this, that the farmers and the workmen in a district are quite free to fix any hours that they please. All the Wages Board does is to say that if a certain number of hours are worked a cer- tain rate of wages must be paid, but there is no limi- tation that you must work a six and a half hour day or that you must work less than seven days. You can work the whole of the 24 hours if you please, so far as the law is concerned, provided you pay the mini- mum rate of wages. That is the position, is it not? — I am afraid that that has not been thoroughly understood. The pronouncements of the Wages Board have rather given the impression that those were the hours which were to be worked for an ordinary week's work. 7110. "Surely the farmers of Cheshire are capable of arranging their business on something better than an impression? — They can arrange their business if it is left to them to do it. 7111. It is left to thorn is it not? — I am very glad to hear you say so. 7112. Surely it is amazing if the agricultural in- dustry in Cheshire proceeds to alter its hours without any compulsion being placed upon it under the im- pression that it is compelled to alter the hours. I put it to you that the farmers are still as free to-day as they have been at any period of their lives to fix the number of working hours with their workmen. 7113. Chairman : That is a statement of fact. Whether the witness agrees to it or not is another matter? — I accept it as a statement of fact. 7114. Mr. Duncan: I wanted to bring that out, that the working hours you have fixed in your district have been fixed between the workmen and the em- ployers and that the demand for the shorter hours has come from the workmen? — Yes. 7115. Has any effort been made to get workers to carry over this period from Saturday afternoon to Sunday? I suppose the main difficulty is to get milkers? — Yes. 7116. If you could get milkers to carry over that period, what you may call the regular work of the farm would not be so difficult to meet? — No. 7117. Have you any system in Cheshire of occasional milkers, that is to say, milkers who are not regularly employed on the farm coming in occasionally to milk? - -No, except in a few instances. 7118. There is no occasional labour of that kind employed on the farm at all? — Very little. 7119. If I put it to you that practically the whole of the milk industry in Scotland is conducted on that liasis with occasional milkers who come in and do nothing else but milking is there not a possibility of getting some elasticity in that direction in your county by training your milkers who would be avail able for a I urn occasionally to relievo the regular workers? Would not that moot the difficulty of pro- E 3 UUYAL COMMlNMON <>N Ai.lilCl l.ll UK. 27 Aug,,H, 1919.] Mil. J. SAIH.EB. [Continual. riding shorter hours in the milk industry? — We hare milkers who are regularly employed. 7190. For milking only? — Yes, but wo have no sur- plus; no reserre to fall back upon; that is the difficulty. 7121. What is the reason that there is no reserve to fall back upon? What rate has usually been paid in the past for that work? — The lowest wage I paid in 1914 for milkers was 1 think -Is. 6d. a week. I am not defending it mind you, I am simply stating what was the fact, and it was in harmony with the terms of their employment. I believe I paid rather more than most people did. 7133. I quite agree. — Now it ranges from 8s. up to 14s. (The WUnen 7123. How many cows do they milk at a milking? — 7 or 8. 7124. How often a day do they milk ?— Twice. 7135. You are paying now from 8s. to 14«. P — Yes. 7136. Has that not produced more workers who are willing to milk? — No, rather less now than ever. 7137. Where were these milkers drawn from? — They were largely the workmen's wives. 7125. You do not find that the increase of the wage has had any effect in creating more workers willing to undertake the work? — The increase of the work- men's wage generally has rather defeated thut object ; their wives do not come out as freely to milk now as they used to do. withdrew.) NINTH DAY. TUESDAY, 2ND SEPTEMBER, 11)19. PRESENT : SIB WILLIAM BARCLAY BIB WILLIAM JAMES ASHLEY. Da. C. M. DOUGLAS, C.B. MB. G. G. REA, C.B.E. MK. W. ANKER SIMMONS, C.B.E. MB. HENRY OVERMAN, O.B.K. MB. A. W. ASHBY. MB. A. BATCH ELOH. MB. H. S. CAUTLEY, K.C., M.P. MB. GEORGE DALLAS. MB. J. F. DUNCAN. MB. W. EDWARDS. Mr. R. OOLTON Fox, representing the Yorkshire 7129. Chairman: You have submitted to the Com- mission a statement of the evidence you propose to give, and also certain schedules of income and expen- diture for the years 1916, 1917 and 1918, and balance sheets for the same years, and statements of costs of wheat, oats and barley.J Will you allow me to in- corporate those in the day's proceedings without read- ing them through?— Yes. Evidence-in-chief handed in by witness. * Cott of Production. 7130. (1) Since I did not enter this farm until April, 1915, I have no balance sheet to show for a pre-war season, and as the land was not worked up to a normal level until the end of 1918, I have taken the 1919 harvest as a guide to expenses and yield. All crops, except late sown barley, have been seriously affected by the drought. (4):- PEAT (Chairman). MB. F. E. GREEN. Ma. J. M. HENDERSON. MB. T. HENDERSON. MB. T. PROSSER JOM> MB. E. W. LANGFORD. MB. R. V. LENNARD. MR. GEORGE NICHOLLS. -Mu. E. H. PARKER. Mit. R. R. ROBBINS. MR. W. R. SMITH, M.P. Union of Agricultural Clubs, called and examined. 7131. (2) Owing to the practice of fallowing being practically non-existent in this district, my actual expenses for the wheat crop are less than in other localities. To the actual cost of working must be added a per- centage for profit and risk, and this I have taken at 20 per cent. Horsemen's wages have been calculated from September 15th last year to 18th August, 1919; the result is 37 weeks at 41s. and 12 weeks at 47s., giving a weekly average of 42s. 7KJ2. (3) As the cost of production will be still further increased for 1920 harvest. MUM- the uago is now J7s. and food for horses has gone up, it is evident that the present guaranteed prices will be as inadequate, for next season as they are for this year on land affected by drought. Oats should be no Jess than 60s., barley 80s., and wheat lK)s. ; tor though Mieli prices may appear high where a full yield is obtained, they are necessary when crops have failed after every effort has been made. I r..|.. Actual cost per :.. r. , Add -"i per cent. Probable yield. Value per acre. Profit. LOH». Wha*- r.j tare* Wheat- *: -. ,1. 10 17 11 -. d. 23-. 4 i[i -. £ 8. (1. tl.l 2 -• £ 8. d. 2 1 1 £ s. d. 39 acre* Q»U- 10 17 11 23-. 8 qr«. 1166 — 1 14 5 • 26} acre* ... O*>— 12 2 '.' 28- 3 qrit. 726 — 7 S :i IS acre* Barley— 10 18 9 23- 0 qrs. 11 16 6 — 1 5 3 6«m* Barley- 10 4 10 2 - - 2Jqn>. 8 12 2 — 1! 12 8 6aerw barley— 10 4 10 2 - - Sqn. 10 6 7 — 1 18 3 HJacrw M 4 10 2 - - 1 i|rH. 13 15 6 1 D 8 — ; AM Appendix Mo. II. Then estimate! rrfrr I,, //„• karretl HOW being reaped. • Ploughed by order, 1918. t Figures corrected in course of evidence. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 2 September, 1919.] MR. R. COLTON Fox. [Continued. Remuneration of Labour. 7133. (5) The industry differs from any other by reason of our inability to pass on to the consumer the added cost of production, since the price of our pro- duce is normally ruled by the world's market. It is therefore clear that if in two years' time the world price of cereals so falls that the British farmer finds his wages bill exceeding his corn receipts, his position will become intolerable, the home-grown food supply will shrink at least one-half, and the workers will be driven to unemployment, the towns or the colonies. If the present high scale of wages maintains it will not be feasible to bolster up agriculture either by a tariff or a subsidy; the former remedy can never bo sufficiently high, while I consider the latter so in- vidious that its existence would only be short. The solution seems to lie in the basing of wages on the current corn prices, and doubtless such a method has already been suggested. By this system agricul- ture would more nearly approach other industries, in that the consumer would have to bear his share of tin- cost of production, and labour would be prevented from unreasonably demanding periodically increased wages. For regular workmen the harvest wage might be abolished, being replaced by equitable prices for piece-work, thus stimulating increased activity at an anxious time and producing in the worker a* feeling that he has a personal interest in the harvest. Hours of Labour. 7131. (C) Previous to the existence of the Wages Board, our men labourers worked from 7 a.m. to o p.m. six days a week, resulting in a 5-1 hours' week ; considering the time spent in going to and from their work, and also the many days lost through wet weather, these hours were not excessive. In the winter of 1914 horses were four weeks idle at a stretch, and the time lost had to be made up. Agriculture work does not prematurely age a man, nor does it entail the strain produced in the steel and mining industries. I am not in favour of the Saturday half-holiday, because a farmer is never on top of his work, and, though he may offer his men work during those hours, it has been my experience that some of them prefer to lounge jn the town, which is good neither for their pockets nor their health. The proposal to abolish the " cus- tomary " hours for horsemen is absolutely unwork- able. Firstly, it would be unfair to charge overtime rates for labour which is essential to the working of a farm : secondly, the employer would be harassed by addi- tional supervision of his men and the booking of hours actually spent in overtime; and, thirdly, it would destroy the interest of the attendant for his stock. since some men object to overtime if they can earn enough without it. I am, therefore, in favour of 51 hours per week, stock attendants to receive a fixed additional remuneration. (This concludes the cvidence-in-chief.) Chairman : Then I will ask Mr. Edwards to begin the questions. 7185. Mr. Edwards : You are a fanner yourself, are you not? — Yes. 7136. What is the acreage of your farm? — 285 acres. 7 1. '17. You say in paragraph 2 of your precis, that fallowing is not practised in your district? — That is •o; but I have an estimate for what I used to fallow on my previous farm, and I based that estimate on the usual routine for prices next year for an acre of wheat. I forgot to send that up, and perhaps I ought to have done so. I have worked that out on the fallowing. 7138. Then fallowing was practised in the district where you farmed previously ? — Yes, it was. 7]:a. And it is not in this district?— No. 7140. In view of the fact that fallowing naturally increases the cost of the corn crop, do you think that fallowing is necessary in any part of the country? — Yes, I do, for some things. There are certain lands that you cannot get right for autumn sowing the same year that you take your crop, the previous crop, off. In the strong lands in Yorkshire, and I know the Trent Valley in Nottinghamshire, the custom is very usual for wheat. MM 7141. But do you think it is not possible to culti- vate the land with some previous crop, in order to do away with a year's waste as it were? — I should cer- tainly favour a green crop and eat off; and plough in what they do not eat, like mustard. I do not believe in having bare fallow if you can possibly avoid it. 7142. Is it possible to avoid it? We have some hundreds of acres in this country with a bare fallow? — Personally I always try to. 7143. And you think even in the district where it is followed now, it is practicable? — In a favourable year it is. 7144. Throughout your memorandum you seem to suggest that the average prices should cover, not only the play of the market and the importation of corn, but even the bad seasons. I should like to have that further developed. It is very interesting as I am a farmer myself? — I think the question is very hard to answer because we stand so much risk, in a bad season like this season where you get hardly your ex- penses back. Now if the play of the market does not cover your risk, farming is no good. You cannot guarantee that your yield is going to be a certain amount, and however hard you try it is possible that the season will ruin you. If the price of your pro- duce cannot cover that risk, there is no incentive to farm. 7145. Yes : but you recognise, I presume, that this is an entirely new principle in our farming. We have so far in this country farmed without a guarantee as to the play of the markets or the season? — Yes, we have; and we have stood some bad years on that. Personally, as I say in my statement, I do not believe in fixing a price. 7146. But you do believe in a guaranteed price even against the play of the market and also the bad seasons? — If the idea is to guarantee the price, I say the price should be so guaranteed to cover the risk ; but it is a procedure that I do not favour. I say that the wages should be based on the current prices of corn. 7147. And do away with all guarantees? — Do away with all guarantees. 7148. Do you think that wages is the only item in farming that should be regulated according to the price of the stuff we grow? — It depends whether the prices for our commodities which wo use are going to keep at the present level. 7149. What about the rents; would you agree that the rents should also be made to slide according to the price of the produce? — No, because I think the present rents are generally fair. 7150. Assuming now the prices will go down, accord- ing to your argument you would be in favour of the wages sliding down? — Yes, because our industry is different from anything else. I take it the price of food will bo the first thing to drop, before the price of steel or anything else. 7151. But what aboyt the rents? Would not you favour the rents dropping down on a similar scale? — I cannot say that I would. 7162. Why differentiate between the wages and the rents? — Because it is the interest on the landlord's capital. 7153. It is the interest on the workman's capital too. His only capital is his labour?— Yes, that is so. I quite see your point; but that is a hard thing to answer. 7154. Mr. Duncan: Which Riding of Yorkshire is your farm in? — The East Riding. 7 1 ">•'). Have you thought out any scheme for relating wages to prices ? — No, I have not ; because, to tell you the truth, I have not had the time to do it, and I am not sufficiently clever. 7156. Mr. Cautley : Which part of East Riding is your farm in? — It is 4 miles from Malton, and 16 miles from York. 7157. It is Wold land, is it?— Some of it is, am. some of it is clay land. 7155. How far from Driflield is it?— I cannot tell you quite, but about 10 miles. 7159. Driffield is the centre of the Wolds?— Yes, it is. E 4 ro U"VAI. < ...MMIxsli.N MS AGKUI I.TI ICK. MR. B. COLTON Fox. [Continued. i» a groat fear in that country that » great part ol the land will have to go back to sheep I it 119, i- I lieu not,.' \us. .101. Is that duo to the increased cost of < thing that a larmer has to buy and pay for in the . s, tanning implements, feeding uiui ..•:_. ;n. ngr — Yea. ~ ."should I be right in saying that unless some rehel i> given to the farmers, a great part of the h.nd in ihis Wold district of the Kust. Hiding of .-I..I. will go back? — Ye*. ,'ltxi Heally to grass, and pr.uiiially a shivp vvulk.- . see it is not suitable lor feeding, oven il it went down to grass again, for cattle; but it will be sheen runs. .lo-l. Simply sheep runs? — Yea. .loo. ion nave suggested that wages should be baaed on the current prices of corn. We have in, .i that in the past, have we not? Up to the time of the Production Act, wages have been fixed by the law of supply and demand as between the farmer and the man? — Yes. . loO. Hut would not you agree with me that that .,i has not been satisfactory so far as agriculture ..erned:- No, it was not satisfactory to the man, uul it was the best the farmer could do. 7107. Exactly. Was this the fact: that he was subjected to free imports, and had the market for his produce fixed by the world prices, on which his pro- iim-e had no influence? — Yes. - Was the result of that that the workman's wages were driven down to a bare starvation point? — Yes. 7169. You do not want to go back to that, do you? — No. I do not. But my meaning is this, that if you are going to favour agriculture at what the public think an undue amount, it will not do us any good. 7170. That is true; but let us look at the interests of agriculture for a moment. If you are satisfied. _atlier you are, and you agree with me that the old svsiem has failed, what reason is there to believe that it will succeed now?— My idea has always been— it is not worth very much— that I do not think you will make this country a corn-growing country. I have always favoured a system of elevators; and if the climate will stand it, 1 think it would be cheaper in the long run to store our supply of corn if it can M done. 7171. That is going rather from the point, if I may ao. There is one question I ought to have asked the beginning. Are you giving evidence here ag. Are you giving evidence here on y.mr own behalf, or on behalf of any Agri- cultural Society or Association ?_I am in this posi- Our Secretary rang me up a fortnight ago day, and asked me to appear. As I am working 1 hours a day, I refused it. Then he wrote to me said that the Yorkshire Farmers' Union of Clubs had not a single member who apparently had the courage to come here; and when he put it like that said, \Vell, I have no evidence, and nobody to give mo any figures at all." J have had to work to try and get something out. I t the la*t week at York, and they asked me to lepresent them if I could. Who do you mean l,v "our secretary " P— Mr. sou I by, at Malt.,,i I know the gentleman, but not the name of he ,s secretary of?-The Yorkshire I'mon Agricultural Club*, not the Karmers' I'nion '"_'•'• 'uhs in our body. Yoi»ir' '""' •V"U '"" ""' '"'"' "' ''"'''' "''''" >. Hut I gather from what you say. that the ii put forward arc your own fig'ui. Barwg g'.t M> fur that id,, late sv-tem of ;mg wag,, by tl,e !«„ ,,f M1pplv ,,„,, ,|,.,ll;1I1d has not •«>t that !. imp), lhatwonre to have ,. , l,ai,g,-- •> , . | ,_,,,... u,,|, V((M ( "" vli-iii. ,- t; tor the • al you IH-IICVC or ant impute that farm- "il their industry with il mid the ;,,-t ,,l,, the, 1 ih.it unlew n farmer . he is far mini: at a low.. '" '; '("•• .111 impoHHible .;• in your d 1 should say that the • n 1 to 4$. . I . ,H wheat or o.its. or \ i aking it all round. • -iH.ij. I am speaking ot wheat? — 1 Mould my on a small holding ot 30 acres last year, iii..-l,, il , (juarlers an acre on 6 acres. . 1 am speaking of the average)* — 4 to 44 ijuai . 11 -., in.-; lung is to be done to enable the i. .iiner to .any on his industry at a profit — and it uoiild not he i ai ried on except under those conditions have MIII iiny suggestion to make to thirt Coin mi- -. what ought to be done? — The only thing is to fix prices. 7183. Either to fix prices or to give a guarantees' — a tantl is inipot.Niblt< ; it would not help us. n-i. i an you suggest anything better than a guaranteed minimum: — No, 1 am afraid 1 cannot. 7K). Can you tell us what the views of your Farmers' Club is? — Of course, it there is anything at all, they say it will have to be a guarantee, but they do not know what. 718(3. Have they considered how much it should be? No; they have not told me anything. 7187. Or ou what footing it should be arranged?- — .No; they have no idea at all. 7188. Have you considered as to whether it is possible it should be on a sliding scale? — No. You .-ee the sliding scale would be the same all over the country. It would have to keep the same, unless you could yearly arrive at the cost. 7189. Have you considered this difficulty ; that the wages as now administered by the Wages Boards can be. changed at a month's notice, or practically about say two or three months perhap- ^ , I, 7f!)l). You are aware also, are not you, that the prices of feeding stuffs, machinery, and whatever the tanner has to buy. vary from day to day? — Yes. 7191. Do you agree with the general view that has been expressed here, that what a farmer desires more than anything is to have a definite policy arranged ay, 5 to 8 yeai "i . - ; we passed that resolu- tion in our chili, in favour ol ftve v.-ars, and we were laughed at. 7192. Y'ou mid -i-tand. do vim not. that any guarantee would mean, if it is to be effective, tha't the country will ha\e to pay at some time or other P — 7193. And that that comes on to the taxpayer? — That is so; I recognise that. 7194. Cannot he jjr.-at difficulty in arm- ing at a gunranteo for a number of years when nlJ the other elements of cost are fluctuating from day to day, or at any rate at intervals of 2 months' time? — Yes; I think if it was definitely stated that the price would be fix. u Inlji US at .-ill in suggesting anv way of arriving at a sliding scale by whii-h the guarantee would diminish ,-is the general amount of farmers' expenses diminished? — You see. it. depends largely on the crwts of labour. That is our main fact. 7l:>7. I will eonif to thai. And fertilis, i 'King simply about corn. I am not talking of feeding stork. Tn our jiarf. of Yorkshire we look upon feeding stock as a side line. If we ea n make ends meet by buying and selling and feeding bullock--, the cost of manure, of goe« to (lie land, and feeding stuffs are not so important— not for corn growing. 71!i;t. What I understand you to -ay is thai the main elements ill fh,< co-t of corn growing in your part of the Ka^f Hiding are labour and fertiliser Ye«. 7L' <~>. Can you at all help us as to how the amount of that guarantee should be arrived at, so as to vary with tho cost of labour, say? — The guarantee for next year I suggested should be 90s. 720C. I am going to ask you one or two questions on that? — It is based on the fertilisers and labour as to- day. 7207. Before coming to the particular figures, I have one or two questions to ask about that. Can you suggest at all fiom what you know of the views of the farmers in your part of the East Riding of Yorkshire, whether it would be possible to have a guarantee vary- in.; with the rate of wages, say?- --If it varied it would mean that wages would drop. 7208. Not necessarily. If wages go up, according to your evidence, the guarantee would have to go up, too? — Yes; if wages go up, the guarantee would have to go up. 7209. But can you arrive at any proportion of the cost of wheat growing, between labour and the actual cost of the finished article? That is what it comes to. Does it vary in any constant ratio at all? — No. You see, taking the average of last year at 42s. a week and the present one of 47s., it is 6s. a week more. It only affects the different operations to a very small extent; but it would make 5s. an acre difference for ploughing. 7210. But you cannot tell us how much a quarter that would work out to? — No; at present it does not make much difference. If you go over the present level of 5s. a week, it does not affect the quarter so much. 7-211. If you have not considered it, say so. I think it would ; because labour enters into every process employed, from the ploughing at tho very beginning to the application of the dung, and right away to the carting of the wheat to the station. It comes in every item:- Yes, it does; but it depends upon how much a week it goes up. You see we have gone up £1 in 12 months. 7212. You were asked one or two questions about the rent. As a matter of fact, has the rent varied at all in the last 4 or 5 years? — The rent has not varied, or not with me, at all. 7213. Has it been prevented by the very Act of Parliament I have mentioned from being increased? — There has been no increase at all. 7214. So that the rent does not vary? No. 721",. (Joining to the actual details, are these figures that you put before us tak"M from your own books? Yes. 7216. Are they actual costs not estimated costs? Which figures are you referring to? 7217. T have only om- get: \Vln>al. .V. aeres. and actual co.<-t per acre. CIO 17s. IM.? TlieV an- actual •ions, and (lie aitual cnsr at to-day's pric labour. 7V!I«. For what y.wir? The harvest. 1919. 7'21 9. Taking the first item of wheat, 51, ;,. !7s. Hd.. do T iimWsi;,n'iii K'uld not fix a guarantee on the would cost you to grow wheat a •u could not. You would' have to take v'","•"'•"' any fear that the world - likeK to d-pioriate materially within tl,.. iMnttthro. or lour year,:- Y. , I have. k -.11 are nnaro that th, pr.-^nt. price ,„ H \ cr\ I HT HTKiVfi t li*> ijiifi rji n t . ''' "".' '" -'Is in face 'ol n pMMM pmitinn with the prosent gi, No; becaUMj 1 think that tho prices will keep up lor ;. . .11 u nil «* .1 nili.MlllUIU In lixuil. _ i'.i [in- iiiMiih that you h.ive given us include i lie v. hole ' or are tlii A \Vluch olios.- i In tin- intimate ol tho cost ol production <>t your wheat and oats r In the schedule it gives every "i corn 1 have on tho placu. 730-1. Nol withstanding tho probable yield thai yi.u quote, you u.uiUI agreo that the average yield of wheat .M \oiir neighbourhood would be between 1 anil •!•; 411.1111-1-. and in tile case of barley I ^uartem? — 1 >\ oiild take the average for wheat at 4 this year. 73oV>. And barley 4'f — Yes", aud barluy I. 7300. 1 do not want this year. 1 nifiiii tho averago ol years:' — 1 say the average for wheat would be 4J. J said I t.i -li, 1 tlliuk. 'I hat is taking an average over three or five Mind you, 1 am jut>l on the edge of the wheat growing country. In thu Wolds, as you know, they do not grow any ; but we are near the people who grow \\heut, and 1 should say the average lor a year would be 4 to Ij quarters lor wheat. r:n;--. You would not suggest, would you, that, generally speaking, wheat is grown after one plough- ing i' — It is in our part, because we plough and press; very olieu we ..imply plough and press. 7;Jol). Have many of the farms in your nciglili,.ui - hood been soldr Ket I.Mate- have been bought a* a whole ami then offered again. 7370. Roughly, w hat w as the value of the rent pre- war in your neighbourhood? — Farms vary from 25s. up to 73(1. Can vim tell me what was the lent ol your farm before you bought it!' — Twenty -five shillings an acre. 7372. And if you put the purcluiM. money at o per cent., what would be the rent to-day ? — 1 am afraid 1 • annot tell you oiihand. 7^73. Roughly, ho\y much per acre did your farm cost you? — It cont me £2o an acre. 737-1. So that would leave your rent very near to what it was before? — Yes. 7376. What was the tithe on it:-- £04. It has gone up; 7376. So that, as a matter of fact, rente have materi- ally increased in cases where men have bought land which they now occupy ? — That is so. 7377. Mr. Ufa: With regard to guarantees, you con- sider that the guaranteed prices should be sutiu -ieni t cave tiie iarmer a profit do not you?— Yep. 7378. 15ut uo you think that that is the view the taxpayers ol the country would take of itP — I think they should be guaranteed against a reasonable Ices. 7379. That is another point. You say they should bo guaranteed a price which would leave them a profit:' — -I mean that if a man has an average crop you should base your figures on his costs of produc- tion, so that if all goes well he would have a reason- able profit. 7380. Yes; but before there was any question of guaranteed prices, farmers had to stand tho racket til tin. market*, and some years they had to stand a km. Do you think it is fair to the country that all element nl uncertainty should bo eliminated? — Yes, I do, bceaiiMi tlie country would simply be paying us for growing a. safe supply of corn. Before the war it did not matter, I take it; but the idea of this Ciinimission is to promote the growing of corn, and therefore thnt loss must be eliminated, as far as possible. 7381. That is quite clear from the farmer's point "t view, but you have to look at it from tho tax- payer's point of view also. Do not you consider it would be sufficient if there were such a guarantee aa would prevent the farmers suffering a heavy loss? — In a normal condition, I do. 7382. In the nineties, when wheat dropped to £1 • i ipiarter, any crop WBH >iifferinj; ;i very heavy lose. 1 "t V'U think it would b« sufficient if there were i rn n too of. say, 60s. n.s a minimum, whieli would safeguard against a loss such as iliat- Yes. Of ruin-so., tlio guarantee "onld not pro- i.'iil any MTKHW loss by reason of tl» I mean tho farmer would take that and would not MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 75 2 September, 1919.] MR. E. COLTON Fox. [Continued. grumble. But the guarantee should cover his work- ing expenses, and leave him a profit if the season is favourable. 7383. Do you think that a guarantee of 60s. as a minimum, with the prospect of making higher prices when the markets were favourable, would be suffi- cient to induce the farmers to carry on cultivation? — For wheat? 7384. Yes?— Yes. I think if all went well that ought to compensate him, provided that the expenses do not go up. 7385. Of course, if the expenses went up that figure might have to be reconsidered ?— Yes ; that is taking the whole country. On my schedule of expenses I should be satisfied if I could get my average crop. 7386. If you had that as a guarantee and took your chance of the markets to make your profit ? — But you see for that 60s. you could not base that on 4 quarters to the acre. That would not pay you. 7387: That is my point. I am not arguing that he should be paid every year, but that he should be guaranteed against a severe slump? — That guarantee would be sufficient for next year, because the play of the market would allow him to make more than 60s. But I do not say that in two years from now that guarantee of 60s. would be sufficient, because the play of the market would not allow him to make more than 60s., and 60s. alone, with no prospect of an increase. By making it a guaranteed minimum and a maximum, it would not pay him. 7388. But if the world's market price fell con- sistently below 60s., that would mean that the cost of living was reduced, and all other costs would be proportionately reduced? — My point is this, that although the cost of living as regards food might drop, will the general price of wages that produce our raw materials drop and allow us to buy things cheaper? Food prices may drop, but the wages may not in the towns. 7389. On the other hand, of course, they may, if living is cheaper? — I hope they may. 7300. You suggested that there should be a sliding scale as between the cost of produce and the rate of w:iires. Was that so? Did not you suggest the cost of produce should regulate the wages? — Yes : I wish it could bo done. 7391. Have von thought of any basis on which that could be done? — No. I have not. T think it was done in the slate quarries. It was fixed every three years, and it worked perfectly well. 7392. You think that would be a means of giving confidence to farmers, if such a srhpnie rould be carried out? — It would save a lot of trouble. 7393. Dr. DHIII/IHX: I see in your statement* about the eost and returns of your crops, you do not allow anything for straw? — No. 7394. Why is that? — T suppose I should have done. 730."!. That would make a substantial difference, would not it? — That really comes into the question of feeding cattle. 7396. But you do not suggest that straw is of no value? — We do not sell any straw, you see. And some of us have been feeding bullocks rather at a loss. 7397. ] do not suppose you sell all your oats either. do you?— I wish I had told you how much T hnd used. but I never thought to bring it. I know exactly how many oats in each year I sold. I have it down here. 7398. But you credit yourself with all the oats you grow, whether you sell them or consume them, but do not credit the crop with any straw? — I do not sell any straw. 7399. Is not it a mistake not to put some value on the straw? — I ought to put some value on. 7400. Do not you think so yourself? At nil events. you do not put anything in for it. Take your second and fifth columns. Are not you first claiming a profit in one column and claiming it again in the other? — You have allowed for a profit of £2 3s., and then you put down £2 Is. Id. Does not that altogether make a profit of £4 4s. ?— Yes. ] have found that out. I was in a hurry. They wired me to send it next day. 7J01. You rerogni«c you have counted something twin' over there y T quite realise that second profit should have been simply as regards the guaranteed (iriie. You see what I mean — the difference between rny profit nnd the guaranteed price. 7402. I think there is more than that, is not there? You have put yourself down as having made a lose in certain cases when, if you take into account your 20 per cent., you would have actually made a profit. Is not that so? — On the oats? 7403. Yes? — The calculation on that price was very heavy. 7404. I am dealing with the figures as you give them. I put it to you, after you have charged the profit in the second column, you deal with the profit in another column, and that is an entire confusion? — You mean I have taken the 20 per cent, and then T have taken the profit of £2 Is. Id.? 7405. Yes; and you make yourself out to have lost, whereas, in point of fact, you had a profit? — My intention was, but I have not done it, to show my actual receipts taking the 20 per cent, on my ex- penditure and then showing the difference between that and what I should get on the guaranteed price, and I put it wrong. 7406. You make a suggestion that wages should be based on the price of corn. Do you think that would be an acceptable proposal? — I think it would avoid friction. 7407. But do you think the suggestion would be accepted by the workers? — I think surely it would, because the men know perfectly well what we are doing now. 7405. Have you ever put it to them? — No, I have not 7409. You are merely guessing when you say they will accept it? — That is a suggestion that I shall bring up at the next Local Conference. 7410. .S't'r William Ashley: Do you consume pro- duce off your farm? — Yes, I consume the keep for the horses. 7411. Have you allowed anything for that in these accounts*?— No, I have nnt allowed for that. I have taken each acre as if I was selling all the pro- duce. I have taken down my five quarters of oats as though I was selling every bit, and of course I have consumed that at home. Still. I have counted that in as my actual receipts. • 7412. Does any of your household consumption appear in these figures? — I allow for that in my balance sheet, for produce consumed in the house. It is something about £70. It is all in my accounts. There is so much butter, milk, cream, bacon, potatoes, and ohiekens. 7113. Mr. Smith: Do we understand -that these figures apply to this area that you have given in your precis of evidence? — My cost per acre? 7414. Yes?— Yes. 7415. And are the costs actual figures? — Yes, the cost of actual operations. 7416. The others are estimates? — No, the actual costs based on my estimates per acre for ploughing. 7417. But the probable yield is an estimate? — It is an estimate, but I think it is correct. 7418. How long is it since you have made the esti- mate?— The estimate was made partly when I started rutting, and also a fortnight before" when T walked round with the Government Inspector. 7419. What is vour reason_for suggesting a guaran- tee fur corn? — I have pointed out before that, person- allv. T am against a guarantee: but it must be done to give us confidence 7420. Do you think that is the general opinion of farmers?- I do. It has been expressed at two Clubs to which T belong. 421. Have they not any confidence in the future? — They have no confidence. 7422. Did I understand you to say that you were urged to come here because there was a difficulty in eetting other farmers to come? — Yes, for this reason. None of them had any balance sheet to produce at all. They none of them had any figures as to what eorn they had sold this last year ; and they are all of them men who are good in their line, but uneducated in book-keeping. 7423. Have not these questions been discussed by farmers? — Not at meetings. . Would not you think that if they were so doubtful as to the future they would discuss these t.hings amongst themselves? — Yes; but the only thing I know is that we passed these Resolutions asking for a definite programme for five years. 76 ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 2 Stptrmlvr, 1919.] MB. B. COI.TON Fox. 7435. Would it be true to say they hare been doing •o well that they are not seriously concerned P — I know they hare been doing well. Do you moan the profits? 7496. TeaP— In the first year of the war— which do you mean? 7427. During the past fire years P — Tea, they hare made that up. They hare paid their "»'or-drafts off at the bank and had a fresh start. They expressed to me the opinion that what they hare made in paying off the over-drafts they do not want to lose in tin- years to come. 7496. But you rather suggest indifference on their part; and I was wondering whether that indifference is merely eridence that their position is satisfactory? —No; because I told them it was not what they haM \\hicli the scale was to slide? — I should start by taking the present minimum price, at least it* maximum as well, of wheat; and I should take the men's wages for the week as they are at present. I should start on the present. 7462. Would you take the present minimum wage, and would you say the present prices are sufficient to cover that minimum wage? — You see, the present for wheat are 76s. 6d. 758.' 6d. for me would just make me all right; and therefore I should start at present and take the weekly wages, the percen- MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 77 2 September, 1919.] MR. R. COLTON Fox. [Continued. tage on a quarter of corn, and if the Commission is satisfied that that is all right, I should then base the future on that. 7463. Mr. Nicholls : I want to ask you one question about this wheat field, called the Cube Field*. Did I understand that your farm, when you took it in 1915, was very rough?— Yes, very. Of course this particular Cube field was ploughed up last year for oats. 7464. Is your wheat after oats? — Yes, it is. It is on the strongest land, you must remember, because the light harrows cannot touch it. 746.3. You light harrow it twice after dragging? Yes. 7466. How many horses do you use on the drill? — Two. There are two men with the drill, one to drive and one to see to it. 7467. How many acres, on an average, would they do in a day drilling? — We generally allow an average of 10. 7468. And then you harrow twice, after drilling? Yes. 7469. That is a custom, too?— Yes, that is a custom. 7470. What is this tillage referred to that costs £2 11s. 3d.? — The proportion of my total tillage superphosphates, £301 15s. 7d. 7471. I was not quite sure of that. Did not you say that you had a small holder neighbour of yours ? — Yes. 7472. And he grew 7 qrs. on one of bis fields? — Yes. 7473. Do you know whether it would be his custom to drag-harrow and twice harrow before drilling, and twice narrow after drilling ; or would it apply to your land being very bad and in a bad state ? — I must con- fess his land is kept like a garden, and he might omit the drag-harrowing; but I think, in fact I am certain, he would twice harrow before drilling, and he would probably twice harrow after, but not the drag-harrow. 7474. You are not sure?— No. 7475. I mean a man's field which is in a good state, would not really take the same labour and trouble as yours that was in a bad state? — No; he would pro- bably omit the drag-harrowing, and only harrow once after the drill. 7476. And he got better results than you would hope to get, because his land was in a better state?— Yes. 7477. One question about the labourers. Do you put forward the suggestion that the labourer should work longer hours because farming is a catchy business ; it is sometimes wet and they lose time, and because these men engaged in an industry that is really essential to the nation and are unfortunate enough to be in it, they ought to work longer hours and ought to bear all the burden of this catchy weather; that w, penalise them because it rains? — You see, I am allowing for the time spent in going to and from his work. I am also allowing that the energy. used per hour in our business is less than in any other industry. 7478. Did I understand you that you farm is 4 miles from the place of delivery? — Yes, four miles from Malton. 7479. So that all your cartage is a 4 mile trip? — Yes, up and down hill. 7480. That, of course, adds to the cost per acre? — Yes. 7481. Mr. Lennard: In the section of your evidence- in-rhief headed " Remuneration of labour," you draw some distinctions between agriculture and other industries, arid you appear to think that agriculture stands by itself in having the price of its produce normally ruled by the world's markets. I suppose you often find American machinery used on farms? — We cannot tise such machinery. 7482. But it is matter of common knowledge, is not it, that American machinery is to a great extent used on farms in this country? — Do you mean tractors? 7483. Yes, and binders? — Yes, we use tractors. 7484. -Has it never struck you that the engineering industry of this country is subject to foreign competi- tion, and that its prices are largely ruled by the world's markets? — They are. 7485. I suppose in your own county in the West Riding, which is my native district, you know there • See Appendix No. II. are many carpet factories? — Yes; but I am hardly a West Hiding man; I am an East Riding man. 7486. If the Yorkshire carpet manufacturer were to raise his prices very much, would not the people buy more Turkish and Indian carpets?— If we raised our prices for the home article, it would mean that the foreign article would receive a better market. 7487. Would you agree generally that if we went through the whole catalogue of British industries1, we should find many more besides the instances I have quoted in which foreign competition has seriously to be reckoned with? — Yes. 7488. So agriculture does not really differ from every other industry in this respect, but other in- dustries are also subject £b foreign competition? — Yes ; but my point was meant to be, that where we differ essentially is that we cannot of ourselves pass on our expenses to the consumer. 7489. I suggest to you neither can the carpet manu- facturer do so. because if he tries to pass on a large increase in his expenses, the consumer will buy Indian carpets instead, will he not? — Yes; but you see, if I may just say so, before the war the wages were based on supply and demand for carpets. Now they are not. They are based on the fixed wages. 7490. That is rather a different point, is it not? — Yes, it is. 7491. You suggest in your evidence that a sliding scale between agricultural wages and corn prices should be established, and you say: " By this system, agriculture would more nearly approach other in- dustries." Is it the rule to find such a sliding scale between wages and selling prices in other industries? — No; but you see, by fixing the price in regard to the wages, it means that we get certain of our labour expenses! back. It means that in the price you fix, you are taking into consideration the labour expenses, and that will fall on the consumer. But as things are going to be, apparently we have no guarantee that our expenses will be refunded. 7492. Neither have other industries have they? — Yes because they put up the cost of a pair of boots, and we do not. 7493. Not if people buy foreign ajoods themselves? — Those foreign goods are dumped ; but if I go in the market and ask 40s. for cereals and the market price is 35s. and it costs me 36s. or 37s., I cannot get the 36s. or 37s. 7494. I quite agree ; but I think other people are in the same boat in that respect? — Then they should not be. 7495. You say in another part of your evidence, that it would be unfair to charge overtime rates for labour which is essential to the working of a farm? — Yes. 7496. Would you regard the Sunday work of railway signalmen as essential to the working of the railways? Surely you would? — Knowing, as I do, intimately, because I do it myself, the amount of work required on Sunday for stock, I do not consider that the 2 or 2J hours spent the whole of a Sunday on a stock farm can be compared with a signal box ; the two industries are so totally different. 7497. But your point was, that it was unfair to call it overtime, when it was an essential part of the normal working of a farm? — It is. 7498. I put it to you that the work of the railway signalman on the Sunday id an essential part of the normal working of the railways? — Yes, it is, but, there again the same men will not take Sunday duty every Sunday. It is possible, with the amount of railway staff, to work it in shifts. 7499. YeS; but my point is that he is paid a definite overtime Sunday rate, is he not? — Before the war I used to pay 2s. for Sunday duty, and I paid 18s. to £1 a week before the war. The men used to take it in turn for Sunday duty ; and I am perfectly willing to pay so much for Sunday duty, but not by the hour. Have 2s. or 2s. 6d. for Sunday duty, but do not say so many hours'. 7500. I notice that you advocate a 54 hours' week for agricultural labour? — Yes. 7501. Are you aware that at a Meeting of the Reading Branch of the National Farmers' Union last Saturday, a Resolution was approved urging that after November 1st, next, a week of 50 hours all tho year round to be universally adopted?— No, I did not know that. 78 ROYAL COMMISSION oN A< ; 1M< Tl.TfHK. g&pfmfer, 1919.] MR. R. COI.TOV i .•,.,. .-,i 7503. That Resolution indicates that your •. about a 54 hours' week are not universally shan •! ' the farming community:- I tliink in our part last week they told me- or' when 1 said I was gon say 54 hours, every farmer (and there v. them on the Committee) agreed with me. 7503. You spoke just now of the rate of wages I fixed for a year. If wages were fixed for a year, do lint you think that employment of the man should be guaranteed for a year also?— In our part, on the Wolds, tlmt is done. "The men are hired for a year from next Martinmas. 7504. You know that that is not common in other parts of the country? — It is, on the Yorkshire Wolds. I myself hare men on a fortnight's notice in my own cottages; but unless they create a disturbam , they •re there for as many years as they like. 7505. But if wages were fixed for a year, would you think it fair that employment should he gnaran teed for a year? — Hardly, because it would allow th< workmen too much liberty. 7506. In your Table, paragraph (4) of your evidence-in-chief, you have reckoned 20 per rent, on cost as going to the farmer in addition, OB profit :md compensation for risks, and only entered in your profit column anything which the farmer gets over nnd above that 20 per cent? — It has been pointed out to me that the 20 per cent, over and above the actual cost, ought to be sufficient. 7507. Then what the farmer would actually rect-ivc. would be the difference between your cost column and your value column? — Yes. 7508. I have been through these figures, and I think there is a misprint at the top of the value column where you have £15 Os. 2d. instead of £15 2s.. which is four times 75s. 6d.? — It may be myself. I will not blame the copy. 7509. Making that correction, I have added up the return over and above the cost of production on nil the fields except that field of oats which was ploughed by order, and which, I think, you will agree waa an exceptional case. The result shows, does it not, that the farmer of the 73 acres would get at the existing guaranteed prices a total return of £1 4s. 4Jd. an acre?— Yes. 7510. Now, I want to take you just a step furth i . All these calculations so far have been based on the existing guaranteed prices?— Yes. 7611. And those are minimum prices? — The v ' is also the maximum. 7512. At least as regards oats and barley the> minimum prices? — Yes. 7~>13. Oats and barley are the only crops on which yon do not show some profit on every field?- V. - except that which was ploughed by order. 7514. And there is one other which is a barley field • — Yes, it is 3 quarters. 7616. Take that barley field. At 86s. 7d. a quarter. which was the average price of British barley last week, those six acres of barley which yielded only 2", quarters an acre, and are a loss on your figures, v-'ould be worth £10 16e. 5d. an acre, and would show a profit of 11s. 7Jd.an acre ?— Yes. 7616. You would agree with me, I expect, that this bun been an exceptionally dry season?- It !• 7617. The drought, you say," has seriously affected th<- yield?— Ye*. - But you would not seriously suggest thnt the Government ought to fix guaranteed prires which would give you n profit on every crop in everv field in an exceptionally bad season:- No. I pointed out to a gentleman over hero that the exceptional loss in an exceptional season is part of the gamble, and 1 think we would stand it; hut the id.. a ^ that, fak'nc • normal neason and n normal yield, the profit should be guaranteed r.ver our expenses. A year like this we are accnttomed to ; we do not mind. 7.' HI. You upeak of low; but I think T have shown that, nn your own figures, taking the market price in«tend of the guaranteed price, there is no loss • on the one field of 2fi' .ICT-CS of rat*, "hich was ploughed by order'- V. ! quit* see that There is 10s. even on the had piece of barley. 7">3n. And. moreover, in all these figures we have made no allowance for the value of the straw? 7521. So that him to he counted in if we are to get the real financial result? Yes, it should be. 7623. Mr. Longford: You do not belong to the National Kami. -r>' I'nion, do you?— No, I do not. ;.Vj:l You belong to the r'arniers' Cluh:- Ho» many members have you:' I do not know, hut I should say a few thousand. \.m aware there are approximately ineiiilierx ot the National Kiirmers' I'nion in 'i shire:- They are increasing the membership in York shire. And you would not know how many witnesses are coining from the National Farmers' I'nion- N I do not. You would not be surprised to learn that a few are coming?- No. I am very glad to hear it. 7'.'J~. I projKise to a-k \oti a i|uestion and in : into detail; but among your far liMli you inside a loss ot B867 ]~~. «',,|.*:- \ ' In 1!H7 you made a profit of €;U. I am taking the figures as presented by you in your accounts? — These were got out by my accountant. 7532. You admit this is an abnormally bad year on account of the drought? — I admit it is a very small profit. 7533. Then you do not expect to make a profit this year on your own figures? — On my figures here I have given you the yields, and I think those yields are correct. 7534. On those yields at present market prices, you do not expect to make a profit this year? — Except on the 26 acres. 7535. So that over a four years' average your profits will bo extraordinarily small? — Very small. 7536. I think you have been too modest ; but you said you were the only intelligent member of your Association who would come and give evidence ?- Hecatise. if I may say so. you gentlemen are rather more brainy thnn farmers from our part. 7537. I put it to you that if you cannot make a profit, many of your neighbours farming :n a smaller way would bo unlikely to make a better profit?-^ But some of my neighbours have 3 or 4 sons, and have not n single hired man. 7538. It would bo fair and reasonable thnt those sons working on the farm should bo credited with a reasonable wage? — That is so. 7539. And after paying a reasonable wage to the sons they would not ho able to mako a profit cc|iia! to yours? — But those sons have no limit to the hours they work. 7540. Mr. Cautlev put a question to you. and you said that rents had not increased in your district?— \ • 7541. Your rent hns not increased? Except as re- gards the increase of tithe. 7512. Mr. Cnntley put it, to you that rents had not varied in consequence of an Art of Parliament, and you agreed to that? — Yes. 7543. Do you agree to that now? — To the existing tcn.ir.i tin- rents have not gone up. 7" It. Yon are speaking of your own particular county? — Yes. 7~i^i. Would vou be surprised to learn that in most counties in England rents have gone up considerably? mid h<> surprised — to the existing tenant, if T may say so? 754fi. Exactly. T want to read an extract from a letter which conveys a different impression, and which ought to be cleared up. This is the letter: "Deal- Sir. Upon the denth of the Hon. Lady (BlankV the l.ito owner of tbn (Blank) Estate, Sir Thomas (Blankt. the new owner, hns to pay to the Government, under f Parliament, n heavy tax known as an F^tat • Dutv. This tax is based on the selling value of the nroportv. You will doubtless agree that a 9il Thomas (Blank) will ho called upon to pay this heavr duty bawd upon the selling value as estimated by * See Appendix No. IT MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. ' 79 2 September, 1919.] MR. R. COLTON Fox. [Continued. the Government Department and not on that which he actually receives, an increase of the rents of the various holdings in accordance with the Government valuation is both fair and reasonable. We have therefore to inform you that after the llth November next, 1919, your rent will be raised to (blank) pounds l year. We shall be glad to hear from you that you agree to pay this amount in future." Then a subse- quent letter bearing on the same point reads as follows: " Referring to our letter to you of the 18th ultimo, in which we informed you that the Govern- ment valuation of your farm was based on a rental value of £240 a year, and saying that we must ask vou in future to pay that rent from November llth, we have no wish to hurry you in coming to a decision, but we have just received an offer to take your farm at the increased rental should you wish to give it up. The applicant, who is anxious to take a good farm in your district, would like to hear of one as soon as possible. We should be glad, therefore, if you would let us hear from you within the next week or so." That indicates that rents are being raised in other counties if not in yours? — -I should like to say this, that our landlords are some of the best in the country, and they do not make a practice of raising the rents of existing tenants. 7547. So that when you said the rente were not raised, you intended it only to apply to your particu- lar district? — Yes. I cannot tell you of the whole of England, because I know nothing about it. 7548. Would you be surprised to know that on this letter which I have read, a small holding was raised actually 2<)0 per cent, in rental?— Well, I should screw the landlord's neck. 7.549. From sav £50 to £150; and another small • holding previously rented at £54 12s. was raised to £100; and anotHer small holding has been raised 30 per cent. If those facts are true that I have re- lated, then the Act of Parliament does not prevent the raising of rent? — It is supposed to. 7.>jQ. Mr. Prouer Jones: You told Mr. Langford that you had one of the best landlords in the country? — Yes. 7.V51. And you told us you had made very little profit during the last couple of years? — Yes. 7552. Is it not likely that if you had been making large profits your landloij would also coni<> alon^ and ask for a little more rent. Would not that be natural? — Of course I farm my own land. 7553. But would not a man cbMrge more rent against these accounts even if he had been paid well on the farm. If you could have shown a good balance sheet, is not it likely that you would have increased the rent against your balance sheet? — No, I would not have increased the rent of any man ; in the past rents were forgiven altogether. My neighbour, Ix>rd Midleton, forgave the whole rent for one year. 7.V>4. From your evidence in your precis, one would be led to believe that you take a very gloomy view of the future as far as agriculture is concerned. Is that so? — Yes — the uncertainty. T.VM. What number of men do you employ on this farm of 300 acres? — I employ 4 regular men. T-ViO. What is the minimum wage in your district? — 41s. for labourers, and 47s. for horsemen. 7557. Do you pay anything beyond that? — No, nothing beyond that. 7558. So that you are compelled to pay that? — We are all compelled to pay that. 7559. Do you find the efficiency of your men equal to what it was, say before war time? — I do not find the efficiency the same. Do you mean the standard of work? . 7560. Yes? — No. I do not. I consider it has dropped. 7561. What age are the men you employ?— 36 to 38, and 42 or 44. 75een there? — The evidence I gave was over tho eight years; it did not go back to the date when Mr. Brnssey took it over. I gave the i ircumstanres in which ho took it over. 7612. Mr. J.rnntt^r lir carof I that you are dealing with th<> snme figures. The valuation at the beginning of that year 1918-19 was £31,651 and the valuation at that end of the year was £31,426 after having sold out the cattle. Looking at those figures do you still say that the profit of £2,918 7sl. 9d. arose only from the sale of cattle? — I cannot say only. 7623. Mr. Langford: I submit to you that if you had not had this sale of pedigree cattle your loss for the year 1918-19 would have been approximately £4,000?— I am afraid I do not agree. 7624. Mr. Prosier Jones: I think you told us last time you were here that you believe in farms of rather a large area from an economical point of view ? — Yes. 7625. Was it 1,000 acres you told us?— No, 10,000 acres. 7626. Assuming you employ three men to the 100 acres and that the object of the Board of Agriculture is to get more men back to the land, if these 10,000 acres were cut up into farms of 100 acres each, pro- viding for a family of five, would not that give us an addition of two men per 100 acres more on the land? — Yes, but you started the question by saying that the Board of Agriculture wanted more men on th« land. You do not say what for. If the Board of Agriculture want increased production I say they would be more likely to get it from 10,000 acre farms than from 100 acre farms. 7627. Would not the 10,000 acre farm mean that there would be fewer people living on the land? — Yes, you might have fewer, but you would have more production. 7628. Do results go to prove that large farms pro- duce more than small farms? — There are so few large farms in England that you can make no comparison really. 7629. Mr. J. M. Henderson: Your profit is made largely on cattle, is it not? — On general farming of all sorts. 7630. You do a lot of cattle raising?— Yes, but we raise a lot of sheep, too, and horses and pigs. 7631. Your principal profit is derived from that? — I can hardly say. I should think there is more profit in stock than there is in cereals. 7632. Have you ever tested which is the more profit- able to you? — No, I have not. . 7633. I see in one year you have got a very largo amount for cattle? — It varies with the acreage; the area is a good deal bigger some years than others. 7634. Can yon tell me by how much the acreage under wheat has been increased since or by reason of the guarantee? — There has been no increase at all owing to the guarantee. There has been an increase of arable land owing to the Food Production Com- mittees compelling us to break up more land. 25329 7635. That has been the only effect? Yes. 7636. Has your experience of that broken up land been that it has produced four quarters to the acre as an average of wheat? — Not on my own farm, but I have seen some good crops, and also some complete failures. 7637. What is the average? — It is impossible to say. I only run one district in Northamptonshire. 7638. In your district in Northamptonshire what should you say has been the result of breaking up land as regards the actual return per quarter of wheat? — That is a very difficult question, but I should think 2J quarters of wheat would be very near the mark. 7639. 2J quarters of wheat per acre according to the figures before us could never pay for production? — No, I do not think it would. 7640. It requires about four quarters to pay accord- ing to the evidence before us? — Yes, I should think that would be so, taking the average. 7641. A great deal of the land that has produced wheat has produced it at a loss? — A great deal, no doubt. 7642. Mr. Green: Did the County Committee compel you to break up any of your farm? — Yes, 258 acres. 7643. Out of the 2,700?— No, a good deal of it was arable before. 7644. Do you think the net output per man would have been greater on a large farm like yours if you had instituted some system of co-partnership? — I do not think during war time it would have been. 7645. Do you think it might now if you give the men some financial interest in the farm yourself? — I am very much in favour of that sort of thing, although I have never seen a scheme yet which I could work to. Of course, under present day conditions where we have women and German prisoners em- ployed, and labour is so unsettled, any proposition of taking the workers into co-partnership would never work, especially as so many of the women are giving up agriculture and going back to other occupations. 7646. From your experience on a large farm such ns yours, do you find that young fellows returning from the Army are more inclined to work in gangs than they would be inclined to work in isolated small holdings? — I have never been in the privileged position of having a gang of men since the war, so I cannot answer that. I wish I was in such a position. 7647. Mr. Edwards : I should like to know whether these returns — which are very interesting and require some study — refer to one farm worked from a com- mon centre or whether they really refer to a large number of farms in which the results have been added together? — No, it is all one large farm. I have a plan of it here if you would care to see it. (Handing plan.) 7648. Is it all within a ring fence? — Yes. 7649. You appear before us with these figures, and you give it as your opinion that large farms are more economical and likely to produce more for the nation than comparatively small ones? — Yes, I do. 7650. Could you tell us what is the tendency in the United States of America in regard to the area of their farms? — No, I cannot. 7651. The impression on the whole given from the figures which you "have brought before us in reference to your farm, which I presume is one of the largest in England, is not a very encouraging one, is it? — No, I do not think it is. 7652. It is neither encouraging so far as the profit is concerned, nor so far as the produce per acre is concerned? — No, I do not think it is. 7653. Still, you say large farms is the remedy for the present state of affairs with regard to agriculture in this country? — Yes, I think they are. 7654. Your produce per acre comes to a very IOTT one compared with the average of the country, doc* it not? The 3 quarters to the acre, do you meanP 7656. Yes?— Yes, it is lower than the average. V 2 l;»YAI. i-MMMI N AUUICULTfKK. 2 Stjlrmbtr, 1919.] MK. CASTKI.I. WRKV. 7856. Would you be surprised to h«ar that w.. hail a witntwa from York-Inn- hero this morning who said that the average on lius l.irm. and on taints ..f equal •ice in his county, was from -1 to 4J quai s. r , )., , acre!' — No, I should not be at all smprixxl i<. hear that. 7657. Would you be surprised to hoar that ho said that a neighbouring small farm owner has actually threshed 7 quarter* of wheat t. n..t at all. 7659. What is the real object of f arming '1— It de- pends which way you look at it. 7660. I should like to get it from your point of view as a farmer or as a citizen. What 'is your object in handling the land.- I am here to give evidence, and if you will give mo the question in such a form that I can answer it I will try to do BO. I do not know what you have got at the back of your mind. 7661. I hare nothing at all at the back of ray mind. What I want to Know is, what is the object of • man handling a farm!' — More economic production in the handling of a big farm. 7662. Yes I have given you two instances of greater production on the smaller farms. I have given you an instance of one small farmer producing 7 quarters of wheat to the acre, and you <>n a large farm only produce 3. Still you tell me that a large farm is more economical than a small farm? — Did the wit- new from Yorkshire tell you what rent he was paying for his farm? 7663. No? — If you want to draw a comparison he- tween the production on different farms you hove to ascertain what the respective rents are. 7664. Hent is a secondary thing in my experience nowadays? — I am afraid that is not my oxperionco. 7665. 'Mr. Punrnri: Following up that point, this farm which you have been working and of which you have submitted a plan, was not designed to provide an illustration of the advantages of farming on a large scale, was it? — No, certainly not. 7666. You have simply taken the farm as it stood taking into account the* quality of the land you have dealt with already, and you have shewn tho results of that particular farm with all the disadvantages of the rabbit warren and so on. that you had to surmount at the start? — Yes. As I explained my chief took this estate over when it was practically in ruins, and he has been developing it ever since. As soon as he got a portion of the land cleaned he has let it, and where he has not been able to do so he has kept it in hand. 7667. So that you have been working the least ad- vantageous portion of the land all tho time? — Yes. 7668. Where you have got the land into condition you have let it off to a tenant and thereby reduced the value of tho land that has remained?- x 76C9. You have practically taken out the eye of your land? — Yes, we have practically l>een farming the bad land all the time. 7670. So that tho comparison on a large holding as compared to a small one in your cose is of no value? _ No. it in of no comparative value at all. 7671. With regard to vour 1918-19 profit nnd loss account, and your sale of cattle in that year amount- ing to £7,579, was that an ordinarv dispersal sale or a sale just in the ordinary wav of your operations? No. it was a pedigree herd which we desired to and we sold it off, .but as a matter of fact I did nell rather more cattle that year than I have done in average vears. 7672. .Vr. Cnvtlry. As a matter of fact according to my calculation* I find that taking the cattle in »tock in 1918 and the cnttle Iwuight and comparing thaw- with the cattle sold in 1DIO and the stock at the end of 1919 you made a profit on cattlo of r Whereas if yon do the same calculations on your figure* that you have given UK to-day for 1917-18 it •hen* a profit on capital of only £1.«77. It does •hew. if the«> figure* are accurate, and I think t)u-v are. that a great den! of this profit i« due to the «pori»l saVs of cattle in 1f)|«in? rndoul.tedly a certain amount of it N due to thnt. I do not think the whole thing in. I. You told UH you were tanning the bad lands most of tho time,!' — Yes. 7<<7~>. What rent did you let the lands at tha: had cleaned and let t<> tenants which an- the licit, T landsy— I should not like to answer that qucMi<>n without referring. I cannot t<-ll you exactly Irom memory, but I should think from L6s. to 18«. \Vlwt is the rent yui charge for tin- in- lands you have in hand:-— 1 think it U UN. :,d. You can arrive at it if you will work it out. 7(i77. You did get a higher rent for tho lands you let off.*— Ye«. 7078. Have you considered since the lost time we met whether it is possible to fix any guarantee on any principle of a eliding scale? — Yes, f have considered it very carefully and a good deal. If I hod been a more expert witness, I should not have answered aa I did : I am afraid I rapped my answer out without due thought. I have considered it a great deal since, and I think if you get a sufficient number of reliable costings that your costings might be used as the basis of th? price without actually fixing the price. 7679. That is not quite what I wanted to get at. Tho difficulty I find is this. Starting with the assump- tion that the farmer has to have some guarantee given to him, in the interests of the State, to protect him against loss by the world's prices owing to the greater risks that ho is taking on in his business, and assuming that he has to have somo guarantee given to him, we are told by everybody who has come here that it is desirable to have a policy laid down for farmers for some years ahead— say, five to eight years. I suppose you would agree-with that? — Yes, I think so. 7680. If that has to be done we are faced with this difficulty, that everything which a farmer has to buy varies from day to day, and also that the labour which he has to employ can vary at a month's notice, or, shall we say for practical purposes at the three months' notice? — You say the articles the farmer has to buy? 7681. Yes, his feeding-stuffs, his fertilisers, Ins implements, and so on, are all fixed by the market price leaving out control .prices and looking to the future. The prices of all those things will vary from day to day?— There are very few things that are not controlled to-day. 7682. I am not considering the- things that are controlled to-day. As I say. f am looking to tho future, when prices will vary from day to day? — With an open market? 7f>83. Ye«. the price of everything tho farmer has to buy will in the future vary from day to day. his implements, his seed, his corn, his feeding-stuffs, and liis labour, which is fixed under the Wages Board. can be varied at a month's notice, or for practical purposes at two to three months?— Yi~ L To my mind that is an insuperable difficulty in fixing any reliable guarantee for such a period aa has been suggested, having regard to the change in conditions and variations. Therefore, I am anxious to see if it is possible to arrive at any system by which a guarantee could bo fixed that would vary according to some ratio either of wages or of the cost of living or the cost of the expenses of the farm, or something of that kind? — That very long question of yours simplified really means, do I think it possible to have a scale of prices which may l>r /: I would like you to consider rather carefully for the moment this question of the pedigree stock sale that you mentioned. Wa« it not inevitable during the war that there should be some accumulation of pedigree stock in the country because of the difficulty of getting exports of stock away:- Let me put it in this way: In your parti- •*ular case although the amount of profit shown in the year 1918-19 was very largely due to the Stock sale, you had been accumulating that stock for some years and the charge of maintaining that stock had shown in the previous profit and loss accounts? — Yes. that it quite true. 7691. It is quite possible, therefore, that in your you had not been having the normal sale's of pedigree stock in the two or throe preceding years because, like some other pedigree breeders you found it difficult to sell your pedigree stock during the war period? — Yes. I am afraid I influenced my chief to sell the pedigree herd because I did not think it was a business proposition for a farmer. 7692. Your general position, as vou said last time, is that the pedigree herd is rather a drag on the rest of the farm? — Ye'hcwn by the balance sheets!' Yrs. | nnl sure they are. 7701. Now will yon turn to your costings just for a moment. In Table 1 (a), if you run down the rate of wages for men from September to the middle of October, 1917, you have 4s. 6d. ? Yes. 7702. On August 12th, 1918, it is 9sl. Id., is it not? — Yes. 7703. That is another year ahead ? — Yes. 7704. That is a special harvest rate? — Yes. 7705. You have the figure of 6s. as the rate per day of a horse? — Yes. 7706. How do you arrive at that?— I have not; I have taken the local custom for that figure. 7707. You have not been able to cost your horse labour?— No, I have not been able to do ib in the past, but I hope to be able to do it in future. 7708. The Chairman : On the last occasion you said you were working out the cost and you thought it would come to less than 6s. ? — Yes. 7709. Mr. Ashly. In Table 1 (6) you have differential rates for horse labour, 6s. and 3s. 4d. dan you tell' us how that is?— I see it is there, but I really cannot explain it; it is an error, I am afraid. 7710. In that case why should you make the difference between 6s. for drilling and 3s. 4d. for harrowing? — I am afraid it is an error. I had not noticed it myself until you pointed it out to me. It ought all to .have been at 6s. 7711. That would necessitate a revision of the total figures, would it not? — Yes, it would. 7712. Would you look at rents. I see in Table 1 (a) you have rent at 10s. per acre and in Table 1 (6) you have rent at 5s. per acre? — Each field on the farm was valued by the valuers in 1915 field by field and a separate rent apportioned to each field. 7713. You use their valuation for this purpose? — Yes. 7714. Would you look at 1 (a), rates 2s. 8d. in the £on £4?— Yes. 771"). That is 8s. an acre assessed value, but you would not pay 2s. 8d. in the £, because you would only pay on half the value of agricultural land? — Yes, that is so. 7710. Management you put down at 2s. 9d. per acre. How do you arrive at that figure for management? — Half of the agent's salary and the whole of the bailiff's salary is put in and divided by the number of acres. 7717. I understand that in the profit and loss account you did not include the management? — No, it is not included. 7718. You have not the whole of the farm costings, h«ve you? — No, I have not. 7719. If you had, the accounts would not agree on that basis, would they? — Yes, if you had them on an acreage basis. 7720. They would not agree unless you put the management into the statement of expenditure and income? — The costings are worked on a field to field basis, and of course for the balance sheet it is worked on the total results of the farm. 7721. How do you get at the interest on the machinery, for example? — I worked it out on rather a rough system, but it is only the way I can arrive at it really. 7722. t)o you take as your capital value of the machinery just the machinery which is used on the arable farm or the total machinery used on the farm? — The total and spread it over the whole acreage of the farm. 772.'!. I notice you have in all cases " cartage of wheat to station at Is. per quarter." — Yes. 7724. That is according to a local 'istimate, is it?- Yes. It is a long mile and a half to the station, and a Is. a quarter is a fair price. 7725. Mr. Untrhelor: If you look at Table 1 (n), that is, 10 acres you have got " cutting with binder half day 13s. 64on the field of course. I do cut 20 acres a d«v on sonic fields. F 3 ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. S Sfp4fmb«r, 1919.] MR. CASTELL WHEY. [r . ,,1,,1'inl. 7739. May I refer to your book which is of very recent date. You mention that a 12 ft. binder with fire hones and one man will cut 13J acres per day ; an 8 ft. binder with four horses and one man will out 8 8-9ths acres per day, and that a 4 ft. 6 binder with three horses and one man will cut 5 acres per day f— What page is that on? 7730. Page 40. Those figures do not seem to tally with your figure in Table 1 (a) that you can cut 90 acres per -day with one man and three horses? — If you look about 8 lines up from the bottom of tho page I say, " For example, say the ordinary binder cuta five acres." I am only taking five acres as an example ; I do not say it only cuts five acres ; it cuts a good deal more. 7731. How many acres might it cut? — I should think 7} acres, or something like that would be a fair thing. 7733. Would you be surprised to know that in Scotland it is the usual thing to cut 10 acres in a day? — What sized binder? 7733. With a 4 ft 6 binder '—Perhaps they work harder than our farm labourers do. 7734. Have you ever been to Scotland to see the farm work that is done there? — No — I have only been once, and my experience then was only of a very small district. 7735. What I want to get at . Is that an accumulation of years? — Is there anything preceding 1917? 7766. I do not see anything in 1916? — Then it would be an accumulated account. It would be simply a valuation of the stock at Lady Day a* there were possibly no outgoing tenants. 7767. Ixxik at the summary of valuation dealing « ith horses in 1919. I make it that at the 6th April, 1918, you h;id 67 horsos in hand of a value of £3,812? —Yes. 7768. During the year up to the 6th April, 1919, you bought no horses? — No. 7769. But on tho other hand you sold horses to the value of £95 15s.?— Yes. 7770. Have you any idea of how many that might be?— Two— one for £90 and the other for £5. 7771. That would make 65 horses standing at £3,716 5s.?— Yes. 7772. You havo this year 68 horses— that is three more — and those three horses have to account for i'.'iso of increase without taking any depreciation into consideration? — Would that not come in in breeding? 7773. No, you have tho same horsos in this case. You start with 67 and you only sold two? — I may have brought in three. 7774. Yes, but those three have to account for a difference of £380 a* well as for any depreciation you have written off the 65? — The valuation has risen from £66 17s. up to £60 4s. a head so that that would account for some of it. 7776. You have put them up although tho horses are getting older? — The young horses are getting more valuable. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 85 2 September, "1919.] MR. CASTELL WREY. [Continued. 7776. Have you put anything in for depreciation? — I do not put anything in at all. 7777. That is what you imagine has been done by the valuers? — Yes. 7778. In regard to the value of horses this last year you have appreciated your horses? — The valuers may have done so, I have not. The valuers say that they value breeding stock and working horses not likely to be sold at a fair standardised price not according to market variations of the moment, and they go ion: " Young stock certain to be marketed and draft ewes, drape cows, and surplus horses — at their market price on the day of valua- tion." 7779. In your 1914 profit and loss account I see that the stock on hand at the 6th April, 1914, is £23,671 6s. 4d.— Yes. 7780. The details of the valuations which you have given us only account for £23,279 3s. lid. There is a difference of £392 2s. od. Do you know why that should be? — No, I am afraid I do not; I was not in charge in 1914. 7781. Similarly in 1915 taking the figure in the profit and loss account for that year the valuation is £22,624 19s. 6d.?— Yes. 7782. Your summary of valuation at that period only amounts to £22,444 15s. 6d. ? — You are speaking of the separate summary I gave with regard to live stock. 7783. Yes. That is a difference of £180 4s. Od.?— That would be live and dead stock, would it not? 7784. I do not know how it is made up? — I do not understand the difference certainly. 7785. If you will take the next one for the year 1916 there is a difference again. The valuation is £2.'i.~!^<) 15s. 6d. and in the summary it amounts to £22,960 4s. 6d., a difference of £560 lls. Od. My reason for ask- ing you particularly is that when you come to 1917 the figures aro identical and in 1918 and 1919 they are identical also? — I uin afraid I cannot explain that. 7786. Mr. Overman: In going back to the cattle sold in 1918, £7,579, was that a sale of dairy cattle? — No, Aberdeen Angus. 7787. How many did you sell at the sale?— 91 or 92. 7788. Do you remember what they averaged? — No, I am afraid I cannot tell you now. 7789. They were fat cattle?— No, Aberdeen Angus breeding cattle. 7790. Did they make anything like £100 apiece?— No, I am sure they did not ; I cannot remember in the least what they fetched. 7791. That accounts for the difference in the numbers, I take it, in 1918, 496 beasts, and in 1919. 402 beasts. That is the reason you were short of cattle in 1919?— -Yes, that would account for a good deal of the decrease. 7792. I see the profits on the cattle that year, tak ing the two valuations, amounting to £4,429 12s. lid. made out of cattle that year — that is the difference? —Yes. 7793. Really the difference in the two valuations brings it up to a profit of £2,918 7s. 9d., which really amounts to what you made that year? — Yes. 7794. You have answered that question : you said in a way the profit was due to the special sale of pedigree cattle? — Yes, I think it is partly. 7795. In taking your valuation can you tell me how your valuer values your implements? Does he take them piece by piece or at the same price as last year with a deduction for depreciation? — The implements on the farm are valued every three years in detail, and every year at the annual valuation they are de- preciated ; we supplv him with figures of the imple- ments we bought that year which are added in at rost price, and the remainder of the implements are depreciated by the valuers. 7796. How much, can you tell me? — No, I do not know ; they do not toll me. 7797. The same with the maohinsry, I suppose? — y«i. 7798. All the estate work which is done by the horses is charged in thin account, is it not? — Yes. 7799. That amounts to a very large sum coming to the farm ?— Yes. 7800. Of oaurse, that is an item which the ordinary farmer would not have on the side of receipts, would he? — He ought to if he kept books — of course, if he has the opportunity. 7801. Yes, but he would not have the opportunity in the ordinary course? — No, he would not have such an opportunity in the ordinary way very likely, but if he did get it he ought to show it. 7802. You cannot by your books in any way tell us how you arrive at the working days of the horses — you only arrive at it by inference from the enquiries you have made, I take it? — Yes. 7803. I must put it to you : I think there must bo more than six days of frost in each year? — Possibly, but if we can get horses out for half a day we do it rather than keep them standing in the stables. 7804. Last autumn we had a continuous wet tims from October until January when our horses were certainly not at work half the time on arable land? — Yes. I see we had only £387 in last year for that. Perhaps the frost accounted for it. 7805. Mr. liea : In your valuation it is stated that the valuer took the stock that was going to be marketed soon at market prices? — Yes. 7806. The others he took at a sort of standardised value? — Yes. 7807. The same system would prevail in the earlier years, I presume? — Yes. 7808. So that there would be a fair proportion of rise? — Yes, I think the valuation has been very con- servative ; I had a long talk with the valuer about it the other day, as I told you. 7809. Everything has been raised in proportion from the earlier years, so that it will in fact show what has been the actual depreciation? — Yes. I do not think the depreciation has been anything in com- parison to the actual increase in value — except in the case of stock which are absolutely ready for market. 7810. The other stock will have been raised in some sort of way ; they will not have been kept at the same figures ?— No. If you look back to 1914 you will see the beasts are put at an average price of 14 guineas, a-nd if you look at 1919 you will see the average price for beasts is 19 guineas, that is, a 5-guiuea rise. 7811. In 1916 there was a good rise of price. I take it that your cattle are actually valued at the market price of the day, and that the cattle are not the same from year to year. These are stock that you are buying, and they may be younger or older, taking one year with another? — No; we breed practically all our own stock. 7812. These are mostly home-breed cattle, are they? — Practically all of them. 7813. So that they will nearly all be of the same age and more or less of the samo quality? — Yes. 7814. Mr. Henderson asked you how much land had been broken up owing to the guarantee, and you replied that nothing had been broken up owing to the guarantee, but that land had been broken up owing to the orders to plough up from the Executive Committee ? — Yes. 7815. That sounds rather as if the guarantee was put on for the sake of inducing farmers to plough up their land. Is that your interpretation of it? — I am afraid it hardly is. I think my interpretation of the guarantee is more that the Government were frightened of labour or of the Labour Party than that they were anxious about the farmers' needs. 7816. Is it not rather that the Government saw that it was necessary for the safety of the country both now and in the future that more corn should be grown, and they put pressure on the farmers to grow up, and having done so they felt that they could not in justice press farmers to grow corn unless they guaranteed them against a very severe loss seeing that there was also a guarantee of wages? — The Government guaranteed wages, but I think it was the Selborne Committee's report which suggested that if the Government guaranteed wages they should also guarantee the farmer a productive price for his pro- duce? 7817. Yes, hut the whole thing hinged together, did it not? — When the Selborno Committee was sitting I do not think the submarine menace — although I believe Lord Selborno felt and anticipated F 1 86 2 Stptombtr, IS COMMISSION ON AGRI MB. CASTELI, WREY. that it would become Tory strong — wa»r actually in those days being felt with the severity with which it wa» being felt two yean later, and I think tli.- Corn Production Act was fax moro M a sop to labour than a §op to the fanner. 7818. By the time the Corn Production Act was introduced the submarine menace was pretty strong, was it notP — It was getting stronger then, but it was not introduced very rapidly, was it? 7819. Lord Selborne himself and hi* Committeo saw tin- danger then and recommended as an international safeguard that moro corn should be grown, and by the time the Corn Production Act waa introduced the Government generally had recognised that, and I put it to you that the object of tho Government was, if possible, to get the corn grown as a national safeguard against the shortage of food? — Yes, I think that was so to an extent, but I think the national future and prosperity of agriculture from the economic point of view was not studied at that time; it was merely a question of the submarine menace and labour. 7820. Dr. Douglat: Is it not the case that the Report of the Selborne Committeo was issued in the early part of 1917? — I cannot tell you: I should have thought it was earlier, speaking from recollec- tion. Is that the fact? 7821. I think you may take it so. Was not that tho time when the submarine menace was at its height or immediately after? — Was the Report issued immediately the Committee finished ite sittings? 7822. An Interim Report was issued long before it finished its sittings, but it is your evidence and not mine that we want. Does not the report of that Committee itself f>peoifi«ally refer to intimations from the Board of Admiralty? — I do not remember it. 7823. Perhaps yon have not rend the Report with the same care that some people have? — Perhaps not. 7824. .s'ir William Ashley: Would you be good enough to explain just a little further one or two things which you have already told us about? You have told us you arrived at the item for manage- ment, 2s. 9d. per acre, by distributing half tho apent's salary and the whole of tho bailiff's . .1/V. dnitlit/: On tho last occasion T was poinj; to ask you about the rise in the value of food. ing stuffs and fertilisers and you Raid you would bring up 'some figures? — Yes. T have brought those figures with mo. I made my list rather more peneral than your question because I thought it might bo more useful. I have a list of some of the items hero nought in 1913, and also that I bought in lf>18. I have tho invoices here. The list is as follows: — Year. Article. Price. Year. Price. Remarks. 1913 1918 to or 1914. £ ,.-<}. 1919. £ *. rf. April H Sheep shears Petrol 0 2 11 014 per gallon Dec. 036 No. :» petrol. t* Shepherd's knife 0 1 « nun. Dandy liru-li 0 1 6 Jan. 029 Linseed cake 11 ~i 0 per ton Nov.1 IS 19 18 8 Includes St. 8rf. transportcharges. July 9 10 0 „ Feb.'13 20 12 3 Includes 1-.-. •••<'. transport charges. April Nitrate of «xla 12 ft 0 Apl.'13 25 10 0 ... n Superphoophate 2 10 6 „ .Ily. '18 ti 7 6 ... - Oot. 1 19 6 June Steam coal 0 IS 9 Deo.'18 1 14 0 ... April Bran 7 II 0 An. 'IS i:> :, n ... Lining and stuffing cart 0 3 6 Mm- 0 r, fi ... ••addle Oct. 0 6 (I Hone ihoes and shoeing 0 '.' 8 per set Nov. 070 ... Jane Egyptian cotton c»ke, 6 10 0 per ton 15 0 0 Home made best flax July Rick cloth. 8x 12 7 4 o 800 Canvas 8 x 10 ... Oct. Red ochre 0 1 9 |>er 7 Ibs. Deo.' IS o :» i; ... •• Blue ochre 036 0 ft :t Aug. Binder twine ... 40 0 0 per ton ... 120 ii n ..* NOV. Bran 640 17 14 4 Includes lyji. 4d. Maize 1 6 0 per i|tr. Aug. 5 0 0 tr.uisjwrtc arges. Feb. Cotton wwto 1 12 fi |«T CWl. Apl.'l* 2 M n ... .1 tor I... Enginei.il Batten 0 2 9 per gallon 0 4 0 per i dor- Jly.'18 0 :t 10 „ 0 i:. n MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 2 Stptember, 1919.] MR. CASTELL WKEY. [Continued. 7837. That is a list of nearly everything you had to buy? — Of as many things as 1 could compare the prices of in 1913-14 and 1918-19. 7838. Up to what date in 1919 does it go!'— There is December, 1918, and January, 1919, for one item, a' dandy brush. 7839. You have not got the current prices of to- day;'— No, I have not. 7840. That is what interests me most:' — They do not appear on the accounts I have presented. 7841. What price, for instance, have you got lin- seed cake at here!J — I bought it in April, 1913, on one occasion for £11 5s. Od. and in July for £9 10s. Od. a ton and in November, 1918, at £19 18s. 8d. and February of 1919 at £20 12s. 3d. 784*2. The price to-day is about £26?— Yes: 7~t:j. That does not go quite so far as 1 had hoped. Take the price of sharps and middlings:' — 1 have bran in 1913 at £7 and in August. 1918, £15 15s. Od. 7844. Have you got maize:1 — Yes, November, 1913, £1 tis. Od.; August, 19L8, £5. 7845. Do you know what the price of it is to-day if you could get it:' — 1 do not think you can get it at all to-day. 7846. Can you give me the price of middlings or sharps? — No, I cannot. 7*47. Or of maize gluten? \<>. 7848. Do you know as a matter of fact that these last items, middlings, sharps, and maize gluten, have gone up 30s. a ton these last three weeks? — No, I was not aware of that. 7849. Your list is helpful, but I wish it had gone right up to date. I asked you a question about costs and I gathered from what you said before that you wanted to Bay something about costs. Then1 is nothing further that I want particularly, but I think you wish to add something to what you said before so you had better complete it? — Will yon give me the number of the question? 7850. At question 4305 I said: " I should like to discuss the question of costings with you the next time you come here. You will come prepared with the cost of growing an acre of wheat, and if you would price out the operation I should be obliged to you, if you would not mind taking the trouble." You said: "I have got it all hern already," and I said I could not follow it. Then I said: "If there is a particular question that you want answered and you will let me know through the Secretaries I will bring the details with me." Then I said: " I want to see the cost of the operation : how many times ploughing and harrowing and sowing and so on all the way down," and you said: "I have not got it here?"- Thcn you asked for a full rotation and I answered you that I could not give it you. 7851. Yes, is that so still?— Yes, I am afrakl it is. 7852. You cannot add anything to that? — No. 7853. When I was questioning you a short time ag'o you l>egan to mention something al>out costings and I rather interrupted you. I think there is something you wish to add about it? — What I was thinking of was some method of arriving at a cost of production that would suit all England. 7854. If you have anything to say about that will you just add it? — On thinking the matter over it seems to me that any prices you can collect might be useful taken arithmetically and used as a basis for a future price. If you put your figure I. cannot say at an average, but at a price which would eliminate certain of the bad producers — it would be doing no harm to them — you might stimulate the moderate producer. Some farmers would be producing 7 quarters per acre and some only 3, and I should fix my price to suit the man who grows 4 to 4^, and stimulate the men from 3 quarters up to 4£ ; the 7 quarter men do not want any help. ' 7855. Prior to the war there had been an improve- ment in farming. You will agree with that? — Yes, certainly. I -li.mM l«> right in saying that farmers \\ <•>•<• at tb:ir tim. satisfied with their position?- Yes, I think they were more satisfied then than at any time I can remember in my life. 7857. That is the view I take with regard to it. Then we had the war, and we had Lord Selborne's Committee ? — Yes. 7858. It was then for the first time authoritatively stated that pressure was to be put on and every inducement offered to farmers to increase production? — Yes, I think that is so, as far as I remember. 7859. W7as it then pointed out that by so doing farmers would be incurring considerably further risks. Was not that at the bottom of Lord Selborue's report — that putting increased pressure on the farmer and requiring increased cultivation from him would subject him to increased risk from the world's prices or the fall of the market? — Yes, that is correct. 7860. Was it not then suggested that for those in- creased risks— not risks of weather, but risks due to competition from abroad — the guarantee should be given by way of compensation? — Yes. 7861. When the matter came into the House of Commons Parliament insisted on a guarantee of wages as well? — Yes. 7862. Is not the result that the guarantee of prices, whatever its effect, was not given at the request of the farmer, but at the instance of the State to secure him against these risks and the further obligation upon him to pay a fixed minimum rate of wages? — I am afraid I cannot answer that question without studying the matter a little more carefully, but 1 think it is far more likely it was done by the State with a view to increasing the production of food rather than with a view to the prosperity of the farmer. 7863. There is abroad among some sections of the community an idea that the guarantee is solely for the benefit of the farmer ?— The general public have quite got that idea. 7864. You have given me your view, with which I entirely concur, that the farmer was satisfied with his position before the year 1914 and only wanted to bo left alone? — I think he was. 7865. The guarantee was of no benefit to him excepr, as a guarantee against a sudden fall in the world's prices? — The guarantee has up to now been of no actual benefit to him at all. 7866. Mr. Ashby : I am afraid these are matters of political history, but do you not remember on the outbreak of the war that some farmers' organisations passed a resolution demanding a guarantee, and in September, 1914, the farmers' representative in the House of Commons asked Mr. Asquith if he would consider giving farmers a guaranteed price for wheat, and he said No? — Were they important farmers' organisations or just some small local organisations? 7867. It came from the Central Chamber of Com- merce. I should like to put one real question to you with regard to this matter of production. I under- stood you to say at the beginning of your evidence to-day" that you thought large farms give a greater production than small farms — that one reason for organising large farms was that the production of large farms was greater? — Yes. 7868. Do you refer in that case to production per acre or production per man? — Both, I think. For instance, in the case of a large farm if you see a particular field going wrong you can splash down £1,000 for manure and bring it into condition. A small farmer has not the capital to do that. 7869. If you have a large farm you must have a large capital, but it does not always follow that you will have a larger capital per acre? — No, you will have a smaller capital per acre — considerably smaller. 7870. Yet you think you will get larger production? — Yes. I have gone very fully into that question in this little txx>k of mine. I do not know whether you have read it. 7871. Chairman: You were kind enough to express an opinion on the last occasion with regard to tho efficiency of labour, and I remember you very kindly said you would provide some evidence of the state- ments you had made with regard to the efficiency of labour. If you have that evidence with you I am sure tho Commission will 1)6 glad to have it? — In order to bring this evidence before you I wrote to the Chair- man of the Farmers' Union at Peterborough, Mr Griffin, asking him if he could give me cases of wilful deterioriation of labour, and he writes me as follow* j 88 ROTAL^COMinSfilON OHjAGRICULTURE. , 1919.] MR. CABTEI.L WREV. [Continual. " Boto' Fen, Peterborough, August 25th, 1919. Dear Mr. Wrey, In answer to your letter, if I can give you any evidence as to the decreased work of labour, I shall be glad to do so; it may be difficult to give con- crete cases, but it IB a well-known fact that can bo vouched for by almost every fanner and employer of labour in this district, that the men do not work HO well as they used to do; they come late and go homo early, and if the farmer says anything they toll him they can get work somewhere else. In fact, the farmer has not been in a position to keep the men up to the mark and has to turn his back when he should speak, consequently the men have got slack. In ttie Crowland area the men do not come till seven and go home many of them at 2.46, and last winter they demanded and got 15s. per day for threshing. I shall no doubt be seeing you in Peterborough." That is signed by him. The next is a case from my own farm: " A lad of 18 years of age employed on the Home Farms at Apethorpe, was engaged to supply water to the engines when steam ploughing, also coals (when the water was sufficiently near to the engines to leave him to do so), at a weekly wage of 42s. On one occasion when hay-making a cart stood with coals within 20 yards of the engine, and he refused to supply the engine with coal, consequently I had to take a man and horse from the hay-carting and cart the coal to the engines. He absolutely refused to coal the engines and was, therefore, dismissed for wilfully refusing to do work which he was engaged to do." That statement is signed by my bailiff. Here is another ease, also from my own farm: " An experienced shearer, was asked by the bailiff to help with the shearing this year and he would not. I went to see the man myself, and asked him to, and the answer he gave mo in front of one of my assistants and one of the men working with him was that shearing was too hard work, and if he sheared all day he could not do his garden at night, and that he preferred to keep himself fit to do his own garden." I have a cutting hero out of the " Agricultural Gazette " of August 18th, 1919, which I would like to read to you, if I may. 7872. I do not think that is quite evidence. You made a statement on the last occasion that you would bring forward evidence to support what you said, and, as a matter of fact, I do not think a report from a newspaper is evidence? — Very well, Sir, I will leave that out. I have another case here " Mr. R. L. King employed a man during haytime— dismissed at end of haytime as Mr. King did not re- quire him. Mr. King got this man's name from the Local Labour Exchange for harvest work. Offered him 25s. per acre for cutting peas— the same price as his other men were receiving and were earning at the rate of 15s. per day. He agreed to come but did not turn up and has done no work since." Bolow that is written: " I have read over the above statement and certify it to be correct," and that is signed by Mr. R. L. King of Cotterstock, Peterborough. I have the original of that if you want it. Then, again, I have a letter from Mr. Samuel Moore of the Manor Kami, Thornhaugh, Peterborough, addressed to my*lf. It is dated the 30th August, 1919: " Dear Sir, Re- ferring to our conversation in regard to agricultural hands witholding production, the following two cases have occurred on this farm recently. On August 10th last I sent a horse (one of a pair) to the smith'.- shop for shoeing. When this horse came back I arranged that it should go harrowing with the <>th>'i bone that had been idle all day, thesto horses were yoking out at 2 o'clock p.m. when the waggoner < am.. in the stable with the horses (half an hour before ho ought to have dont») and remarked if I kept the horses out he should not look after and care for them as he did not want tln-m to go to work at all and \><- -li<>ul'l leave: this man is a member of the Agricultural Workers' Union. Another ruse, on August 12th last. A boy of 14 years had been working a pair of horstes harrowing for several days ; through this boy becoming ill I had occasion to awx a regular hand of 21 of age who had been demobilised n few months i<> go in hii place. He flatly refused, saying he was1 not going to work hones Although he was used to all farm work. H« accepted the alternative and left my ', employ. The former case is a man about 26 years of e, was demobilised in February last, and was em- >yed on this farm several years before the war. trust the above cases will help you and I will say there are many men employed in agriculture at the present time who only want to get time over, and do as little work as possible. Yours faithfully, Samuel Moore." Then 1 have a letter from Mr. Leonard: " Manor Farm, Woodnewton, Peter- borough. August 28th, 1919. Dear Sir, Your state- ment,- I am sorry to say, is only too true. Some men try to do as little as possible since Government and chiefly Union influence. I had to dismiss one man in particular. I don't wish his name to be made public — for wilfully doing as little as he could when I was not near. I had to do it as all my other men said they would leave eke, as they said he would not work himself nor allow them, without chaffing them. I can't complain of my present ones but only yesterday a lad of 16 was loading wheat and he refused to load any more after a quarter past seven. The cart was sent home empty. Eight o'clock is the time we work to when carting, so I have to pay all the others three quarter hour work which was not done through hi4 action. I can't speak to him or should be told to do the work myself. 1 employ regular, 4 men 2 lads and boy, besides working self. Yours faithfully, John Leonard." I have another letter from Mr. Tate: " Sibson Manor, Wansford, Peterborough. 28th August, 1919. Dear Sir, I shall be pleased for you to make use of my name respecting tenants buying their farms, you must have misunderstood me. I did not say I wish I had never seen the farm " — I do not think I said that in evidence — " It will ruin many farmers who bought their farms, for the purpose of farming it themselves: many will be short of capital, that will stop production. At the present time everything is done to stop production, farmers must have a free hand for the good of the country. It w very serious, wheat is the cheapest corn grown instead of the dearest. Directly things are settled down the Govern- ment will drop the farmers like a red hot cinder, it is the vote that ia the ruin of England. I shall be much worse off having bought my farm. I had an excellent landlord and an excellent agent, they always treated me well, and I only wish they wen. landlord and agent still. I should be far better off. Yours truly, H. J. Tate." 7873. Did he say what rent he paid before? — No; that is his letter just as he sent it to me. 7874. Ifr. timitli: Do you not think that shows a spirit which is rather remarkable against the idea which you are seeking to establish when the men themselves make a very strong protest Against the slacker. Is it not rather a remarkable feature in the industry for men to take up such an attitude? — Where have they done that? 7875. In one of the letters you read it says the other men protested and refused to work with the slacker? — This actual man was depreciating. That is the subject of the letter. 7876. You would not suggest that the isolated cases you quote would establish a general rule? — I could produce any number more. I have asked any amount of farmers to lot me have cases, but although they have told me they know of such cases, I am afraid they are too lazy to produce them, regardless of their own interests. TS77. Does -not that rather show a spirit on the purl of the farmers which may become contagious mid affect their workmen?— Possibly. 7878. If farmers themselves show a lazy spirit, and if they ha\e in the past considered themselves to be sii|M>rior persons as compared witli their labourers, tin -\ ought not to ho surprised' at the labourer follow- ing the example they set, ought they? — I have no evidence on that point. 7879. I submit to you that these cases you have i|ii-ite.| an have to pay what we are told to pay by the Wages Board. I do not quite follow what you want to get at; if you will word your question differently I may be able to answer. 7990. What was the rate of wages before the war in your district?— 18s. to 21s., and boys 10s. to 1%. 7991. Taking these young lads that you are re- ferring to, what rate of wages would they have been getting before the war?— 10s. to 12s. ; if they "were 18 they would be getting 15e. or 16s. 7923. They are now getting in some cases according to the instance you gave 42s., and so on? — Yes. 7923. That -is comparatively a bigger increase in their wages than the married men have got during tin- same period of time? — Yes, a great deal more. 7924. Is it not natural to expect that the younger and more thoughtless men getting more wages are inclined to get their horns out a bitP — Yes, I should think very possibly. 7926. Is not that likely to -be a temporary thing which will adjust itself in course of time? — I think if we ever get sufficient labour so that we can sack a man when we want to it will adjust itself im- mediately. 7920. In other words, owing to the state of the labour market at the present time, the workman is more upon an equality with the employer than he was prior to the war? — I do not know what you mean by equality. 7927. I mean you have not the same facility for sacking a man now as you had before the war? — We have not. 7928. Which means that the workman is able to stand up to his employer much more than he could before the war? — He is able to slack his work and pick and choose, if that is what you mean. 7929. And also to defend himself against his em- ployer?— I do not think he needs to defend himself against his employer ; as a rule, that is a case for the In ion. 7930. Do you wish us to believe that some of the ivorkmcn in your district are unreasonable, but that farmers are never unreasonable? — No, I do not sav that at all. 7931. Would it be possible, do you think, to produce as many instances of farmers treating their workmen unreasonably as if you produced workmen treating their employer unreasonably?—! could write to the Chairman of the Farmers' Union if you like and ask him. 7932. I suggest, as your evidence is collected from the other side, that you might write to the Work- men's Unions and ask them for their experience with regard to the inefficiency of the farmers who cm plond their members, and their inability to handle their ftOCfcpeopb properly?— I think I have dealt with that in my evidence before. 7933. Mr. Dallas: Do you not think that the in- efficiency of labour to-day" is caused by the low wages paid and the slackness on the part of the farmers in day* gone by?— I think that certainly has helped towards it. 79W. The farmers paid their workmen a low rate of wage*, and therefore did not expect a groat deal out f>f their men, and did not get a great deal out of them, l»ut now they havo to pay higher wages they are not content with the output they are netting:'- -I do not think there was so much need for hustling before the war. A labourer had a better idea of passing his labour in in return for his ca«h. 7836. I am convinced that he gave a good return for the canh he Rot. but he did not not much cashr he did nut 7936. My iioint in that whatever inefficiency there may bo mid at the moment I am not saying whether th#r» u or not it U largely due to the fact that « ages w«r low and employer and workmen wore not -< levied up to H high standard of efficiency I' I <]0 not think it i* that -• much M the wnrcity of lalioiir. I think it i» becaum the younger labourer feels ilint he is in ;i pmition to do more or le«« what he likes, and that he stands no risk of losing his employment, and po.M>ilily of Dot getting other employment within walking or bicycling distance <>l his own homo. 1 think he knows to-day that we cannot sack him because wu cannot spare him. 7!i:t7. l.s that really . Only this afternoon 1 heard an insiumo of a man who left his job. He was a carman, and when he went to another employer tho employer asked him if there were many applicants for bin previous job, and he said nineteen;- 1 am very glad 1 I ha\c \erv little experience of Lincolnshire, only just of a sma'll part of it round Spalding. 794*2. I do not know your age, but I am old enough to rememlier the time when the tenant farmers in that district were all sold up. Bad times came along and they could not stand them. Is there not n ri^k that the tenant fanner who has bought his farm, especially it he has not a family behind him, will in the future not be able to .itaiid bad times if they should happen to come along again:' I think there is every likelihood of it. Tho farmer has bought his farm at a dearer price to-day than he could have bought it for at any other time, I should think, during the last 40 years, and every piece of maehinorv he requires he has to buy at a very greatly enhanced pri/ie, and if there is any reaction in the near future in prices I think the farmer is bound to be sold up in many cases. 7943. Assuming that I have not exaggerated that risk to the tenant who has bought his holding, would not the tenant farmer in you opinion be better em- ployed in using the capital that he puts into buying his land in increasing his yield and employing up-to- date methods so that he would be more likely to get a better return on his capital by using it ns farm capital than as a land owner? — I think for the good of the country he would certainly be employing his capital much better. 7!MJ. And in his own interest would his capital not ho better so employed?- Yos. in a great many I think it would, because I fancy a good deal of the money that is being paid by these farmers to-day for their farms has been lent to them by banks, and is a mortgage on their farms, which, of course, will mean an extra expense to the farmer. 7945. Under the present \\stem of Knglish tenancies the custom is for the landlord to do the main repairs, is it not? — Yes. 7946. The tenant keeps the ditches and fences in order? — Yes, and hauls the material as a rule. 7947. The landlord finds all the material ?— Yes, and the tenant hauls it. 7948. Can you tell ino at all from your experience what percentage of the rental the landlords' repairs on a reasonably well managed estate form:- No, 1 cannot give you the pen-outage, hut the maintenance claim which is now allowed in full by the Inland Hevenuo is an example of the heavy expenditure in- volved. They used to allow him 2o' por cent, of hi* maintenance claim, but they now allow him the whole of it. 7949. Tho landlord can get bark under Schedule A. tho whole cost of maintenance now? Yes, on his farms. 7!>50. That T understand you to say amounts to morn than '•?"> per cent:- Yes, as the law stood it allowed 2."i per cent, for some period, and then since the war I think it has been raised up to tho full amount. 7!'.M. Will all that expenditure fall on the tominl who has bought his own holding? Ye«. 70.">2. It will bo rather a iKistv thing when he wakes up to the full force of that, will it not?- Ye* it I,,. don MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 91 2 Septtmber, 1919.] MR. CASTELI, WBEY. [Contintml. 7953. Are you aware that in America people are coming back to the English system of landlord and tenant as being the best system for the proper tilling of the ground'- — No, I was not aware of it. 7954. In Northamptonshire, did they have the system of the farmers of 50 up to 500 acres owning their own holdings and farming them? — I do not think that was so to any great extent in Northampton- shire. In the past Northamptonshire has been very largely a county of large landowners. 7!>.V>. You have not had any experience of a county where there has been a system of yeoman farmers, have you? — No, I have had very little experience of that. " 7950. Mr. A-ihby^ : I wonder if you could tell us what happened to these men to whom you have re- ferred, who have been discharged for wilful negli- gence in their work?— One man that I discharged myself is now working in the gas works. 7957. Is he working efficiently there do you know? — I do not know. Since he left I have ceased to take any interest in him. 7958. Do you not think that such cases of wilful (The Witness negligence are due to the fact that the men, especially the young men, have made up their minds to leave farm work and seek other work? — It may be; I can- not tell what is in their minds, of course. 7959. No, but in these cases where men get dis- charged for negligent work, they are as a rule, men who have gradually been going downhiU and becoming casual workers, are they not? — I do not know ; I have not had enough experience of it to be able to answer that question. 7960. Dr. Douglas : I suppose you will agree that a considerable part of what is paid as rent is interest on capital expended on equipping the land? — Yes, practically all of it I should think. 7961. Has capital invested in that way brought in a high rate of interest? — No, an abnormally low rate of interest. 7962. Is that one of the reasons which has induced landlords to sell their properties?— It is one of the reasons, certainly. 7963. So that really the comparative lowness of rent as a return on capital is inducing owners to sell their properties? — It is one of the reasons, undoubtedly. withdrew.) TENTH DAY, WEDNESDAY, SRD SEPTEMBER, 1919. SIR WILLIAM DR. C. M. DOUGLAS, C.B. MR. G. G. REA, C.B.K. MR. W. ANKER SIMMONS, C.B.K. MR. HENRY OVERMAN, O.B.E. MB. A. W. ASHBY. MR. A. BATCHELOR. MR. H. S. CATTLEY, K.C., M.P. MR. GEORGE DALLAS MR. W. EDWARDS. MR. K. E. GREEN. PRESENT : BARCLAY PEAT (Chairman). MR. J. M. HENDERSON MR. T. HENDERSON. MR. P. JONES. MR. E. W. LANGFORD. MR. R. V. LENNARD. MR. GEORGE NICHOLLS. MR. E. H. PARKER. MR. R. R. ROBBINS. MR. W. R. SMITH, M.P. Sin RHIIAKD WINPRKY, M.P.. Chairman. Norfolk and 7964. The Chairman : You have sent in a precis of your evidence, and also some additional figures which you describe as " The actual figures of the costs of production of four crops in rotation (the 4-course system) by one of the smallholders on our Swaffham Farm " ?— Yes. 7965. Will you allow me to put these in?— Yes. I want to make one correction in this. Since I sent it in I have gone over it again with the smallholder and I find that in 1919 instead of using 10 loads of farmyard manure he only used 7 loads at 5s. a load, so that that figure shoul'd be £1 15s. instead of £3. That adds 35s. to the profit in 1919. 7966. It deducts 25s. from the £15 Is. 9d.?— The total is £15 Is. 9d. and it is £1 5s. off that which reduces it to £13 16s. 9d. That makes the profit £2 9s. 3d. 7967. May T put in these statements as part of your evidence without reading them now? — Please. Evidence in chief handed in by witness: — 7968. 0) I have been Chairman of the Lincoln- shire and Norfolk Small Holdings Association for 25 years. 7969. (2) In 1894, when wheat was 25s. a quarter, we rented th~e first farm of Lord Lincolnshire. The following six years, we took two other farms of Lord Lincolnshire, making a total of 972 acres, :>nd purchased three further farms in Norfolk. Ten ngo, wo leased 1,000 acres of the Crown at Wingland. We now control 2,266 acres, worked by £X) tenants, with a rent roll of £4,890. The groat majority of these tenants were agri- cultural labourers. «nd several have already retired on a competency being succeeded by their eons. During the whole of that time, even during the bad wonoiui, our losses in rents, have been less than 10*. p«r £100. Lincoln Smallholdcrs'Association, called and examined. 7970. (3) The following is a summary of the Crops and live-stock for the year 1917: — CHOPS. Crops. Acreage. A. Winter Wheat ............ 383 Spring Wheat ..-. ......... 12 Barley ............ ... 277 Oats ............... 293 Rye ............... 2 Bean1! ............. ... 99 Peas ............... 35 i Potatoes ............... 352 — Carrots ............... 23 2 Turnips and Swedes ......... 58 2 Mangolus ............ 78 3 Vetches or Tares, Bulbs, and White Mus ............... 11 2 — Soft Fruit ............ 85 3 20 Top Fruit ... ......... 28 1 — Clover and Rotation Grasses ...... 66 3 27 Grass for Hay ............ 113 1 38 Grass not for Hay ......... 332 1 16J R. 2 2 1 — 2 9 p. 32 21 12 71 20 22 25 25 17 ["otal acreage ... 2,255 LIVE STOCK. Horses used on the farms 174 Unbroken horses 44 Cows and heifers 121 Other cattle 285 Sheep 122 Sows kept for breeding ... 57 Other pigs ggl Poultry 2,457 7971. (4) I submit the following figures of the cost of growing the two main crops, wheat and potatoes, of one of the tenants on the Willow Tree Farm, Deeping Fen, Lincolnshire, for the year 1913 »nd the present year 1919. ROTAL COMMISSION ON AQRICULTURK. 3 Stplembtr, 1919.] SIR BICHARU WINFREY, H.P. [Continual. The cost of team and manual labour, are those actually paid by the smallholders, who get assistance from their neighbours. In reckoning the profits, it must, of course, bo remembered, that each smallholder is charging for his own labour at current rates, and this applies to the wife, or othef members of ihe family. With regard to the general condition of agriculture in the Eastern Counties, I proixw to point out that the increased value of agricultural land, which has gone up since 1914 from 30 per cent, (and in some cases) to 100 per cent., is, in my judgment, an infallible index of the general prosperity of the industry. 7973. (5) The three-course system on a smallholding in Deeping Fen, dear Spalding. Fint Year. Potatoes, followed by wheat (then oats or barley). Cost to Produce one acre. 1913. •jp Tilting or light ploughing oat stubble 0 Harrowing and cleaning stubble 0 Manuring (carting 12 loads out of the yard to the heap 8 loads on to the field) Spreading same Value of farmyard manure Artificial. 10 cwts. superphos- phates Seed. 15 cwt Ploughing 6 inches deep Dragging twice ... Hoeing down Drawing out rows Sowing artificial Setting seed (2 women one day) Ploughing in Harrowing down Rolling down Skerry ing (first time) ... Earthing up Harrowing down Skerrying (second time) Weeding (first time), piece work Skerrying (third time) Earthing up (second time) Weeding (second time) Lifting (two horses ploughing up) • Carting to grave Nine women picking Harrowing twice Graving down Earthing up graves twice Rent Rates Implements, depreciation National Insurance and Work- men's Compensation ... Interest on capital d. 0 6 0 16 0 2 2 0 1 10 0 I 5 0 0 9 0 0 10 0 0 1 o 0 3 (i 0 2 B 1) 4 a 0 3 a 0 1 o 0 1 0 0 3 a 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 3 B 0 3 0 0 3 8 0 3 a 0 3 0 1919. £ B. d. 1 '2 (3 0 10 0 260 070 300 3 10 0 550 1 7 6 0 15 0 0 2 0 070 050 0 10 0 0 7 0 0 u 0 0 0 o 0 2 6 2 6 7 6 7 6 2 6 li 0 7 7 076 076 070 1 10 0 0 15 0 2 14 0 050 070 0 10 0 200 058 050 020 200 Add eoit of drilling (10*. 6d.) and delivery (7i.)—See Qvei- tioru 8163-4 £16 4 11 33 6 8 0 17 6 Yield, 1913. Biz ions at 60s. per ton Cost of production £ 18 16 s. d. 0 0 4 11 Profits in 1913 . £1 16 1 Yirld, 1919. Six tons at £8 per ton (actual price made Hi 1918) 4g Cost of production ... ... 34 7973. (6) Second Year. l.-iiinated cost of production of 1 acre: following potatoes. 1913. £ s. d. 9 0 •2 ti 4 1 1 I •1 •2 •2 r, * Ploughing 5 inches deep ... 0 Harrowing twice 0 Drilling 0 Harrowing seed in 0 Rolling 0 Harrowing ... ... ... 0 Horse hoeing ... ... ... 0 Weeding (first time) 0 Weeding (second time) ... ... 0 Reaping ... ... ... ... 0 Tying 0 Carting 0 15 Threshing 0 16 Coal for threshing 0 2 Carting to station 0 7 Seed corn 0 10 Rent 2 Rates 0 Depreciation of implements ... 0 National Insurance and Work- men's Compensation ... 0 Interest on capital ... ... 0 0 0 0 0' 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 8 6 6 0 Whwat 1919. £ s. d. 176 070 070 036 026 026 050 070 070 076 0 16 0 250 300 060 090 160 200 058 036 026 0 10 0 £742 £13 17 2 Yield, 1913. £ a. d. 4J qrs. at £2 ............... 900 Straw at consuming value ... ...... 0 10 0 9 10 0 Lett cost .................. 743 Profit, 1913 ............ £2 5 10 Yield, 1919. qrs. Straw at consuming value ......... 17 17 6 L«Mcost.. ............ 1317 2 Profit, 1919 ... £404 7974. (7) Third yrar, Oat crop following Wheat. Same charges as for Wheat, plus the first four items in the potato crop, amounting in 1913 to £1 10s., and in 1919 to £4 4s. 6d., and value of eight loads of farmyard manure (less variation in price of seed). One acre of grass land laid down for Hay, 1919. £ a. d Rent 200 Rates 058 Basic slag (5 cwt.) 0 17 6 Spreading same ... ... ... ... 016 Mowing 0 10 0 Making 0 16 0 Carting and stacking ... ... .. 100 Thatching 070, £34 4 2f £5 16 3 Yield. 11 tons of Hay at £8 per ton Grazing eddish 12 1 13 0 Less cost ... ... ... ... 5 16 Profit £734 0 at Profit in 1919 t Corrected figure (See Appendix IV.) 7975. I also submit the following actual figures of the cost* of production of four crops in rotation (the £13 15 10 [ 4-oourae systoml by one of the smallholders on our Swnffham farm, which is exceedingly light land, showing that the inrrensod price, far exceeds the enhanced cost of production. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 93 3 September, 1919.] SIR RICHARD WINFREY, M.P. [Continued. (8) First Year. One acre of Wheat following seeds. 1913. 7 loads farmyard manure Spreading Ploughing 5" deep 4 cwte basic slag ... 1 cwt. sulphate ammonia Harrowing twice Drilling ... Harrowing seed in Rolling Harrowing Weeding (first time) 2 women Ditto (second time) „ Reaping Carting Threshing Coal Carting to merchants Seed corn Rent Rates Depreciation of implements ... National Insurance and Work- men's Compensation Interest on capital ... ... Held, 1919. 1919. £ s. d. £ 8. d. 1 10 0 1 w 0» 0 2 6 0 7 0 0 10 0 1 5 0 0 14 °t 0 10 0 0 3 0 0 6 0 0 2 6 0 5 6 0 1 6 0 3 0 0 1 6 0 3 0 0 1 6 0 3 0 0 1 6 0 5 0 0 1 6 0 5 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 10 0 1 10 0 0 10 0 1 10 0 0 2 0 0 c 0 0 1 9 0 5 3 0 12 0 1 5 0 1 11 6 1 11 6 e 1 0 0 1 6 0 2 6 0 3 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 5 0 0 10 0 £7 11 9 £13 16 9 Yield, 1913. 4 qrs. at £2 per qr. Straw at consuming value Less coat £ s. d. 800 0 12 0 8 12 0 7 11 9 Profit £103 Yield, 1919. 4 qrs. at 75s. 6d. per qr. Straw at consuming value J.esi cost Profit . .£293 7976. (9) Second.Year. Roots — Mangolds, following Wheat Tilting or light ploughing wheat stubble ... Cleaning ... Ploughing 6" deep Ridging and splitting down ... 10 loads farmyard manure ... Rolling 0 Drilling 0 Thinning out and scoring Horse-hoeing (three timed) Lifting 0 Carting 0 Graving and earthing down ... Rent Rates Depreciation of implements ... National Insurance and Work- men's Compensation Seed (61bs.) Interest on capital 1913. 1919. £ s. d. £ 8. d 0 10 0 1 5 0 0 3 6 0 8 0 0 6 8 1 0 0 0 0 10 0 2 8 1 10 0 3 0 0 (1 1 6 0 3 0 0 1 6 0 3 0 0 7 6 1 1 0 0 5 0 0 11 0 0 4 4 0 12 0 0 4 4 0 12 0 0 1 6 0 4 6 ] 11 6 1 11 6 0 1 0 0 1 r, 0 2 6 0 3 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 3 6 0 12 0 0 6 0 0 12 0 £6 3 8 £12 5 0 Field 1913. £ s. d. 15 ton» at 10s 7 10 0 Cost Profit ... £164 15 tons at £1 per ton Cost Profit £ s. d. 151 0 0 12 14 6 £256 7977. (10) Third Year. One acre of Barley following Ploughing, 5" deep 3 cwts. artificial barley manure, (not used in 1913) Harrowing (twice) Drilling 0 Harrowing in Rolling 0 Weeding (first time — 2 women) Do. (second time — 2 do.) .... Reaping 0 Carting ... 0 Threshing 0 Coal Carting to merchants Seed corn (3 bushels) ... Rent Rates Depreciation of Implements ... National Insurance and Work- men's Compensation Interest on Capital g Mangolds. 1913. 1919. £ 8. d. £ 8. d. 0 10 0 1 5 0 1 5 6 0 2 6 0 5 0 u 2 6 0 o 6 0 1 6 0 3 0 0 1 6 0 3 0 0 1 6 0 6 0 0 1 6 0 5 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 10 0 1 10 0 0 10 0 1 10 0 0 2 0 0 6 0 0 1 9 0 5 a 0 11 3 1 6 3 1 11 6 1 11 6 0 1 0 0 1 6 0 2 6 0 3 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 6 0 0 12 0 £6 7 6 £12 5 6 (Ve 4i Qrs. at ! Cost Yield, 1913. r dry year.) s. per Qr. £ s. d. 6 10 6 576 15 2 0 140 16 6 0 13 16 9* Profit £130 Yield, 1919. 4i Qrs. at 90s. per Qr 20 5 Of Cost 13 5 6 Profit . . £7 19 fi 7978. (11) Fourth Year. Grass Land laid for Hay, following Barley. Rent Rates Seed (2 pecks) Mowing ... ... ... ... 0 Making 0 Carting and stacking Thatching £2 18 6 £4 17 2 Add cost of yetting second crop 0 10 0 0 17 Of 1913. 1919. £ s. d. £ B. d. 1 11 6 1 11 6 010 016 090 1 10 2f 050 0 10 0 026 050 076 0 15 0 020 040 £3 8 6t £5 14 2 Yield, 1913. £ s. d. H tons at £5 per ton 7 10 0 J ton (second crop) 3 16 0 11 5 0 Cost 3 8 6f Profit £7 16 6f Yield, 1919. £ s. d. tons at £8 13 0 0 ton (2nd crop) 600 638 Cost 18 0 0 6 14 2f Profit £12 5 10f * figures corrected in course of evidence. I Corrected figures. t Corrected figure. See Question 8060. See Appenditx JV. HoYAI. COMMISSION ON A<;Hirri/n KK. , 1919.] SIR RiriURii WINFREY, M.P. [G .Summary < On what basis is your interest on capital charged:- You do not charge an o\er!ica.l n on the holding; ><>u charge ililleivnt rate* for dill. crops?— I took the potato crop— that was of course m\ o»n working out as costing £l«i •!«. lid. to produce, and I took the interest on that practically a little • and I did the same with the other. 8003. In paragraph (7) you give without working u out in detail the cost "t the third year oat crop follow- ing wheat? — Yea. 8004. Is that a fairly normal order of cropping in the district?- It is in beeping Ken. 8005. You say it is the same charges a* for wheat? Yes 8006. What is the wheat figure now, after the i ,.i reotion you gave us this morning?- The correction was with regard to the Norfolk figures: you are now on the Lincolnshire figures. 8007. Then Nos. 6 and 7 are correct?— ies. The wheat charge in paragraph (4) €13 17s. 2d., to which you add £4 4s. 6d., being the first four items in the potato crop?— Yes. 8009. To that you add £3 for dung?— Yes. 8010. Making per acre of oats £21 Is. 8d., less variation in the price of seeds. What is that varia- tion? Does your oat seeding cost less than 25s. an - a little less than the wheat. t 8011. Does it cost leas than 25s. an acre?— What do we put in for wheat? 8012. 25s. I am talking of 1919?— Yes, £1 5s. could not say what would he exactly the difference between the seeding of an acre of oats and the seeding of an acre of wheat. 8013. I put it to you it would at all events not be >ian I'".-., and it would probably lie a good deal more. Seed oats would need to be reckoned, would they not, at somewhere not less than 8s. a bushel. The controlled price for feeding oats was 6s. a bushel, and seed oats would lie higher than that? think vou are right. 8014.' Seeding oats would be substantially more than that. Kour bushels would bo low seeding for oats, would it not? — These men buy their seeds from one another ns a rule: they do not go and buy the best seed. -ill.-, Do they take less than market price from one another 'r No. 'they take the 6s.; I think that would IM- a fair price. 8016. That would bring it out at Is. less if you had only four bushels to the- acre, which I think you would agree would be a low seeding ?- Yes ; that would bo tl 4s. 8017 There is a reduction of Is. on that, and tho total cost of oats is therefore £21 Os. 8d?— Yes. That is the m«-t expensive crop of the year, because it i« then followed by the wheat crop. 8018. If that 'crop is to stand bv itself, and if you indicate a separate profit on each crop, it means a very high cost of production, does it not?— It does. H019. Have von stated the yield of oats at all? No. T have not done that. 1 nm afraid I did not go into the oat crop as thoroughly as I went into the potatoes and wheat. 8020. T am just taking the figures that you have given us? -Yes. quite 8021. The next crop that you give is a crop of grass land laid down for hay in 1919?— Yes. 8022. When was that laid down when was it sown? It was permanent grass. '. Then it was not laid down- No. it should have been " One acre of permanent grass laid down for hay.." 8024. Had that no manuring, except 5 cwt. of basic That is 80. 8025. No dung?— No. R020. No nitrogen?— No. 8027. This vield is very high for a crop which has had practically no manure* That is tho estimate he has made. 8028. Has that estimate been oho< kcd'- -No. saw the hay stack : he mowed .1 acres and he reckons he has got 4 J tons. . t See Appendix No. IV. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 95 3 September, 1919.] SIR RICHARD WINFREY, M.P. [Continued. 8029. That is only an estimate by looking at it? — It is an estimate by looking at the stack; it has not ieen sold. 8030. A considerable error may arise by estimating from mere appearance a stack of this year's hay? — I find these men know pretty accurately what they have got. 8031. I suppose you will agree that very great over estimates have sometimes been formed even by skilled men of the amount of hay they have had for dis- posal during the last few years? — Yes. 8032. That has been the experience of the Forage Committee, has it not? — I daresay, but this man is an extremely careful man, one of the most caroful men I know, and I do not think he would exaggerate. 8033. In the case of wheat following seeds how long do you suppose these seeds have been down? — Now you are going on to Norfolk. 8034. Yes? — That of course is a four course system. The seeds are sown with the barley and then they are mown the next year; that is the system in Norfolk. 8035. So that some part of the seeds cropped would really fall to be debited against that year of wheat, would it not? — I do not follow that. 8036. There would be a considerable residue from the seeds that have been down one year, would there not?— Yes. 8037. Mr. Eea: You say you have 2,266 acres divided among 290 tenants? — Yes. 8038. That is an average of about 7J per man? — Yes. 8039. Do they devote themselves entirely to this work? — You must not take the average like that because on each farm we have let some land in allot- ments of 1 acre, 2 acres and 3 acres, to people who are residing in the neighbourhood. The resident tenants have ranged from 20 to 30 acrea, those for whom we have houses. 8040. These other allotment holders follow other occupations? — They do. 8041. Are they included in the 39 families that I think you said were in these holdings? — No, in that 3U families on the Crown farm the Crown have built us houses for every one of them. We have 39 houses now upon the estate. 8042. Independent of the allotment holders houses? — Yes, quite independent of them. 8043. What is the highest rent per acre-? The average rent works out to 43s. an acre?— The highest rent for some of the grass land goes up to about 50s. and the lowest rent — we vary the rents according to the quality of the land — goes down as low as £1 and 25s. 8044. Do the allotment holders, whose land I sup- pose is really held for accommodation land, pay 50s., the maximum? — Yes, we make no difference in their case. 8045. These men who do carry on farming as their sole occupation assist each other on the different hold- ings ? — They do. 8046. Have they any system of co-operation by way of purchasing implements and machinery, and so on? — Not for the purchase of implements and machinery, but on this Wingland estate we have a co-operative trading society which I started ten years ago, and this co-operative trading society buys and sells for them manure* and cotton cakes, and so on. We also have a mill for grinding their corn, and there we grow a considerable amount of fruit in addition. \Ve have now more than 100 acres under fruit on the farm, and this trading society deals with all the fruit nnd sends it to the co-operative wholesale society. 8047. Of course each man will not have work for a pair of horses? — No. Of course those that have not got horses get their horses from their neighbours at a certain charge. 3. Can they get them when they want them? May not they have their land ready for sowing and not have horses to carry out the operation? — They do get them, but there is no doubt the man who hns his own horseflesh (!omes off best, he hns the command of them first, but he turns round and helps his neigh- n'l tlnT«- is no practical difficulty about it. 9, They work it out amongst themselves? — They do. 2."32!l 8050. In paragraph (6), with reference to wheat after potatoes, 1 see you put down two weedings. Is that customary after potatoes ? — Good farmers do that. 8051. You put the cost of both weedings at the same price. I should have thought that in the case of the second weeding there would not be so much to do, and that the cost therefore would not be so high? — It only means a day's work. 8052. Still it amounts to 7s. an acre? — Yes. 8053. The two could not be of equal value. How do they manage the reaping and tying of their corn? Do they do it by manual labour mostly? — No, many of them have self-binders now. I am sorry I did not get out the number of implements like we did with regard to the live stock. We have at least ten or a dozen self-binders. One man will invest in a self- binder and let it out to his friends. 8054. You have put two separate items, reaping 7s. 6d. and tying 15s. ? — Yes, this particular man has not a self-binder. 8055. He does it with a manual reaper? — Yes. 8056. In paragraph (8), with regard to Norfolk, in the estimate of production of wheat you have got down 4 cwt. of basic slag, 1 cwt. of ammonia, and spreading 14s.? — Yes. 8057. That, surely, must be an error? Four cwt. of basic slag would cost at least 16s., and 1 cwt. of sulphate of ammonia 15s., and the spreading would be over and above that? — I am not quite sure whether the word "or" should not be in there. I have not got my original notes here. 8058. You mean it is an alternative, 4 cwt. of basic slag or 1 cwt. of sulphate of ammonia? — Yes, I think that is it, but, as I say, I have not got my original notes here. 8059. In any case, the cost of that is rather low? — I think that is the explanation of it. 8060.t In the barley crop in that same rotation you have taken in 1913, which was a very dry year, 4J quarters at 29s. a quarter, £6 10s. 6d., less cost £5 7s. 6d., leaving a profit of £1 3s.; and in 1919 you have taken the yield at 5Jr quarters at 70s. a quarter, £19 5s., less cost £12 5s. 3d., leaving a profit of £6 19s. 6d., and you deduct from that that the prices of the produce have more than counterbalanced the increased cost of production? — Yes, that is so. 8061. Do you think that it is fair to add on a quarter in 1919 and charge £3 10s. for it? — These are the actual figures that this Swaffham smallholder gave me, and I took them down naturally without any addition or subtraction. He considers he has got 5J quarters this year, and he only had 4J quarters in 1913. 8062. Do you think that is fair?— That is for the Commission to decide ; if they like to take one quarter off they will do so. 8063. What is the normal or average yield do you know?— Of barley? 8064. Yes? — I think this is quite a low yield for Nor- folk ; this is very light land indeed which cost us less than £20 an acre. 8065. On this particular land would you take 4J or 5 or 5J quarters as an average crop? — I take 5 as an average — that is the average of these two years. 8066. I submit to you that would be a fairer way to get at the difference of cost? — You would put five quarters for 1913 and five quarters for 1919. 8067. Yes, that seems to be a fairer way to get at the difference? — Yes. 8068. Are most of these figures estimated or actual yields ? — These are actual vields. 8069. The mangolds in 1919 will not be lifted yet?— No ; that of course is an estimate. 8070. Is 15 tons about a fair average crop? — It is for this land. 8071. You state that the land has increased in value from 30 per cent, to 100 per cent".? — It has. 8072. Is that in rentals? — Both in rentals and in sales. 8073. Do you mean that landlords have actually increased the rents to sitting tenants? — I will give you a case of a farm in Fleet near Holbeach of 174 acres. The farmer has a lease for 14 years which expired in 1908 at £420 a year. The farmer was then granted a new lease for 7 years at .£560 a year. That lease expired in 1915 during the war. He was then t See Appendix No. IV. 96 ROTAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. , 1919.] SIR RICHARD WINFREY, M.P. permitted to continue M • yearly tenant at £660 a year Last Michaelmas he had notice to quit and the farm has been let for £880 a year. 8074 Was it very low rented formerly?— I should not think so— £420 a year for 14 years expiring in 1908. It was U-t during the bad times and there are only 174 acres, so that it was not a very low rent; it was over 50s. nn acre then. 8075. I suppose it was very good land or there was something exceptional about it? — It is fair south Lincolnshire land which is now being sold at £100 an acre and which sold in pre-» nr dnys at £50 an acre. 8076. Is it in a potato growing area?— Yes. A sale took place last week. 1 have the particulars hero taken out of the present issue of the Lincolnshire I'ress of th«> Allcnbv Kstates which have been in tli.' All. •nby family for 200 years. It is in my own native parish. Several lots of land made more than £100 an aero. This is in the Fen district. Lot 21. 12 acres one rood of arable land near the Star Inn at Tydd Fen, six miles from a railway station, made £1,300. I venture to say that is twice the price it would have made in 1912. 8077. It is very good land I take it?— It is good land; it is Lincolnshire land. Lot 1 on Lady Mon- tagu's Estate which was also sold the same day and which I know quite well, of 9 acres one rood in tin- Middle Drove, Gedney, sold for £900. The whole Kstate made £43,000, 100 per cent, more than it would have made before the war. 8078. Of course, we all know that much land is selling at a greatly increased price? — Yes. That is my confirmation of "the 100 per cent increase in value. Of course you have many instances of the 50 per cent, increase, but there is a case of land that is making 100 per cent, more than it would have done in pre-war times, and 1 say that is a infallible index of the great prosperity of the agricultural industry. ^i79. (Jh the whole do these smallholders bring fairly enlightened methods to bear on their system of cultivation and management or is the labour what you might call wastefully employed owing to not having sufficiency of the right number of implements and other things necessary for the various operations?— I find that these smallholders keep up to date in re- gard to implements. If I have any fault to find with the Lincoln tenant farmers it is that they do not go in for a sufficient variety of crops ; they follow tho old system of cropping and do not go in quite sufficiently for catch crops. You will see that from the list of things grown on these 2,000 acres. 8080. You told us that they had to wait on one another for horses, and that sort of thing? — They all stack in « common stackyard and they agree amongst themselves whose corn shall be led first. Then they all set to and lead John Smith's or Bob Brown's, "or whoever it may be, in the rotation that is agreed upon and it is all stacked in a common stackyard. They co-operate in leading, and threshing more than in anything, I think. 8081. Do you consider from an economic point of view that the output under the present system is as great as it would be if this land were divided into perhaps two large forms with more machinery and so on. Is the output, considering the number of men employed, as great as tho output would be if it wero in large farms instead of smallholdings? — You mean in the way of the production of food? 8082. Yes.— Of course with regard to these three Lincolnshire, farms of Lord Lincolnshire's which wo took oror 25 years ago — it is no secret now so I nm abV to mention it- two of the farmers were bankrupt and owed Lord Lincolnshire n good deal of rent which he forgavo them and lot tlicir farms to our Associa- tion. We have carried them on for 25 years from 1894 »h»-n whent was 2oK. a nuarter and we have r had a single fniluro. We have always paid our rent punctually except on one occasion. That was in the \<-nr 15)12 '.Oiich wna a disastrously wot year. On that occasion wo got 10 p<«r cent, reduction. Now we have a flourishing colony of smallholders several of whom have retired nnd made way for their sons. 8088. Do you look upon this as an economic propo- ftition. from tho national standpoint of producing tho greatest nmriint of food in tho most economical wnv ..r do \ou lo -k upon it rather as a means of •ing the end of keeping people on the land? — I think both. I think certainly in the whole of this area of south Lincolnshire if you were to hare huge systems of smallholdings such as these you would increase the population and also increase the food. 8084. Per acre per man? — Per acre. ^iv,. With the first proposition I agree, but not with tho second? — I think you would increase the population. We have increased the population there, I am glad to say. The census shows th:it. 8086. Mr. Overman: I will not touch much upon ili.- Lincolnshire evidence you have put before us. I will leave that to those who are more used to potato growing than I am, but I want to go very carefully with you through your Norfolk figures. There are just one or two points on the evidence from Liooln- shire that I want to ask a question or two about. The total acreage is 2,255?— Yes. 8087. The grass for hay is permanent grass? — Yes. 8088. You deduct from the 2,255 acres 445 acres under grass and that leaves you a total of 1,810 acres under the plough? — That is so. 8089. You say these smallholders have to wait for their horse teams and those sort of things at certain periods olF the year to hire them from the men who own tho horses? — Yes, quite. 8090. I see you have 174 horses on the farms? 8091. How many horses to the 100 acres is it cus- tomary to have? 174 would bo about 10 horses to tho 100 acres? — Then they do not have to wait about very much you see. 8092. I should think not, but you said they would have to wait?— No, not much. I said they help one another. 8093. With 10 horses to the 100 acres you could . not plough the land for £1 2s. 6d. an acre, and your cost of horse flesh must be enormous? — The man who gave me this evidence has 18 acres of arable land and six acres of grass. It is a 24 acre holding and he keeps a pair of horses. He does liis I find not. You see they are a long way from the market. I find that tho number of cows has rather decreased than increased. 8098. Dr. Douglas touched on the question of labour on your smallholdings. You say that in reckoning profits each smallholder charges the current rate of wages, 7s. a day, for his labour? — This man whom I interviewed the other day has charged exactly what he charges nny other smallholder when he goes and works for him, 7s. a day for his labour. 8099. He does not charge the overtime that he puts in on his smallholding in the evenings? — No. 8100. He does not stop at 54 hours? — No, but in return for that ho has all his milk and bis poultry and his pigs. That is all done in his overtime-. 8101. Taking your wheat crop in Lincolnshire, do not they ever thatch the crops in Lincolnshire. I Ma there is no change down here for thatching? — There is some thatching done, but not a great deal. They thresh as soon ns they can after harvest. I daresay in the case of this man he never does nny thatching. t 8102. But the cost of thatching should be accounted for if any thatching is done even in Lincolnshire? — I should say this mnn in nine cases out of ten threshes ns soon after harvest as ho possibly can. 8103. This weather looks at the present moment as if ho ought to thntch his crops? — They put a stack cover over them for a few weeks and get the engine into the yard as soon as they can and thresh. 8104. In tho oat crop you admit that Dr. Douglas's figures are correct — that it costs £21 Os. 8d. in Lincoln- f See Appendix No. IV. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 97 3 September, 1919.] SIR RICHARD WINFREY, M.P. [Continued. shire to grow? — If you follow this rotation it does. Of course, if you grow the oats after potatoes — and they do sometimes grow oats after potatoes instead of after wheat — then, of course, those first four items do not come in. Those first four items have to be brought in two years out of the three, you see. 8105. Is this particular holding surrounded by a fence or a ditch ? — Both. The grass land we fenced off. This man has six acres of grass; that is fenced off. They were most of them about 20 acre fields. He would have a third of the field and the others were all ditches and each man has to keep his ditches clear. 8106. To what crop do you charge what we call the unprofitable labour of cleaning out these ditches, which is a very necessary thing in Lincolnshire, or trimming the fences? — If this man had to rely abso- lutely on these three crops it would be different, but you must remember he has his stock and his pigd and his poultry and butter and eggs. I think I may say almost that his wife has paid the rent of this place practically out of the poultry and eggs during the war. 8107. Yea, but do you not think that something should be charged to the wheat crop for keeping the ditches clean, which must be cleaned every year, and for putting the fences in order. It has to be charged to gome crop or another? — What we do with regard to the ditches on this farm, which is a long narrow farm, two miles long, is this: the whole of the ditches are put in order by the Association, and each man is charged his share of the cost per acre whatever it may be. The men do the work ; the Steward goes do« n and tells six of them, say, to start the ditching, and he pays them the rate of wages and the total cost is divided amongst them all when the rent is paid. It is not in the cost of these crops certainly. 8108. It ought to be?— It ought to be taken off the whole profit of the whole of it, but this is not the whole profit of the whole of it. 8109. Yes, but in taking out estimates of this sort you must allocate these charges to the particular crops in proportion? — In proportion, yes, but it would be a very small proportion. 8110. However, it is a proportion? — Yes. 8111. In the grass land laid down for hay in 1919, is there anything for seeds? — I said it ought to be one acre of permanent grass laid down for hay : the word " permanent " was omitted. 8112. I had not got that. Will you now turn to Norfolk ; this is very light land as you and I know ? — Yes. 8113. Is it on the south side of Swaffham this particular side of the holding?— No, it is on the Watton road. 8114. To the south?— No, it lies between the Watton road and the Brandon road. 8115. That is due south?— Yes. 8116. Take your estimate for growing wheat first of all. You 'have put down 10 loads of farmyard manure. That you say ought to be 7? — Yes'. 8117. There is nothing charged for carting that?- No. Of course, this man lives on his holding — the land is all round his house — so that his carting would be very little. I do not know whether he includes it in the 5s. a load. 8118. He ha* to put it on to the cart and take it to the field in a cart? — Quite. 8119. So that is an omission. Then with regard to the artificials. Mr. Rea has made the point that even if it should be only one item, 4 cwts. of basic slag or 1 cwt. of sulphate of ammonia, 14s. is in- adequate?— This man says 14s., and you say it ought to be 16s.; it is 2s. out.f 8120. And spreading?— Yes. 8121. Again there is nothing there for thatching? — No. I should very much question whether this man ever thatches. 8122. He has to cover it up with something? — As I say, he covers it up with a cloth until such time as he gets the threshing machine into the yard. 8123. Last year the War Agricultural Committee of Norfolk were searching out the people who did not thatch?— They did not catch any of the little men. 8124. Yes, they caught little men as well as big t 8t( Appendix No. IV. men? — All I can say is none of my smallholders were caught. 8125. You were lucky. Now turn to the yield : do you think that the average yield on that particular smallholding — I know the land well — is 4 quarters of wheat to the acre on light land such as that is, taking a cycle of years? — We have had this farm since 1900— that is 19 years— no, I honestly do not think that during the whole of the 19 years if you struck an average that they have got 4 quarters, but I think this man does, because in my opinion he is one of the best of them. 8126. Would you be surprised to know that a man to the south of him, whose land may not perhaps be as good land although it is all pretty much on a par, has only got an average yield for the last six years of 21i bushels? — There is a lot of land which is over- ridden with game there, and which has only really been scratched over and not farmed at all. The crops are eaten up by the game, and I should like to know what parish it is in before I can answer your question. If it is in South Pickenham, where it is overrun with game, it would of course be a very small crop. 8127. Now if you will turn to the roots, the charge for ridging is 2s. 6d. No doubt it is double ridging. Have you any idea what a man with a pair of horses can run up and split down in the day? — I should think getting on for three acres. 8128. That is only 7s. 6d. for a pair of horses and a man? — They do not use a pair of horses on this land very often. 8129. Then they would not do three acres? — No. 8130. I put it to you I can very rarely get two acres done, run up and split down? — That shows the advan- tage of smallholdings, because this man gets it done cheaper than you do. 8131. He does not charge his labour, that is all I can say. It is such an absurd figure that it puts your figures completely out of Court. He cannot do it under five times the amount. It proves the fallacy of the whole report? — That is your view, not mine. 8132. You have not had much experience as a prac tical agriculturist? — I have had 25 years carefully watching these people. 8133. With regard to the yield, I should think your estimate of 15 tons of mangolds is about correct? — Are there any other items that you dispute? 8134. No? — If it is only the ridging, I dare say you are right about that. 8135. Now barley. You have charged ploughing 5 inches deep at 25s.? — Yes. 8136. If you turn back to the roots again, you charge ploughing 6 inches deep, £1 — that is the second year roots? — Yes. 8137. There must be an error there I take it? — Yes. 8138. These must be estimates ?— Yes ; that does not work out. 8139. Then we will come to the workmen's compensa- tion. You charge 2s. Cd. in 1919, the same as you charge in 1913. both in Norfolk and in Lincolnshire. The premiums for workmen's compensation have risen 100 per cent, since 1913? — These men do not insure; themselves. 8140. They do not insure themselves under the Workmen's Compensation Act? — No. 8141. You have put down " Workmen's compensa- tion " ? — That is just the casual labour they have from time to time. 8142. The premiums cost considerably more now than they did in 1913?— Yes. 8143. With regard to the yields, do you think that Swaffham land can grow 5£ quarters of barley in this very deplorable year that we have had. It is not threshed yet, I take it?— No. 8144. It is only an estimate then? — Yes, but it is a very good crop on this land ; it is much above the average. 8145. I can assure you that the whole of Norfolk will not average 4 quarters this year? — Of course, but when you take the whole of Norfolk you take some very pool land with it. 8146. This is not very valuable land? — When Mr. Gooding was giving evidence here ho said the cost of producing barley was £8 17s. 3d., whereas this man's estimate is £12 5s .6d., so if you take the average yield you must take the average cost. I am giving you the G 2 98 ROTAL COMMISSION ON AGBICULTUBE. 3 S&tmbrr, 1919.] SIR RICHARD WINFREY, M.P. [Continued. actual figures of what this smallholder reckons it costs 3147. Yos, but I am asking you whether this man erer did grow 5\ quartersP 8148. Yes, of barley, certainly; that is an extremal} good barloy farm, as you know. 8149. You are putting "» as the- ayerage, I lake, .t 4J in 1913 and 5* in 1019. Do you really think that farm will average 5 quarter, to the acre?— Yea, I think so; that is one quarter above the average for Norfolk. 8150. Now, turn to the grass land laid down hav-that is tho fourth voar?— Yos. §151. Seed, 2 pecks, ifs. 6d.?-Yes. 8152. Have you any idea yourself of what grass seeds cost this year?— No I have not. 8153 Would it surprise you to know that possibl- to buy 2 pocks of small seeds under £2?— Yes, it would surprise mo if this man ha«s not given me the actual figures of what it cost him. 8154 I am certain he has not, because it is an im- po«sihility to buy 2 pocks of small seeds and sow a crop which will return you a ton and a half of hay t 17s fd I expect what he means is a peck of heavy nnd a p?ck of light 16 Ibs. to the peck of heavy seed. That is the custom in Norfolk. Have you anything to say on that?— No, I cannot carry that any further. Thnt is what he told me. I have always looked upon him as a truthful man, and I was very anxious that he should not either exaggerate or extenuate. I will raise that point with him again certainly. f 8155. Is the ton and a half of hay— the yield given for this year — an estimate, or has it been measured in the stack"?— No, it is an estimate; ho has not sold any yet in fact, I think he is going to consume it h m- polf ; this man keeps cows. 8156. You know we never had a drop of ram in .Ju this year?— V 8167. I should not think there was a ton of hay an acre grown on any field in Norfolk this year?- says a ton and a half, and he puts it at £8 a ton. That is what he considered the value to him. sold it I suppose he would get £10 a ton for it to-day or even more. 8158. I wish I could bring myself to believe that these figures are accurate ones and not estimates. I should then have more belief in your belief in the future prosperity of agriculture?- I am sorry to hear vou take that view. I have no doubt about it i ' 8159. No doubt about the figures?— I have no doubt about the prosperity of agriculture. 8160. We all hope you are correct?- have nev been so convinced as to its future prosperity as 1 have been since consulting with hank managers and other people and hearing that agriculturists have been able to pay off their mortgages and have got credit at the. bank such as they have never had before in my time. 8161. What siso do you say this particular small- holding in Swaffham is?— I think ho hns about acres, but I am not quite sure. He has some other land that he hires. I am not sure whether tho whole of the 24 acres belongs to us or not, but I think it is a 24-acre holding. 8162. I am sure you wish to give us every help you can in this matter? — I do. 8163. I should like when this crop is threshed for you to irivc- us proof positive of what these things come to? Yes. I will do that if only for my own sake. !. And also with regard to tbeso few other matters that I have picked out. if you will go into Al and give u« the- details. If you find there has te'in an gve u« e e. been a mistake we will give you an opportunity of cor- recting it. 1 think there must, bo some mistakp?- Ye*. I will just mnko a noto of the. various points. First of all you rai«e the question of the basic slag — 81ft">. You need not trouble to take n note of it; it will all bo in the evidence. 1 am afraid I differ from you very much as regards those costings. Wo an only out for the truth? -Quite. 1 notic,- that when Mr Hooding, who represent* the Norfolk Farmers' I'nion. gave evidence here he said that the cost iif growing an acre of wheat was £11 fanned well. I wish to'make that statement at once? — Thank you. 8169. Mr. Bntchelor: Can you toll us how many acres are under allotments nnd how many are occupied by tho smallholders? — No, I could not tell that off- hand, but, roughly. I think 1 might say that the i about 200 acres which are let in small plots ranging from 1 aero to 3. 8170. Are these smallholdings, so far a« tho pur- c-h.i-es. say. of manures are concerned, wrought as one? Does the AS-CH iation buy the manures for the whole of the smallholdings? — No. ^171. They buy them all individually, do they?— We have no trading society in Lincolnshire as wo have in Norfolk. The trading society that we have in Norfolk does buy the manure' in the bulk and sell it out to the smallholder a sack at a time, or whatever quantity he requires. 8172. In Lincolnshire each smallholder purchases his own manure P- 8173. That adds to the cost of manure as compared with the large farm?— No. Our trading society buys their manure mostly from tho Wo-t Norfolk Farmers* Manure Company at Lynn. -17-1. I am dealing with the Lincolnshire small- holders; they buy their manure individually ?- 8175. If you buy in small quantities you are charged a higher rate than if you buy in large quantii I suppose they do lose a' little in that way, but they are keen buyers. 8176. I have no doubt the sellers are very MM sellers?— Yes. 8177. Will you turn to paragraph (4^ the costs of team and manual labour. Are those actually paid by the smallholders ?— -Will you toll mo what the cost of team and manual labour is per day? — I have given ymi the manual labour. 8178. Yes. Will you give us the team labour?— I, unfortunately, did not bring those figures with me; I must supply thom.t 8179. Thank you. Now will you go to potatoes in the next paragraph? Tho only artifirial manure is 10 cwt. of superphosphates? — There is the farmyard manure. 8180. I say the only artificial manure?— Yes, that is so. 8181. There- was no sulphate of ammonia used 1'' —No. I specially a-kod him what manure he used, and he s:ud he bought the superphosphates. 8182. Were' those- potatoes sprayed ?— They have not been .sprayed this year. It might interest you to ln-ar that for this .si-a*on spraying has done no good. I do not say that, spraying is not beneficial. 1 only say it just happens that' thi- year it has not clone any good. I believe in spi I :!' :l matter of fact I bought n sprayer for these men this year, but, as I say, it not been •• 8183. The cost of seed is put down at 15 ewt.. £5 5s. Is it English or Scotch seed?— It is what • oalle-d second grown. at the nte of £7 per ton P— Yes. t See Appendix No. IV. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 99 3 September, 1919.] SIR RICHARD WINFREY, M.P. [Continued. 8185. Where can you get seed at £7 per ton? — This man did get it at that price. I will make enquiries and let you know where he got it from.f 8186. When you come to the yield it is based on 6 tons at £8 per ton, the actual price made in 1918? — Yes, we took the actual price made in 1918 because we do not know what he is going to get for his crop this year. As a matter of fact he has sold just a few earlies at £10 a ton. We put in that figure of £8 a ton because that is the actual price he made in 1918 for his crop and he hopes to make as much this year. 8187. Was that 1918 crop main crop or an early crop? — They were King Edwards. 8188. Do you know when they were sold1? — I think he told me he delivered them in March. 8189. This was in Lincolnshire?— Yes. 8190. I can refer you to the prices according to the Potato (Prices) Growers' Commission for Lincoln- shire on black land ? — This is not black land. 8191. On other black land £7 19s. was the maxi- mum price in March? — What was it the next month? 8192. £8. — I know this man sold some time in the spring. 8193. I do not see anything put down for the ex- pense of dressing these potatoes over a If inch riddle which you have to do before you can get the price of £8 a ton. Do you know where that expense comes in ? They also have to be delivered free on rail. How far is this from a railway station? — This is three miles from a railway station. 8194. Those items have been omitted, and they ought to be included before you can get the £8, and to get the £8 delivery must have taken place not earlier than in April? — I will find out when he sold these potatoes. 8195. Can you also ascertain if there were actually delivered in 1918 — 6 tons as late in the season as April ?— Yes, I will find that out. 8196. You do not know whether that is accurate or not? — I believe it is accurate. 8197. Is 6 tons an average crop? — I think 6 tons is a little below the average on this land rather than above. We have had some men who have grown 10 tons to the acre, but that is an exceptional crop. 8198. In 1913 you have a yield of 6 tons. Do you know whether that is an actual figure or an estimated figure? — No, I do not. 8199. t Could you find out the actual cash that this particular holder received for his potato crop in 1913 and the actual cash he received for his potato crop in 1918?— Yes, I will do so. 8200. Thank you. In the items of cost you have rates 5s. 8d. in 1913 and 5s. 8d. in 1919 on the £2 rent?— Yes. 8201. Have the rates not gone up since 1913? — No, they have not in that district. 8202. They are very fortunate?— They are. It is a rural area. I may say we pay the rates in a lump sum on this farm. The advantage of that is, of course, that we have never had our assessment altered since it was one holding. The steward pays the rates in the lump and divides them up per acre, each man paying his share. 8203. Have the actual county rates not gone up between 1913 and 1919?— Not our district rate; the only rate that has gone up higher has been the drain- age rate, and that the landlord pays over and above 2s. an acre. 8204. t In paragraph (6) you deal with the cost of production of an acre of wheat. Could you ascer- tain what was the actual money received by this smallholder for hia wheat in 1913? — Yes. 8205. Looking at the Norfolk figures, the second year, the growing of mangolds, I see you finish the expenditure there with graving and earthing down, and then you put in 15 tons at 10s. per ton. Your expanse does not include, apparently, taking these mangolds off the field from the graver— Do you mean taking them from the grave into the yard or the chaff-house where they cut them up? 8200. Yc.,y We finish this account so far as the growing of mangolds is concerned when we grave them down. The other charge would be a charge to the dairy ; this man has four cows. 8207. Do you suggest when you sell such a crop as that, that the place of delivery is in a grave in one of your fields? — If this man sold any of them off to his neighbours they would come and fetch them. 8208. So that that would be the place of delivery — in a grave in the field? — Yes. 8209. Not the ordinary delivery to the purchaser?— No, not unless he gets paid for it. 8210. Then in paragraph (10) the cost of producing barley, you have 3 cwt. of artificial manure at 16s. 6d. You have got £1 5s. 6d. down for that. It should be £2 9s. 6d. What is the explanation of that? — I am afraid that is a typist's error ; there is some- thing wrong there, certainl.y.f 8211. Now when you come to reaping, carting and threshing, you have reaping £1. Has this man a self- binder? — Not of his own; he will probably hire it. 8212. I was comparing the £1 with your Lincoln- shire price and it does not tally? — I expect it is more in Lincolnshire; wages in Lincolnshire are higher all the way round than they are in Norfolk. 8213. Now come to the next item, carting. In Nor- folk the carting is £1 10s. Od. and in Lincolnshire you have put down the carting as £2 5s. Od.? — Yes; that is what I should expect to find. 8214. In Norfolk you are dealing with 5J quarters of barley that you are carting and in Lincolnshire you are dealing with 4^ quarters of wheat? — One man has to cart a mile — -the Lincolnshire man. It is a long narrow farm 2 miles in length, and the other man lives within a stone's throw of his field. 8215. Take the next item, threshing. It is £2 in Lincolnshire and £1 10s. Od. in Norfolk. Is there any reason why it should be so different? — As I say, all Lincolnshire prices are higher, team labour and everything. 8216. " Carting to merchants, 5s. 3d."— how is that? — In the Norfolk district it is half a mile. This man would sell his barley to Preston. This is prac- tically in the' village — in • the little town of Swaff- ham. 8217. Are the rates much less in Norfolk than in Lincolnshire? — Yes. 8218. The rates are Is. 6d.?— That is right. I have looked at his receipts and I know that is the correct figure. 8219. Whereas in Lincolnshire they are 5s. 8d. on £2? — This land is assessed at about half the value of tho Lincolnshire to start with. 8220. Look at the next paragraph, grass land laid for hay. Were there no manures there? — No. The seeds are sown, as you know, with the barley or just after the barley, and there is no manure put on. 8221. None whatever ?— No. 8222. Will you look at the making of the hay, 5s. Is that not a typist's mistake for 15s.? You have 15s. in the other sheet? — I think it is low, but there again you will find everything is lower in Norfolk in the way of costs. 8223. I do not understand the item in the yield, " } Ton (second crop). £6." Was that also made into hay? — Yes, they mow the second crop. 8224. t Where do you charge the expense of it, be- cause it is not in at all. It cannot be in the first one, and you are giving credit there for £6 and are putting absolutely no expense whatever against it. This particular smallholder, I think, you hav"e told us, has 24 acres? — Yes, I think that is what he has on our land. 8225. Can you get for us the actual area of wheat mangolds, barley and hay seeds, because you bring out an average profit per acre of £6 4s. 4d., and without knowing the area we cannot arrive at an average? — They would not be exactly equal of course. 8226. And if this man has sufficient figures to enable you to make out a cash balance sheet to show what cash ho has made either last year or this year, it would be very interesting? — This man has farmed on this land for 19 years now, and ho had very little capital when he started — 8227. t We have estimates of all the various items, but if you rould give us the actual balance sheet of this particular small holding it would be very in- teresting?— I will try and get it for you. 8228. Thank you? — He has kept more accounts than most of the men ; that is why I went to him. t See Appendix No. IV. t See Appendix No. IV. 2532'.) G 3 100 ROTAL COMMISSION ON AGKICL'LTI UK. , 1919.] SIB UK-HARD WINFREY, M.P. 8229. Mr. Ashby : You have been asked a good many question* as to the accuracy of throe estimate*. I should like you to give us your general opinion. Looking at these figures for acreage and live stock it would appear that tin- main business is the {•in- duction of cereals and potatoes excepting in the case of one estate where you have some fruit, but the rearing of live stock is very important, is it not? Is it your experience that since the war where the small- holder's business has been mainly concerned with cereals they have been financially successful? — I think the smallholder whilst he gets a living profit on his cereals the strength of his position is that ne keeps two or three cows, and that he rears his calves and never has any stock to buy. He breeds from his marcs and his foals and never has any young horses to buy, and he does the same with his breeding sows. So that he is constantly having something to sell each year, and has not to go to the market like big farmers have to do when they want to buy anything. That is his strength so far as cattle are concerned. Then, of course, his wife looks after the poultry and they run a much larger head of poultry, as you SIM', per acre than the big man does. I think, therefore, the strength of the smallholders' position is verv largely in their stock. When you come to Wingland* I think the strength of the men's position there is going to be in their fruit. I might say that I interviewed about 39 ex-soldiers the other day living near this estate who want land and houses to settle down on. Thev only had allotments on the Wingland estate before they joined up in the Army. As I say I interviewed 39 of them the other day— it took me the whole day. I examined each man. One man proved to me that his brother and he had an acre of land between them in partnership. They grew half an acre of straw- berries on half of the land, and they made last year out of their half acre of strawberries "£130 gross which they estimated returned them £80 net — that is off half an acre of land. They have let the young plants spread, and there is such a demand for young plants that they have sold £20 worth of young plants. So that they have made £100 off half an acre of strawberries I interviewed another young man, and he made off half an acre of strawberries a net profit of £55. So that I think is the strength of their position — and mark you that is land that was alJ being farmed be- fore at £1 an acre for years; it was let by the Crown to one man at £1 an acre — and these mon have dis- covered that they can grow fruit upon it, and 1 believe the strength of their position on that 1,000 acres is going to be fruit, but on the Lincolnshire and Norfolk land there is no doubt the strength of the smallholder's position is in his stock. Is that the sort of answer you wanted? 8230. It is not a quest-on of what answer I want; it is a question of your opinion and of what one can see from the figures you produce. It is your general opinion that if a smallholder is to be BUCC< ssful In- cannot depend upon cultivations unless it is oa a purely market garden system, and that he must have his live stock to consume his produce:' Quit,- to, ami he must IM. able to turn round if the markets are against him and consume a great deal of what ho has grown -which is what they do do. 8231. In not another element in the strength of his position the fact that he is consuming a large amount of the pr.,.|i,,-H of his holding ?_Ycs, I think that is ) too. \\ hen prices are low and things are against him ho can turn his produce into bacon or beof. or whatever it may be. H232. Have you ever studied or ran you give us an> •ort of figure with reference to the labour income of a man who in farming a smallholding such as these aro, of say 20 acre*:- Hy labour income I mean the wages for hi* own manual labour and possibly hi» wife*, and the net profit?— That, of course, is the difficulty with nil farmers; they will not give vo.i their profit*: they will m,t let you M-e them, th.-y are MI M-rretivo. The only way' in which you can judge really if that they make money, ami •tor • time they are able to retire; and as I know they have not done any other work in the meantime except cultivate the land I am bound to assume that they have made their money out of the land, but thpy will not tell you. 8233. Do they make it out of the land or do they make it partly out of their families?- Thin particular man in Lincolnshire has a wife and one daughter .11 homo and they all work- throe of them. He has not it largo family. I. AtAuming the daughter works, say, for ten years and receives possibly only JKV ket money, has she any right in the stock? — I do not know how they manage that. I have got one smallholder who has retired and bought four houses at Peterborough. II has gone to live in one of them and lets the other three. He has passed over his land to his eldest son, and his second son we have also taken in as a tenant As a rule • they behave well to their children. Of course there are exceptions, but as a rule I find they behave well, but I suppose they do not pay them much when they ore at home. 8235. When they reach an age of discretion, say 24 or thereabouts, do they still continue to work on the holding or do their parents give them some respon- sibility and some voice in the management? — Some do and some do not. 8236. The majority do not, I take it?— No, they like to keep it in their own hands; that is rather a weakness which I have tried to overcome and the best of the young men sometimes kick over the trace*!, as it were, and go off. I should like to keep them on the place, but 1 find the fathers will hold the reins. 8237. From some remarks you made I think you have studied Mr. Gooding's evidence of the Mtuutted costs and the yield per acre, and although your own acreage costs are much greater than his your costs per quarter are less than his?— Yes, I show a i yield, but I decline to take the average of Norfolk because I say these smallholdings are above the average. 8238. That is to say, they are using their land and their labour far more economically? — Yes. they are, and if you take the average of Norfolk, as Mr. Overman does, it includes a lot of very poor land indeed — a lot of land which is overridden with game and which never will produce its proper quantity until you alter the game laws. 8239. I take it that the game do oat a considerable proportion of the produce? — YOB, I should think they do. If Mr. Gooding in his evidence is taking tin- whole of Norfolk into consideration I think that you ought also to take into consideration the t'act that there aro thousands of acres of land in Norfolk which have been bought by people purely for game preserving, and to bring that into the average is not lair ut all. There are thousands of acres in my constituency which used to grow four or five quarters to the acre which are now practically derelict or were so until the war. The War Agricultural Com- mittee has made them do something, but there are three largo estates to my knowledge in my consti- tuency which have produced very little. 82-10. You were asked some questions about the cost of team and manual labour? — That I have promised to get.f 8241. Yes, but I want to put this to you: in cases where men have, not got horses of their own, would such charges as these be the amount that they have had to pay to their iicighlioiirs for plough n that is exactly \\hat this man said to me. Mr said: " When I go and do a day's work for any of my neighbour! this is what I charge them." That is what this Lincolnshire man told me. -•JIJ. He is quite satisfied to get that sum when ho is working for his neighbours? — Yos, quite, and, therefore, that is what ho charges for his own work. ^LMM. Presumably he makcN a small profit when he is working for his neighbours? — Yes, I suppose then- is a small profit in that case. 8244. Some little doubt has been thrown upon whether you have put a sufficiently high value upon your farmyard manure for your potfttowf Is this in Lincolnshire? >L'i:>. Yes. I am referring to paragraph (5) where you have put 12 loads. Have you any idea what the quantity would be in the cart; would it be 12 cwt. or l"i ewt. or what? — It is a good heaped-up cartload; t See Appendix No. IV. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 101 3 September, 1919.] SIR RICHARD WINFREY, M.P. [Continued. they take it out of the yard and deposit it in heaps and the 12 loads are supposed to rot down to 8 loads before they spread it on the land. 8246. Do you think the load would be a ton?— No, I do not think it would be a ton. 8247. 15 cwte.? — I should say so; it is a one-horse load. 8248. What sort of proportion would there be of straw, do you know ? — I really could not say. 8249. You put down a small amount for the price of straw — 10s. in 1913 and £1 in 1919. The market price of straw makes a great deal of difference in what proportion of straw you charge in the case of your potatoes in the cost of the farmyard manure? — Yes, that is so. 8250. Have you any idea of how much seed was sown, for instance, in planting the wheat crop? — No, I have not. 8251. Was it about 2J bushels?— I should think about that, but I will let you know exactly.! 8252. Also in the case of Norfolk the value of the manure and the value of the straw more or less balance each other, do they not? — Yes. 8253. With regard to the ploughing about which Mr. Overman expressed some doubt he said that in one case you charged 25s. for 5-inch ploughing and in another case you only charged £1 for six-inch ploughing ? — Yes. 8254. I suggest to you that, although thero is a difference in the depth in the case of mangolds, the work is lighter work because you have previously cleaned the surface? — You think that is the answer? 8255. t Yes? — I will discover what the real facts are. 8256. You have two operations before your six- inch ploughing? — Yes, certainly. 8257. 1 think you will probably find that is the reason ? — Yes. 8258. Mr. Cautley : Should I be right in saying that the land in the Holbeach district is about the richest farming land in England? — Yes, in the Long Sutton district that I quoted, which is five miles from Hol- beach, I should say that that is some of the finest land in England. 8259. This particular farm of 174 acres which you referred to which has been let for £800— over £4 an acre — grows principally market garden crops, and sends its produce to C'ovent Garden? — No, not to Covent Garden ; they grow crops • which are sent to Wisbech for pickling. 8260. At any rate the crops are for human con- sumption. When it was let at £400 in 1894 that would be almost at the very bottom of the agri- cultural depression, would it not? — That was at a time when wheat was 25s. a quarter. 8261. It was not at the bottom, but very nearly? — No, it went down lower than that afterwards. 8262. I think we will leave that particular illus- tration and come to what is really the subject of your evidence, which is extremely interesting, if I may say so. Does your Association take the land on lease? — Yes. 8263. What rent do you pay — I will deal with the Lincolnshire land first? — We pay Lord Lincolnshire I think on an average about 30s. an acre for his throe farms. He built us some houses in addition, and we pay him 4J per cent, interest on those. We took the farms and the cottages in the first instance and when we wanted extra houses he built the houses . for us and charged us 4J per cent, on the cost. 8264. Does he do that now? — No, not since the war; we should not, of course, ask him to build houses for us to-day. 8265. He built you the houses at the proper rate of interest, which was 4J per cent, before the war, and the Association let out the land to tenants? — Yes. 8266. Do they let it out at such a vent as just pays the expenses, or do they let it out at a profit? — They let it out at a rent which only just pays the cost of the Steward — I have a Steward who looks after the whole of this — and the incidental expenses; we just about pay our way. t See Appendix No. IV. 8267. In the case of the smallholder which you have given us, you charge a rent of £2 an acre? — Yes, but that brings in £10 for his house and buildings. 8268. Does each of these smallholders have a house like his? — All the responsible ones. 8269. And buildings? — Yes. We divided up the farmyard buildings. One farmyard is divided up amongst seven of them; another amongst six of them, and another amongst four. 8270. Do I understand that when ihe fresh houses are built there are no fresh rates put «'n? — The houses are rated, not the land. 8271. Do you put forward this illustration of the Lincolnshire smallholder as being typical of all the rest, or is his case an exceptional case? — No, this is land in Deeping Fen, and to show you the value of it we were paying about 39s. an acre rent the year before the war, and Lord Lincolnshire sold the adjoining farm to the County Council at £26 an acre. 8272. I observe you started 25 years ago in 1894? — Yes, that is so. 8273. As a. matter of fact all your tenants have met an improving time in agriculture right the way on up to the war and probably after the war too? — No, not all the time. The most disastrous year we ever had was 1912 when we had that very wet time in August. We produced about 250 acres of potatoes and there was_ not an acre of those potatoes which was worth having; the rain stood in the rows for three flays and the potatoes were quite spoilt. 8274. In that year the tenants asked for relief and you got relief from your landlord?,— Yes, 10 per cent. 8275. From that year prices began to be steadily on the upgrade? — Not for potatoes; potatoes have fluctuated tremendously in the last 25 years. W« have sold potatoes as low as 35&'. a ton during that time. 8276. I was alluding rather more to the cereals and the price of beef and those sort of things. I think you will agree with me that farming generally has been on the upgrade since 1894? — Yes, I think it has Slightly. 8277. So that your smallholders have met better prices generally except in the year 1912? — Carrying my memory back to 1894 and 1900 1 do not think there was any rise during those six years in values, but since 1900 there has been a steady rise with the exception of 1912 until we came to the war. 8278. 1912 you say was a disastrous year? — Yes. I can give you an example of that. We farmed 100 acres of this land on co-partnership lines and I kept an exact balance sheet of our operations and we lost £500 that year, that is £5 an acre. 8279. Of course, when they had that disastrous year they had to have relief? — Yes, but it was a very small relief that they got — 10 per cent. ; it was only 2s. in the £ on their rent. If they had not made money before they could not have stood it. 8280. One bad year would have knocked them out? —Yes if they had not done well before. 8281. If they were to have a aeries of falling prices in future they would be hard hit again? — I do not know that I can quite agree with that because these men have shown that they can farm, from a time when wheat was 25s. a quarter. 8282. Do you put forward this case of a farmer of 24 acres of Deeping Fen land as a typical case of the smallholder in your Association? — Yes. 8283. He has not done better or worse than your other smallholders? — No; I only selected him because he is more methodical in his accounts than the others. I daresay I could have found two or three others who would have Been equally typical, but I selected this particular man because of his method in keeping his accounts; there might be half a dozen equally as good. 8284. You told us he had about 18 acres of arable land and six acres of grass land? — That is so. 8285. One acre of his grass land was put down for hay? — No, half his grass — he has 6 acres in all. I was only giving you an illustration of what the whole acre would come to. He only mowed three acres of it; he put a temporary fence across the other part of it. G 4 10* U»Y.\I. (MM MISSION. ON AGR1CULTI UK. , 1919.] SIR It KHAKI. WINFREY, M.P. [Continued. 8986. What would the othn ih... acres be- II. grated that for his cons. 8387. Have you any estimate of what he would make out of the three a-res of grass land? I got these figures from him 1 wrote him asking il h. would lot me Know the value of the luiit.-r. egg-- :in<] poultry. 8388. That is on iho whole farm?— Yes. I asked him to let me have it by yesterday morning. hut I have not got it, the reason being tint these men do not like to give you too many particulars, hut I know they have done remarkably well out of their I eggs, and poultry. 8389. It was the yield of the land that I wan ratlin referring tor — The three acres. 8390. Yes. Do you think he would make as much out of it as out of the hay?- No, 1 do nut think so. 8291. You have got down the profit on the acre of hay as £7 3s. 4<1. ; fur the three acres that brings it to £22 10s. P — Yes, but that is at consuming value; if he wore to sell it in the open market he would make a little more on it. 8292. What do you put the grass land at .- I understand you have to pay £10 for a ton of hav to-day. 8293. Taking it as the consuming value it i 10s. for the throe acres of hay ; how much do you estimate ho would make out of the three acres of grass? — I really could not say, but I should think with butter at 2s. 6d. a Ib. he has done remarkably well. 8294. I understand that in these figures in regard to every operation he has performed he has climbed his own manual labour at 7s. a day? — Yes, and his wife's at 5s. 8295. But he has not put in any overtime? — No, he lias not charged any overtime. 8296. You said ho had one daughter? — Yes. 8297. There is nothing allowed for her time :- -Yes, he has put down the time of them as wife or as daughter. 8298. Do they work regularly all the tin,.':" -No; they do not go out every day, of course ; they only go out when there is work to do. 8299. If the man himself gets 7s. a tart putting down their outgoings before you talk about pi.. 8309. The profit is £17- liv over and above their labour? — You aro taking the' total in, on the family— the total profit on the land plus their labour. 8310. The total income com, s to £308?— Yes, but tie r. t of living three of them. L Their wages would (over that. Take it that they spend up to the i hey Inn • out of the farm as the ordinary agricultural labour, r doos, what I suggest to you is that out of this L'l acres of land it is a money yield which cannot he done when you work it out as I haNe don,-, and ih, re must be some tlaw in these figures:- \\ |, the Haw? >:i!2. Do any of your tenants pay income ta- Yes, some of thorn are now getting their papers for the first t'ime, and I am verv glad th \ ;u. -•'tin. Tako the Norfolk figures! I understand th. „ figures again are in respect of a farm of L'l : — I said I was not quite sure as to the a- have made a note to got tho actual an a. 8314. Is this illustration of the yield given by the Swaffham smallholding a typical one as regard's the yield in the other cases, or is it picked out as being specially good or specially had: Specially good. 1 look upon him as being above the a\ on that farm; 1 always have d, 8315. If you turn to tho last page this is on the four-course system — the average profit works out at £6 4s. 4d. per acre?— Yes; that has to be a little modified. *-'»IG. That has to be added in: No, it has not to be addod to, has it? 8317. There is one item that ought to !»• £2 !>s. !M. instead of £1 7s. 7d. ?— Against that there is the getting of tho second crop of hay. 8318. I agree it is subject to correction as the nsiilt of the previous questions you have answered, but taking your original fignrw NOU must add on ., fourth of £1 2s., that makes £6 10s. an acre. If you multiply that by tho 24 acres again you profit of £156 over and above the w. tho family. Can you tell me of what the famil sisted at this tiiiier-— Thi.i man is an clderlv man and his sons nre all out. 831 9. He is working the smallholding' himself :-- Yes, and his wife is getting on in years and she novcr goes out. ai20. Who does the work on tho holding?— He works himself and hires a labourer. Ho dors hi- ov n milking and all that. S.T.'l. Do I understand that his labour is charged for-— ies, he has charged for his own labour, but what amount of this represent; his own labour I ! not say. This man I should think is 68. 8322. Their standard of living is about the same as that of the ordinary agricultural worker, is itf --No it is better than that. This man in Lincoln- ill iro has an eight-roomed houso, a parlour, a nice mug room, a kitchen and a rwj nn ,- ,|an-N and four bedrooms. I had toa with them and i-vei-N thing is charmingly appointed. Th, standard of liiv is much higher than that of tho Norfolk labourer. Thev do .iv.. margarine for tea. Wo had nice cream and marmalade and all sorts of things for tea m. Does that apply to ,!,„ Swallham smallholders Uxj?-I have also had meals at tho Swnffham small. bolder; place. The only complaint I have ,s that nfo cannot make a Norfolk dumpling. It is too 8324. Out of this smallholding, in addition to the wages ..„ the f«rm. ,1,,-v also- have a profit Tc honoured in, say, seven or eight years' time- It is all in the Land Settlement Act and the Land Acquisition Act, but I think the Land Acquisi- tion Act is specially bad. 8378. I agree with you. Quite apart from tho cost of the house and buildings do you think that the smallholder will be able to pay an economic rent on the ptiivhase price of the land or will the State have to bear a portion of that?— What I understand thu County Councils are going to do — the Government have set it all'out — is to buy tho land at its present war price and erect houses and buildings upon it and then fix what is a fair rent and any loss is to be borne by the State. 8379. As to tho type of irnallholders to be put upon the land, would you agree with me that it needs ; rare in the examination of applicants even in their own interest to decide whether the men would be likely to make a success of it or not. Let me put it quite clearly: many of tho soldiers that are applying for smallholdings know nothing whatever about the practical part of agriculture ?- I was surprised when 1 interviewed the men from one of the colonies at the big pen-outage of men who had a previous knowledge of agriculture; there id a small pcr'-eiitane who have not had any previous knowledge of it, but they are arranging training I arms for those men. 8:iSO. Until the men are trained it is not wise to put them on the land, is it?— I do not think it is in their own interests. 8381. You aroused my curiosity when you gave us particulars of the farm of 174 acres of which the rent had been so greatly increased. You know that farm yourself, do you? — I do. 8382. And you know that the facts you have stated are accurate? — Yes, I know tho facts; I have seen the leases and the letters from the landlord putting up the rent. 8383. I want to bring out this point because yester- day we had the question put to a witness and that witness said that farm rents were not being in- ,'d? — I do not know what part of the country he lives in. 8384. Do you know of any Act of Parliament under \\hii-h it is impossible for a landlord to in< renN?— No. The Corn Production Act says that he shall not increase his rent because of anything in that Act, but that Act has never come into force as we have never got down so low as the guarantee in the Act; the Act has been of no effect so far. 8385. It is easy for a landowner to drive through that Act? — It is not necessary for him to drive through it, because it has not come into opera, tion. 8386. Tho farm you refer to of which the rent had been so largely increased was let in 1894 at £420 a year — 174 acres; that would bo about 48s. «n acre? — Tho lease expired in 1908 and it was then lot to the farmer on another 7 years' lease at £560. At tho end of that lease in 1915 he took it on yearly tenancy at £660. S.'V-*". Could you tell us whether the tenant farmer was willing to take it on another lea^-:- Me had it on a yearly tenancy* at £660, and he wanted to remain at that, and was quite prepared to remain at that rent. 8388. He was not prepared to take another 1 He would have taken another lease at that rent, but it was not offered to him. 8389. 1 want to bo quite clear on this point? — I have no douht what happened was that the landlord in 1915 that land was going up, and, then-fore, he said, " I shall only let it to you on yearly tenancy." i. Is it your view that tenants would take - of their farms if they bad tin- opportunity? — I am certain they would. 8391. I put it to you, the reason they are not taking leases of their farms is because they are not able to obtain them;1— Not at reasonable rents. 8392. Landlords arc only too anxious to put their land on the market and get these inflated prices MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 105 3 September, 1919.] SIR RICHARD WINFREY, M.P. [Continued. for it while they last? — A good many of them, I will not say all of them. 8393. The increase of rent in the case of this particular farm between the years 1908 and 1915 amounts to 27s. an acre, or rather over 50 per cent, in 7 years? — Yes, and he was prepared to go on paying that, but then the landlord .said, " I must have more rent still this coming year, 1918," and he put the tenant under notice to quit. The tenant said: " What rent do you want." The land- lord said £800 a year, and the tenant said, " I cannot pay it and I will not pay it," and he went out. 8394. The tenant has actually now vacated the farm in consequence of the continued demand of the landlord for an increased rent? — Yes, quite, but mark you it has been let at £800 a year. 8395. Was it the same landlord the whole of the time? — Yes, the same landlord. 8396. You would not agree with a witness we had before us yesterday who said that rents are not being increased? — I do not know of any district in the Eastern counties where rents are not on the rise ; they are on the rise everywhere. 8397. Would you agree with me that if these prices for farm produce continue the time will soon come when the whole advantage of the increased prices will get into the landlord's pockets? — A greater part of it. 8398. Have you thought of any scheme by which that can be prevented? — Land nationalisation. 8399. I am afraid we are a good way from that? — Perhaps we are, but we have got that principle established of course in the land which has been pur- chased by the County Councils as you know. 8-100. I know and I agree that full security should be given to the tenant, and you would agree with that until we arrive at what you regard as a happy state of affairs, land nationalisation? — Quite. 8401. Do you believe in Rent Courts?— Yes. 8402. Is it your opinion that many of these farmers' rents have been increased upon their own improve- ments:1— No, not the large farmers — do you mean the improvements to buildings, and that sort of thing. . 8403. No, I mean the improved fertility of the soil? — No, I do not think there is a great deal of that ; there are some cases of course. 8404. Then the increases are due to the increased prices of commodities? — Largely; that is the great factor, I think. 8405. If you had capitalised that holding of 174 acres at 4 per cent., it would have been worth less than £40 an acre in 1908?— That is about the price it remained at in that district; land was selling at about £40 to £50 an acre in that district then ; it is now making £100 to £120. 8406. Capitalising it at 5 per cent., which is a moder- ate increase, the landlord would get rather more than double for his land in seven years? — Many landlords who have sold out lately have doubled their incomes. For example, Mr. Christopher Turner, who is well known in the agricultural world, sold his estate near Lincoln not very long ago and by that means has doubled his income. 8407. The landlord, without doing anything to in- crease the capital value of the farm during the last seven years, apart from any expenditure in improv- ing the farm, has got an average increase per year far beyond the profits of the farmer, who has de- voted the whole of his time to the cultivation of that land? — No, I do not think far beyond; I think the farmer has had a very good time. 8408. I agree with you dur.ing the war he has? — I know he has ; 1 do not think it. 8409. Apart from the last increase from £420 to £660 I work out the increase per annum which would go into the landlord's pocket if he sold on that basis at €3 17s. an acre, and on the £800 it would be considerably more. The increase of rent is an im- portant factor in the cost of production, is it not? — Yes. 8410. In arriving at a price based upon cost of production the food of the general public would neces- sarily be higher in consequence of these large in- creases of rental? — Naturally, if rents go up. 8411. One word as to game. This is the first time we have heard anything about game since the Com- mission has been sitting. Is it your opinion that game on some estates do a vast amount of injury to the farmers' crops? — A vast amount. The result is they cannot get the best farmers to come and farm on the game estates at all. 8412. And the nation suffers in consequence? — Exactly. 8413. Would you agree that the game ought to be- long to the tenant who rents the farm and feeds the game? — I would abolish the game laws. 8414. That would mean that the tenant would have an equal right with the landlord to shoot the game? — That is it. 8415. Mr. Duncan: 1 think you sta-ted in reply to a question that you think the State ought to sub- sidise smallholdings? — Do you mean for soldiers? The Land Settlement Act does provide for subsidy, inasmuch as whatever tho land costs the soldiers are only to be charged a fair economic rent. That is a policy I do not agree with. I wanted to take land at pre-war prices. 8416. But if land is to be taken or smallholdings are to be entered upon at the present time, that is the only way you see of making them successful. If smallholdings are to be entered upon at the present costs, do you think it would be possible for the small- holder to face the costs without some subsidy? — No; I do not think the smallholder can pay the present war prices plus the enormous cost of equipment; that is, the house and buildings which are almost prohi- bitive to-day. 8417. In paragraph 4 you speak of the increased value of agricultural land. Is it your experience in the Eastern Counties that the farmers are competing for farms? — For purchasing farms? 8418. Presumably if a farm is going to be in- creased in rent, the landlord must have some choice of tenants? — Yes. The landlord to-day will have no difficulty in getting tenants at increased rents from what he was charging in pre-war days. 8419. That rather indicates that the farmers them- selves are pretty hopeful of the outlook? — I think so. 8420. Mr. Edwards : First, in regard to Lincoln- shire, you say that most of your tenants are agri- cultural labourers. I should like to know how these men who have had holdings from you compare with a similar class of men who have still remained as agricultural labourers? — They are in a better position than the agricultural labourers are to-day, because they not only get a little better income, but they are able to live better altogether out of their holding. They have a higher standard of comfort than the labourers. 8421. You have here the quantity of stuff or pro- duce grown on your estate of 2,266 acres, or there- aboute. How does that compare with a similar area of similar land in your opinion ? — In large farms ? 8422. Yes, in large farms? — My experience is that the smaller holder goes in for rather a greater variety than tho large farmer — a greater variety of cropping. He grows more catch crops than an ordinary farmer. 8423. As to the total produce measured in money, say, at the present moment, which do you think would be producing the largest value of stuff per acre or per 100 acres? — I think the smallholder would, when you take into consideration all his stock as well — butter, milk and eggs. 8424. And would that be particularly true of small items like poultry and things of that kind? — Yes; pigs, poultry, cows, and all they produce. 8425. Do you think the fact that these men on these holdings have absolute security of tenure at a fixed rent, or a known rent — they know the conditions and they know that those conditions are permanent practically — has had any influence on their development of the holdings? — I think it has a great influence. There is not only fixity of tenure as long as our leases last, but we 'have renewed tho lease on one occasion. It was a 21 years' lease that we took the land on in the first place; then about 10 years ago we cancelled the old lease and created 106 COMMISSION ON AGRlCULTI'HK. S Stpltmber, 1919.] 8m RICHARD WINFREY, M.P. [Continual. one for 91 years, and we are going to proceed to do that again. All the men will know
  • a waiting list of, I think you might say, hundreds. 8437. I meant now— not exactly the soldiers?— No; but I was going to toll you that we had 100 to let on the Wingland Estate, and we let it be known we would let it, and we have had altogether between S) and 90 applications. Then I selected them and said wo must give the ex-soldiers first chance, and there were 39 who were ex-soldiers and 50 who were not ex-soldiers, many of them already tcii.inta. who want a little more land. 8428. These men were a class of men who knew the i ..millions and who knew the success of your present tenants?— Quite. 8429. The psychological effect of tho fixing of price* iiniler the Corn Production Act has been mentioned to us, I think by Sir Thomas Middleton, whom you know 'very well; do you think that the fact, that the vast majority of the farmers of this country are always farming and that they do not know the day that thev may get notice to quit for some reason or an- other, has had what you may call a psychological effect on the farmers? — Insecurity of tenure? 8430. Yes, the insecurity of tenure as compared with your tenants here? — I do not think the insecurity of tenure has been a very great factor. There has not been a great deal of insecurity of tenure on tho large estate*; it has only been amongst the smaller landowners there has been insecurity until recently of course. During the war a large number of landowners were putting their land into the market, as you know, but until the period of war there was not very much insecurity of tenure on tho large estates. So long as a man farmed fairly well and paid his rent, he was secure. -I.:U. You have already said that a good deal of the land in the country is on sale at the present time and that the prices have increased from 30 per cent, up to 100 per cent., and you seemed to indicate that that was an infallible index of agricultural prosperity. I should like you to explain more fully what you mean by that? — I mean this, that when land is put into the market now, not only the sitting tenant, but even an outsider is prepared to give more fur it than he would have done, say, in 1914, and I cannot imagine any sane person doing it unless ho was fairly sure of making an increased profit out of it. 8432. You are not acquainted with Wales, I pre- sume?—I have been down to Pembrey. whore we purchased an c«tate for ex-soldiers, and also up into Cheshire, near to the River Dee, but I do not know much about Wales. 8433. You are aware that the farmers, as a • have a great attachment to their holdings— to their home?— Quite. 8434. And you would be prepared, I suppose to admit that the fart that the sitting tenant pays a certain mini in open competition for the farm is no real proof that that farmer calculates in the way you suggest? I think it is a fairly good proof, because I do not think the ,,ther competitors would come in if they did not know it was a good thing. I should not want to buv a farm at the increased value unless I was persuaded that it was going to pay. 8496. Do you know what happened after a similar ro passing through now. The greatest cii«.j« was nftor the Napoleonic Wars. You know what happened nftor the Napoleonic Wars? Thr rinirmnn: I do not think that is a question that come* within the ambit of our examination — going back to the Napoleonic period. •/•: I think it is most ewential. Thr Chairman : I am afraid I must rule you out of order «n that snl.j. 8496. Mr. Edward*: You admit that we now live in an utterly abnormal period? — I do. 8437. And that the prosperity of agriculture at the t moment is an absolutely fictitious prosperity ': It is not n. titious, because it is there; it is abnor mal. 8438. It U a prosperity of prices and not of produce. Tin- whole prosperity you' will admit is not that we {>roduce -more from our farms but tho prices are ligher? — It is not a fictitious prosperity; it is a leal prosperity for the time being, but it is abnormal. 8439. We all expect that we shall before long rein •! i something like a normal state of affairs. What will !*• the state of these .men who are paying from 30 to 100 per cent, more for their land? I am speaking of the sitting tenants; what is likely to be their jMis'tion in tho future? I'nless they have made a very good profit during the intervening years, they will (»• losers, as they were in the 'seventies. \Ve are now repeating what happened between 1868 and 1874, and then the price of land dropped and people suffered. 8440. As to the position at the present moment, that land is fetching from 30 to 100 per cent, more than it did in pre-war times, and at the same time wo as a nat'on expect things to arrive at the normal state of affairs? — Yes; it depends upon when that time arrives as to how much these people will lose. 8441. Consequently, inevitably, if that is your opinion, the position o! these men will not be an agreeable one in five or ton years lieiiee!- lint that is no reason why the consuming publ.c should pay more in order to bolster up these people in making bad bargains. 8442. I am looking at the matter from the national point of view — of agriculture in the near future when we hope to see a state of normal times. The Chairman: I think the witness has answered your question. 8443. Mr. Edwards: Now you say that rent is on the rise in all districts known to you. There is one other point I should like to ask you in regard to the sales of land which you mentioned just now. You mentioned a well-known authority on agriculture, Mr. Tumor by name, who has doubled his income by selling his land?- Selling his estate, or one of his estates, perhaps. 8444. And the landowners are doing it as a class all over the country?— Yes. 8445. What would be the result if the tenant farmers had followed the same method of cashing the values in the same way as tho landowners— I mean of the stock? — Going out of farming? 8446. Yes?— Some of them are. 8447. What if they did all over the country in the same proportion us landowners? — There are a great many farmers in tho Eastern Counties who have taken the opportunity of going out now having made their money. I live in tho town of Peterborough, and during this last four years we have had about 20 farmers come and buy houses in Peterborough, and retire. 8448. Is that likely to have n good or a bad effect on farming in the future1:' I suppose you will admit lhat this Commission is really to prepare the ground for the future policy of agriculture?— Quite. 8449. Assuming that there are a large proportion of farmers who nre cashing thoir stock P — I will not say a large proportion; a considerable nuni'm r They are letting in other men who have taken lli n farms, and up to the present those men .-re doing very well. 8460. But those men are going in now at the -,t pi-ire--. Kx) per cent, over tho ordinary p' — Y*«. 8451. What will be the result in the case of tin-- moil when tlii-y reach the normal times which we all expect!- I do not know. Th( v will have to cut their mat according to thoir cloth like the r. I do not tea how wo can legislate for them. What they are doing, they are doing with their eyes open. A 'man who goes in for farming today ai.d agrees to pay for land and agrees to buv implements and everything nt an imrr i*. like a man going into any other business; he taVos the risks. •J. I quite agree: but wo must take things as they I want to know the effect of all this on the development of agriculture in the future? — Of MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 107 3 September, 1919.] SIR RICHARD WINFREY -M.P. [Continued. course it depends upon how long this abnormal con- dition lasts. There are several men I know who made the fee simple out of their land in one year — out of potatoes. 8453. You are aware that the produce of the land has been controlled — butter, milk, beef, corn, and everything else has been controlled? — Yes, at very remunerative prices. 8454. In view of that fact, will you admit that the Government also should have controlled the price of land? Chairman : That is outside the scope of our present inquiry. We are not allowed to enter into questions of nationalisation. 8455. Mr. Edwards: Yoa, as a Member of Parlia- ment, I presume, heard the speech of the Primo Minister, in which he said that as a result of the Corn Production Act they were going to fix the price for corn? — Not fix it. 8456. Guarantee it? — Yes, guarantee a minimum. 8457. Two things must follow, he said. The work- ing man must be properly paid, and the rents must not be allowed to rise as they did during the Napoleonic wars. Do you remember those words ? — I do not remember that he dealt with it in that way. 8458. Assume that, he did Chairman: I think that is useless, too, because you are cross-examining the witness OP something he is not competent to tell us. 8459. Mr. Edwards : Then I will put it in another way. I am a tenant farmer and all my stuff has been controlled, of which I am not complaining a bit. Do you think it is fair between class and class to control what I produce out of the land and to leave the land to have the war price? — You mean to leave you in a position to have your rent raised? 8460. No. I am speaking of the selling of land at the present moment, and the effect of it upon the future of farming in this country. The point is that all I produce out of the land is controlled, and the land itself is allowed to be sold in the open market. Is that fair as between the classes that live on the land? There are three classes on the land, as you are well aware. The working man is guaranteed his wages; the landlord is allowed to raise his rent as much as ho likes, and to have the top price of the market — the war prices; the tenant farmers on the other hand ? — Are also getting war prices. 8461. We are not getting open markets? — Not ope a markets. 8462. But the landowner does get the open market, and I want to know from you as a Member of Parlia- ment why the differentiation was made and allowed to continue? Chairman : You are not here as a Member of Parlia- ment and you need not answer as a Member of Parlia- ment. Mr. Edwards: He is here as Sir Richard Winfrey. 8463. Chairman: You must say you are not able to answer if you are not able to answer ? — I am not able to answer for Parliament, I am afraid. It Is rather a poser. 8464-5. Mr. Green : I want to get some comparison between the multiple farms and the small ho'dings. Round about Spalding there are a number of multiple farms, are there not? — There are, yes. 8466. Have you made any comparison in your researches between the productive power of these large farms and the small holdings? — The majority of our large farmers are very up-txi-date farmers and farm- ing remarkably well, but what they do not go in for is the amount of stock per acre that the little man dors, and all the etceteras like pigs and poultry. \Vlii-n a man is farming five or six farms, he hae a bailiff on five of them probably; and they do not cultivate every corner of their land in the way that a small holder does. 7. We were told by former witnesses that these farms would be excellent for one reason as offer- ing son'" incentive to the sons of farmers to get posts a managers or sub-managers. We heard from a witness yesterday that the bailiff on 2,700 acres got £.'J a week. Tbat wage is less than the Forfarshire ploughman geta. Do you think there wouM he any incentive to the sois of farmers to go on large farms if they are only going to get wages of £3 a week as bailiffs and sub-managers? — I do not think in Lincolnshire you would find any farm bailiff getting as little as £3 a week. 8468. This is Northamptonshire? — I am sure they are getting more than that. They get their rent free; they are allowed very often to keep a cow, and the foreman's wife gets so much a score for all the eggs ; they get a great deal more than £3 a week. 8469. I want to get at this labour income on these small holdings. That is a very important point, is it not? — It is, yes. 8470. When I was at Sutton Bridge, Wingland, I found a small holder with 40 acres with 10 daughters. I suggest to you that if one small holder retired to Peterborough and bought four houses, this man must have bought a street of houses? — He would get his daughters married off to other small holders in time. That is a very exceptional case. . 8471. I daresay you know the family? — Trolly? 8472. Yes?— Poor old Trolly is dead; but he was only in that holding for about five years. He was a farm foreman himself before he took that holding. I think he only had the holding for five or perhaps six years. He left his widow something like £500, and she is living in one of our cottages to-day, and goes out to do occasional work. He evidently made a profit of about £100 a year on that holding during those fiva years. 8473. You have been criticised about the number of horses on these holdings. I venture to submit to you that some of thetee small holders not only bred horses, like Mr. Trolly, but they must have dealt in horses, too. Do not you think that would account for the great number of horses? — A great number of these smallholders do a great deal of carting for the Rural District Council ; in winter time they cart great quantities of granite on to the roads; that is a very favourite occupation. 8474. That is to say, they get carting outside their holdings?— Yes. 8475. Then with regard to the thatching, I daresay many of these smallholdings have very excellently built buildings ; they have Dutch barns, and that would save a certain amount of thatching? — We only have Dutch barns on one of the Wingland farms. 8476. Is that all? — Yes, I wish we had more. 8477. I thought I saw them at Moulton ?— On the Crown? 8478. YesP — You may have done on the Moulton Estate. 8479. Most of these smallholders owe their exist- ence to the enterprise of Parish Councils, do they not? — It is only in that one case of Moulton where the Parish Council went in for smallholdings ; other- wise the Parish Council have dealt with allotments only. 8480. Only in the Moulton case? — Only in that one emi i. 8481. Are most of the stock-holding smallholdings from 20 to 30 acres? I' thought there were some at 40 acres ?^- We have not many. I think perhaps we may have one or two. 8482. Most of them are 20 to 30 acres/?— Yes; 25 acres is about our average. 8483. Can you give us your opinion of the economic size of a holcb'ng on medium land on which the occupier can work two horses? — About 25 to 30 acres. 8484. You think as small as that? — I do, because he would find other work for hh horses, and he does as a matter of fact find other work. 8485. 1 meant keeping them entirely at work ; what would you consider the economic size? — If he has two horses, probably one is a mare with a foal, and it would not be working all the year. He would rest it three or four months, so that during that time he would only have one. 8486. These smallholdings hav> increased the pro- duction and prosperity of neighbouring villages, have they not? — They have increased the population. 8487. With the exception of one co-partnership farm of 123 acres, nt Wingland. there has been almost an entire absence of co-operation or marketing facili- ties? With the exception of this Wingland Trading 108 BOTAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 3 I»pt4ml»r, 1919.] SIR RICHARD WINFREY, M.P. [Continued. Society, of which I am Chairman, which has now a turuuvur uf about £15,000 a year. 8488. And yet the production has been greater than whoa tin- land was in tho hands of a few? — Certainly, on all this land. 84t>9. This co-partnership farm made a profit of only £67 lli* lOd. iu 1913?— That is so. -i. And in 1917 nmdo a profit of 1-732?— Yes. 8401. And what was the profit in 1918:-— The profit in 1918 was £500, 1 think. 1 am speaking from memory. V\ e have had two profits of £500 and one profit of £700 during the war. I am not quite clear now which years they were. 8494. Can you give us the figures for 1918?— I think, £500. £700 has been our high-water mark. 8493. Did you not make a slip just now when in answer to one of the Commissioners you said they had more than 100 acres under fruit)* — I said soft fruit, 85. This is on the whole of that Winglaud Estate; there are 113 acres under fruit to-day; that is out of 1,000 acres, so that one-tenth part of it is under fruit. 8494. Is there any tendency to let the cultivated laud revert to grass P — None; it is much too valuable. 8495. They broke up grassland when wheat was in tho region of 30s. a quarter without any prospect of guaranteed prices to give them any sense of security against loss:' — That is quite true. When we took the first farm of Lord Lincolnshire called tho Willow- Tree Farm in 1694, after about two years they asked me if they might plough up certain fields, and 1 got the consent of the landlord, and they were ploughed up, and now we have ploughed up some more during tho war. 8496. I notice that in 1917 {hey sowed 967 acres with corn out of 2,255. Is there any clamour for guaranteed prices amongst these small holders? — None. 8497. You are one of the authors of the Corn Pro- duction Act, are not you? — 1 do not think I can assume the authorship of it, but as Parliamentary Secretary my name was on the Bill, and I take my share of the responsibility. 8498. When you said just now that you thought that 45s. should remain the figure for next year and you thought farmers could live out of it, a guaran- teed price of that figure, I suppose when you said prices would fall, you meant the prices of fertilisers, feeding cakes, and so forth, but not wages? — No; I do not think wages will fall. I do not think they ought to fall, because I always held that we ought to nave paid better wages in pre-war times, and could have paid better wages in pre-war times. 8499. Do you think that farmers would get better machincrv and would organise their labour better than in the past? — They are already doing that. The motor tractor has done a very great deal. We have already purchased a motor tractor on the Wingland Estate. 8500. You would agree, I suppose, that compulsory powers rather than guaranteed prices were the lever to bring into cultivation a larger acreage of corn? — Vnit«- HO; it was compulsion. 8600A. Not the guaranteed prices? — I nvght say on reflection that when I said I would let the Corn Pro- due tion Act take its course I was under the impres- »ion that tho price for next year was 55s., but I find now on looking at the Corn Production Act that this is the last year when wo guarantee 55s. I would foro like to revise my suggestion, and I would be quite prepared that it 'should be a guaran< 55*. next year. I certainly thought it had another year to run nt 55*., until I looked it up. 8501. Perhaps this is not a fair question to ask you, but it is my last question. I suppose you rather regret now that there is no c'auso in the Corn Pro- dii'tion Act to prevent land'ordg from raining their rents no effective clause? — I think it is effective inasmiirh as it nays they shall not raise them because of any benefit they get out of the Corn Production Act; therefore, it is effective in that way. .' Itut it if only effective on paper; it is not reall- • ' Hut the moment you let the Corn Production Act come into operation, it will be ell. <•- tive. 8603. But the Government really allow the non- producer to come off bent tinder thin Act, I mean tho landlord ; he ha* been able to raise his rents and breed as many pheasants as he likes although tin- Govern- ment is keen about the production of food?—! think the landlord with regard to game has played tho game, during the war. 8504. But he is still allowed to go on breeding P — 'lit ho has very much reduced it. . Hut there is no lau to pivveiit him from doing so in the future? — Not at all. That is what 1 fear. Now that the war is over gamekeepers will be appointed, and we shall have to go over the whole tiling again. 8606. 1 happen to know a small farmer who ha* been evicted to give place to a gamekeeper? — 1 am not surprised. 8507. Mr. J. M. Henderson: I understand that you are satisfied with the Corn Production limit being 5;">s. ? — Yes, for another year. Instead of it stopping at 55s. in 1919, I think it might stop in 1920. 8508. Have any of your people made any claim under the Corn Production Act? — No; because the prices have always been higher than tho minimum. 8509. For how many years would you suggest that this minimum or guarantee should continue?- !'• i the period of the Corn Production Act, which is until 1923, I think. 8510. You would not carry it further? — No, I would not at present. 8511. \Vh<SVe Appendix No. IV. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 109 3 September, 1919.] SIR RICHARD WINFREY, M.P. [Continued. 8523. So that is really the final change that has been introduced? — Yes, that is the great change. 8524. Have you any means of comparing the amount produced on the other 900 acres with the amount produced now, leaving out the fruit area? — Some of the men who are now smallholders were workmen on the farm, and they all tell me that the land is producing at least 50 per cent, more than it did under previous management. 8525. About 50 per cent, more?— Yes, the crops are very much bigger. 8526. Have you any means of comparing the cost of production then with the cost of production now? — No ; of course, during those days wages were about 2s. 6d. a day. 8527. So that it is quite conceivable that the cost of production per unit under the old system was much less than it was even before war prices? — Yes. I should think we ara spending as much in labour on the 120 acres that we run as a co-partner- ship area on that part as he did on the whole farm. 8528. You said in reply to another Commissioner, that you were of opinion that the cost of production was greater on large holdings than on small hold- ings. Chairman: I do not think he said that. 8529. Mr. Thomas Henderson: 1 think he said so in reply to Dr. Douglas? — I do not think I quite put it like that. 8530. I think Dr. Douglas put the question to you in that form and you agreed? 8531. Dr. Douglas: I think I referred in my ques- tion to the productiveness of labour? — Yes, to the productiveness of labour. 8532. And the answer was that the labour on small- holdings was more efficient than on large holdings? — That is how I understood your question. 8533. Mr. Thomas Henderson : But would you agree that the cost of production in this particular case was larger on the small holding than on the large one? — In some cases, yes; in other cases, no. If a farmer has five or six farms, he is paying for manage- ment, and that has to be taken into account. 8534. Which of these two systems, the small holding and the large holding, would yield the largest quantity of produce on the market for consumers per individual? — I think the small holding, certainly. 8535. You have no figures for that, have you? — No, I have no figures. 8536. Mr. Dallas : You are familiar with the terms of reference to this Commission : to deal with the economic prospects of agriculture in the future? — Quite. 8537. Apart from guarantees, is there anything that you can suggest that would help farming in the future, or give stability to agriculture in the future? — -Apart from guarantees ? 8538. Yes? — I have always been an advocate for security of tenure, and the setting up of a Land Court to which the tenart can appeal in case his rent is raised unduly. 1 think the proposal in the Welsh Land Commission, which was held some, years ago. was an excellent idea. 8539. We have statements like this made to us: that " unless we get guarantees we will not cultivate the land, or at any rate, we will not put the land down to cultivation "? — I do not hold that view. 8540. You have a very long experience and a very I>r is inclinod to be too self-centred, and not to take sufficient public interest, as I think he uught to do, in tin- welfare of the district, and ; ally what I call the social and moral improvement of the community. Ho is a little too self-centred. 1 have been obliged to come, to that conclusion after . ars' experience. It is one of my disapi ments." 8660. He is a little more devoted to his own hold- ing?— He is a little too selfish, if I may say so; but, mark you, I do not say if he had been an agricultural labourer he would have been any better; I do not think he would ; but he has not quite risen as I should like to have seen him rise in that scale of being a better member of the community. 8561. Mr. Lennard : Mr. Cnutley examined you a little while ago on the profits that you show on these figures, and he seemed to think that the profits were excessive. There is just one point I want to ask you about, if I may. It is on your Norfolk figures, paragraph (7), third year, an acre of barley follow- ing mangold*. I notice you put down the value of your 5J quarters at 70s. a quarter? — Yea; that is very low. Of course I was anxious to be accurate ; but I may say that the very day I interviewed this man, I came up in the tra:ri with a farmer who told me that he had sold his barley at OOs., and I believe that this man will make 90s. 'on his barley for malt- ing purposes. I understand that Ba«s's people are giving up to 100s. a quarter for malting barley. 8562. Yes; that ia the point I want to bring out. I noticed the price the last few days of 90s. up to 100s- That would of pour e increase your profit very considerably? — If this man makes another £1 a quarter, it will put another £5 10s. Od. on to it. 8563. You said just now in answer to one of the Commissioners, that you consider the future of Eng- lish agriculture will be prosp. ronsl- 1 said that I look forward to the future without any fear. 8564. Do you hold that op nion specifically of tillage farming?— I do; that ia the farming I know most about. I know very little about grazing. 8565. I understand that you do not consider any guarantee higher than 55s. necessary for next year, and that you would not prolong the 45s. guarantee of the Corn Production Act lieyond 1922?— I say I would not begin to legislate until I got much ne'arer 1922 than to-day. 8566. You would not at present contemplate any extension of the 45s. guarantee ?— No ; I would not at present contemplate it. I say that to move step by step is in my judgment the wisest thing to do. 8567. Many of us here are inclined to think that the world prices of cereals will continue to make cereal production profitable in the future ; but we feel some doubts as to whether the farmer believes that; so the question arises whether a guarantee of, say, 60s. for wheat for four years, may not be necessary to save the country from the farmers' ignorance of the world's pri"e, and to prevent his timidity leading to an entirely unnecessary reduction of the arable area?— I think the farmer puts on that timidity. I do not think it actually exists, from what I know of him. I have a good deal of conversation with farmer*; a good many of them are personal friends of mine. I have two brothers-in-law farming, and a nephew. I know nrettv well what is in their minds. I <|.i not always take what they say for granted in that re*! V. • nffecl do •••••< ti "'.U a gnUUtM MOB as I have named is likely to have upon the efl: nf fanning The chief fear I have myself about guarantees is1 that they may make the poor farmers fix-l too wcure. They may enable such men to make a living without improving their methods? — Yes. I laid npivial utrww on that: that Part IV of the Corn irtic.n Art ought to be ruthlessly put into opera- tion, and that we ought not to give these guarantee* to tho«B people who do farm their land badly. We ought to penalise those men. 8580. From your ex|wricinc of County Ooonofll and • 7l. In that area, do you know of any large farmers who go in for dairying? — No; it is not worth their while; they do not bother about it. 85 7o. It is not a dairying district? — No. In tho case, of a largo farmer who has 4 or 5 farms, all he does is to keep one cow to supply milk to the lalmurers. You can go to farm after farm and you will not find a cow upon it. 8576. Then there was a hint that these men on tho smallholdings and their families have a very hard time of it; anil I think you suggested that some of the youn;r men do leave the holdings and go off to the towns to get away from them? — I do not think it is to get away from tho hard work; I think it is to get away from parental control. That is only in some cases. But I have one or two cases in my mind where young men have gone away; and that is the reason they have given, that their father would not pay them as they thought they ought to be paid. 8577. Is it within your experience that these nion who do go away, say some of them to railways and others to other centres, if tho father dies or if ho retires from a holding, are among the first applicants to como back for his holding?— They are, yes; that is true. 8578. So that it is quite clear that they do like tho smallholder's life, hard as it is?— Yes. I do not think it is excessively hard myself. Tliev have a day off when they like; and most of them go to market now one day a week. 8579. Tho suggestion was that they put in a tremendous lot of overtime, and do not charge for i in the accounts that are rendered each month? — A good many of us put in overtime, but we are none the less happy for it. 8580. But is not it tho fact that that overtime is ( om|>ensated for to some extent by the fact that men and their wives, too, trot off when they like to anything that is going on without asking. UM that tliev really work not to dock time, but to the needs ,,f their holding, which is a very different. thing? Quite. When they want to go to an agricultural show or a llowcr show they have a day off. 8581. And with regard to the daughters, it is hinte-' that it is a slave's life; but U it not a fact generally these young men who go to the towns come back to'thes* places for their wives?-Yes; they are good judges. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Ill 3 September, 1919.] SIR RICHARD WINFREY, M.P.. [Continued. 8582. One word about the census returns. I do not know whether I quite understand you. Do not they actually prove that during this period of 25 years in which the holdings have developed, the actual number of people living in the same area has largely increased:' — Yes. I got the census returns first for 1881 ; that wns the low-water murk. Then 1891, where there had been a very slight increase; and then 1901, which showed a considerable increase, and that confirmed at the next census. I took the census of 17 parishes, I think, around these holdings. 8583. And did you find that there was quite a large number of applicants for the land before war con- ditions came on ; I mean the applications have been standing for a long time? — Yes. 8584. It was not really war conditions that made them keen? — No, not at all. 8585. Mr. Parker: I think you told us that the figures you put before us are the estimates supplied to you by the smallholders? — Yes. 8586. They are mere estimates ; I think you said so once or twice? — I do not say they are mere estimates : because the 1913 figures are actual figures, and 1919, of course, is an estimate, taking the prices of last year as a guide. 8587. Do these men keep any accounts? — Yes. 8568. As Chairman of the Norfolk and Lincolnshire Smallholders' Association, I suppose you have taken considerable care not to buy or hire any land unsuit- able for smallholders? — I would not call the Norfolk land most suitable, but it was all that we could buy at that time. We had to buy those three farms, I may say. 8589. But that does not compare with the Deeping Farm or the Wingland Farm? — No. The land in Norfolk cost us about £20 an acre, and the Lincoln- shire land was worth certainly 50 per cent, more at that time. 3590. You would agree that the success or non- success of small holders depends almost entirely upon the class of land upon which they are put? — Yes, I think so. 8591. That is so in several neighbourhoods. I know. It is absolutely necessary to have very good land? — Not very good land. I say that the small holder can live on ordinary land ; but he naturally does better on good land, as we all do. 8592. Now the Willow- Tree Farm in Deeping Fen, Lincolnshire, you say was purchased from Lord Lincolnshire at £26 an acre? — No; we only leased that from him. I say the adjoining farm had been sold to the Lincolnshire County Council a year before the war at £26 an acre, and this is a similar farm. 8593. What was the rent of the Deeping Farm an acre — the present rent? — About 30s. 8594. What would the rent of that farm be to-day ? — We have not increased the rent. 8595. No; but I want to know what you think the farm would lot for to-day? — I think we could lot this farm to-day easily for 50s. an acre. 8596. Not more? — It would be a fair rent. A man would get a fair rent if he paid 50s. an acre. >7. It is some of the finest land in Lincolnshire, is not it? — No. This Deeping Fen is not anything like as good as what we have at Holbeach, where land is making £100 an acre. 8598. It is not so good as the Norfolk farm?— No; it is not so well drained. 8599. But it would let for £2 10s. an acre, and in the charge made to vour tenants the rent is put at £2?— Yes. 8600. The rent really would be £2 10s.?— Yes. 8601. Then the Wingland Farm:' With regard to the Wingland Farm, we all agreed to the market I -rire. The outgoing tenant was paying practically £1 an acre; £1,01)0 for the farm, and the Crown then asked us to pay, I think it was, about 32s. Then we have got to pay extra for the equipment. SOO2. But 32s. does not at all represent the prosept rental value of that farm, does it? — They built us something like over 20 houses, on which we h«ve got to pay 5 per cent. 8603. But the land would let for £3 nn acre now, would not it? — I think it would quite. 8604. It is some of the very best land you can pos- sibly have — WinglaJid? — It is a little too silty ; it is not the best. There is much better land near to. I should think there is some land which is worth 10s. an acre more than this, which the Crown has close to. All this land jvas covered by the sea in the time of King John; it is at The Wash; and it is wonderful how it varies. It so happens that a good deal of this 1,000 acres is rather on the silty side; it does not grow such heavy crops of potatoes. 8605. Would you agree that the County Councils in Norfolk and Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire and the Small Holders' Association, are gradually acquiring for smallholders a great part of the very best land in those counties? — No. Really, if you work out the percentage, it is very small still. 8606. You think so?— I not only think so, but I know. If you take the total acreage of the parishes and you find out what we have in smallholdings, it will not come to more than 5 per cent. 8607. All three County Councils are buying very heavily, are they not? — Yes; but the Norfolk County Council, I think I am right in saying, have still less than 10,000 acres. In Norfolk there are over a million acres, I think. I am speaking from memory; but it is not 5 per cent, of the whole, I can assure you. 8608. At the same time you agree that the effect is that when a farmer is turned out he probably has to seek a holding where the land is much inferior? — No, I do not think so at all. Most of the farmers who have been turned out have got equally good farms. 8609. It is not so in my neighbourhood? — What neighbourhood is that? 8610. Take what is going on in Huntingdonshire? — Of course, there they have bought land down at Ramsey. I do not think \re have got more than 5 per cent, of the land in Ramsey in smallholdings yet. 8611. What are they spending now — a very large sum, ia it not? — Yes; wo are buying a good deal of land from Lord de Ramsey. But when you come to take the whole acreage of the parishes there, you will find that it does not ^ome to more than 5 per cent. 8612. Are the farmers giving up the land willingly, or some of them under compulsory orders? — Some under compulsory orders ; but most of them have made their fortunes, so there is not much to grumble about. 8613. I suppose you would agree that the profits from the land in the hands of the smallholders in those counties are not at all comparable with the profits that can be made on the light lands? — No; the former is the very cream of the district for small- holders. 8614. That is the gist of the whole thing: that the good land has a better yield, and therefore the smallholder does well ? — Yes ; but he has not got his share of it yet. He has only got 5 per cent, of it. I shall not be satisfied until he gets nearer 25 per cent, of it. 8615. We have evidence before us of average yield of corn per acre based on 13,500 acres in Norfolk ; and the average yield of wheat was only 21-42 bushels; of oats, 46-14 bushels; of barley, 18.29 bushels, and of rye 14-03 bushels. That is far below the yield that your smallholders get?— Yes. It depends entirely upon where that district is. If it is in a very poor district in Norfolk, in one of these huge game pre- serving districts, I am not at all surprised at that low yield, because no self-respecting farmer would go into those districts. 8616. I see the profits you show are £2 5s. lOd. per acre, which your man made in 1913, against £4 Os. 4d. per acre this year?.— Is this Lincolnshire or Norfolk? 8617. It is Lincolnshire, page 4. Considering the depreciated purchasing power of money that is not a very great profit, is it? I mean the £2 5s. lOd. in 1913 is just as good as the £4 Os. 4d. at the present time? — It is not if you want to invest your profits in War Loan. If you invest £4 in War Loan, that brings you in better interest than £2 5s. lOd. would. Supposing that is a profit which he has to invest in 1914, ho would get 4 per cent, or perhnps Ill' ItOYAl. <-<>MMI>»l'iN OS AGRICULTUUK. 3 StpUmktr, 1919.] SIR RICHARD WINFKKY, M.P. [Continued. 3 p«r rant, on £3 5*., and now ho can get :> |-r n 1 1. It all il.-j • : . -I think were your words — of the general pros- perity of agriculture. Do not you th.uk ihiTu are many other r< ntributory cause*;* — Yea; I du not say " causes "; I say this is an infallible index; I do not say it is a cause. Causes of course are very dif- ferent; but I say it is an infallible sign, if you like, or index. 8619. These large prices given by farmers are in- duced or caused by competition by the County Council for one reason, and by land synd cates enter- ing in for another reason, arc not they:'— Not at all. On the other hand, here are fome big farmers ready i! to tin- County Council. In Lincolnshire. where we are talking about, there are four cases of farmers who have offered their farms to the County Council voluntarily, not by compulsion. Here is Mr. H. 1'. Carter who offers a farm at Holbeach at i.'-'.'l the acre. There is another, Mr. Porter, who offers his farm «t £55 an acre. It says here: " Mr. Porter declined to accept less than £55 the acre." That is in this very Deeping district, the very next farm to the farm of Lord Lincolnshire's. Then Mr. George Thompson offers his farm at £90 the acre. Here are these men who have been farming this land, and they ought to know the value of it. They have been making money these last four years, and they are prepared to sell. 8690. That may be a special instance; but are not County Councils going into the auction room and bidding for land?— Yes, they are. 8621. That in itself would tend to put up the price? — You see here where they do not go into the auction room, they are asked very heavy prices. The last case is Mr. Sidney Worth, who asks £63 the acre. In all those cases it was proved to the Board of Agri- culture, who have the facts, that those farmers bought those farms some time before the war at about ii the acre less than they are now asking. 8622. I agree ; but I put it to you that the price of land must be affected by the competition of tin- County Council, and by those land speculators coming in? — Yes, I think it is; I quite agree to that. 8623. It must be soP — But it is not correct to say that because you use compulsory powers, you naturally go and give r.n excessive price. These excessive prices are being asked here in the open market without auctions at all. 8624. I will ask you this question: Would you, as Chairman of the Lincolnshire and Norfolk Associa- tion, now sanction the acquisition of land for small- holders at anything up to £100 the acre, the sort of price you intimated? — No. That is the reason I reluctantly voted against the Third Reading of the Land Acquisition Bill. We could not get it altered in Committee ; and I was one of those few, I am afraid — but I do not think I shall ever regret the vote. and it is the only vote I have ever giv n against this Coalition Government — but I went in o the Lobby against that Land Acquisition Bill, because I felt we were going to put ourselves into considerable difficul- ties. 8625. Yoa would consider it rash to give anything like those prices? — Yes, I do. 8636. And therefore you would say that the willing- nem of tho farmer to give such price,1* does not alto- gether depend on his taking a very cheerful view of tho prospects of agriculture? — Of course, if a man is spending his own money he does as he likes ; and if he has made money out of farming, and he likes to go and buy a third or fourth farm, if ho does drop a bit of money over it it does not put him in a difficulty ; but it is a very different thing for tho Statct to buy land at that price. 8627. I just want to ask you about the yield of potatoes last year. You put them at 6 tons per acre, and a value of £8 per ton?— Yes, that is what h«- made in April. 8638. That i* Lincolnshire land?— Yes. 8039. Last year the Government took over tho whole crop at a pri"n varying between £6 and £8 a ton, did not they?— I never quite understood what the Government did do with regard to potatoes. All I KM..U is that it has cost tho nation a million of money . I In \ made a nice muddle of it, I am afraid. 8630. The value is put in your estimate at £8. Have you any opinion of what the price of potatoes would have been last year but for tho li<-\< TII MI having undertaken to take tho crop:'— 1 should think it might have got up to £10 a ton. 8631. You do not think they would have fallen to as low as £3 or £4? — No, 1 think they would have gone up rather than down. 8632. That is not the general opinion? — If they could have got them away. You see, there was a great shortage of trucks to get them away. 8633. Then do you think the price this year is going to bo anything like £8? — I travelled last night with a man who came up from Spalding Market yesterday, and ho told me they were giving £10 a ton for potatoes in Spalding yesterday. That is for Second Karliee. • i. There were, some questions asked by Mr. Lang- ford which were answered by you. and I think rather agreed with him that the landlords were taking advantage of the pi.--ent time to put up their rents unfairly? — No. If that was tho interpretation that was placed upon it, I do not wish to have that inter- pretation put upon it. Mr. Langford may have put that question to me; but I do not think there has been anything really unfair with regard to the landlords putting up the rents. If I had been a landlord, I should have put up my rent a bit. In fact I have in some cases where I k'new it was under rented, and I think quite fairly too. 8C35. Do you remember the period between 1879 and 1890?— I can go back to 1868. I was then 10 years of age. 8636. I did not like to ask you that question?— It was the best year's farming my father ever had in 1868. 8637. A reverse took place in those years? — Then it went on from 1868 to 1874. when he had six good years. 8638. They were all reducing their rents in those years?— When? 8639. Between 1870 and 1890?— No, they gave abate- ments, hut a great many of them did not reduce. I thought it was an unwise proceeding; but they took off 10 per rent., and so on. Take Lord Lincoln- shire's farms. Those rents were never altered: all they did was to give an abatement. It amounted to tho same thing, but it was not really reduction. 8640. It was the same thing?— No, it was not exactly the same thing, because they waited until a great ninny of the farmers were impoverished before they did it. If they had done it early it would have saved a good deal of anxiety, and I may say, almost bankruptcy; but they waited too long I think. 8641. Did they not meet tho situation then nenerallv by giving the abatements, or, as I say, reducing rents and by letting tho farmers off their leases?— Yes, the large landowners. 8642. Do you think the landlord Is. only now getting back to the position he was in in 1870 to 1874 ? — I should very much question whether the landowner had yot got back to tho position ho was in in 1874 ; because ho has done all his improvements since then and got very little interest for it. 8643. And the farmer who is said to have done so well now owing to the increase in prices, is probably netting back to his pre-1879 position? — The farmer is!- 8644. Yes?— Tho farmers are better off than they were in those days, and education has done a great deal for them. They arc not spending so recklessly. In those days they w.-n- very reckless. -' ! • What I meant was, that the farmer who had lost nearly all his capital in 1880 to 1890, is now recovering it and getting back to the position he was in? He has got beyond that. I have seen it. 8646. I have seen figures which show the contrary? — You may find one odd man. We are talking, of course, about the general run, anil not taking any particular odd man. 8646A. Mr. llobbim: You told us that you still consider that farming is one of the best businesses under tho sun? — I do. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 113 3 September, 1919.] SIR RICHARD WINFREY, M.P. \Cuntinutd. 8647. Are you able to resist the temptation to embark upon it? — I have always dabbled in farming. 8648. You have had the experience? — Yes, I have been through all these years. 8649. I want to take you just for one moment to an item in your statement as to the first year costs of producing wheat at Swaffham Farm. I understood you to say when it was pointed out, that neither 4 cwt. of basic slag nor 1 cwt. of sulphate of ammonia could be purchased in 191$ for the sura you put down — namely, 14s. That was a typist's error, and the word " or " ought to be put inp — That is what I think; but I am going to discover it and let you know. 8650. You mean it would not much matter whether he put on basic slag or sulphate of ammonia ? — I am not sufficiently a chemist to say, because I do not know what that land specially wants. 8651. " Or " implies that, does not it?— Yes, it does. 8652. It looks as if your smallholder manures on the formula that they use in some dispensaries. Any blessed thing ; and that he considers that it does not matter whether he uses phosphatic manure or a nitro- genous manure. I am afraid that explanation would not do? — Very well then; I must clear that point up.* 8653. You told us that in your judgment labour on the smallholding is more productive per unit. Would you develop that view a little, and tell us why you say that?— If you see a smallholder working on his holding, and then go and see the hired man working on a farm, you soon discover the difference; it is patent. The smallholder seems to have got more muscle somehow. He can dig deeper. 8654. You told us that with a view to encouraging the development of the smallholding movement, the State has agreed to subsidise it? — Yes, that is what it will • amount to under the Land Settlement Act. You see, the land is to be bought now at its present war price. Then they are to equip it, which will be most expensive : then it is to be let at an economic rent, and the State will stand the loss for five years. 8655. You mean an uneconomic rent? — Yes, uneconomic in that way: but to be let at a fair rent. Then there wiH be a loss; and the Board of Agriculture are to bear that loss for five years, and at the end of the five years that land is to be re- valued to the County Council at its then price, and that is where the loss will come in. 8656. Do you think, having regard to the present price of land and the present cost of building, it would be reasonable to expect any development of the Smallholding movement if the State did not do that? In other words, could the smallholder pay an economic rent, having regard to the price of land and the cost of building? — No, I do not think hp could. At the present price of land and the present cost of buildings, I do not see how County Councils will be able to supply the men other than ex-soldiers. 8657. Then does it not follow, that although it may be his own fault that the farmer does it, the prospect of a man who has to buy land at the present price, and farm it, is not very much better? — If he has to put up expensive buildings; but if you buy "a farm you buy it fully equipped. It is the equipment which costs the money to-day. 8658. Not always? — Generally. They will not put in more equipment. They will make it manage. 8659. You agree they have to pay pretty tall prices for the land ? — Yes ; but they would not spend any money on the equipment. A man buys a farm, and that is the end of his expense. But you see, if you buy, say, to-day 40 acres of land at £50 the acre, for a small' holder that is £2,000. If vou buy it at £100 an acre that is £4,000; and it will require £1,000 to equip it. It is terrible. 8660. I agree. You do think that the Corn Produc- tion Act falls short of perfection to this extent, that tho figure for 1920 needs amendment to the extent of 10s.? — Yes; that Torn Production Act was passed in 1917, and we did not know as much then as wo know to-day. 8661. I take it your view is this, that the economic prospects are such that the State would bo warranted 8re Appendix No. IV, 25329 in increasing the guarantee next year to the extent of 10s.? — I think the State would be warranted in keeping the present guarantee of 1919 for another year. 8662. That would amount to an increase of another 10s. on the figure mentioned? — Yes, it would; and that is as far as I go. 8663. After that, you would give the farmer 45s. ? — Yes. 8664. And you would rigorously enforce the Corn Production Act? — Yes. As far as I am watching the country, I cannot see any steps being taken to do it. That is my regret. 8665. I thought the Agricultural Committees had done their work very well? — Yes, they did during the war ; but it seems ~to have lapsed, and nothing has taken its place. 8666. I want to be clear about this. Part IV., Section 9, Sub-section (1) (b) of the Act, reads us follows: " That for the purpose of increasing in tho national interest the production of food, the mode of cultivating any land or the use to which any land is being put should be changed." If that is the view of the Committee, they have power under this Section to order such a change in the method of cultivation? — Quite. 8667. Do you suggest with a guarantee of 45s., and the price of labour which you say is not coming down remaining at its present figure, a farmer should bp called upon to alter the mode of his cultivation? I know that the Section also says he must cultivate according to the rules of good husbandry, which is quite a different thing? — Quite. I think that that other clause wants using, naturally with discretion. 8668. Very great discretion, do not you think? — Yes, very great discretion. I think you could trust the local Committees though ; they are all sensible people. 8669. Mr. Smith: I think you told us the small holder lived at a higher standard than the ordinary labourer? — Yes, certainly. 8670. la not that explained by the reason that he works better? — Yes, I think he does. 8671. And a higher standing for labour might pro- duce better results also? — I do not know. I think it is only human nature — I wish it were not so, but I am afraid it is — to work better for yourself than you do for other people. That has been my experience in 50 years of life ; and I think it is the experience of most of us sitting here. 8672. From one of your previous answers, I -think you agree that it' is a good thing for labour to bo well paid?— Yes. 8673. With regard to this speculation in land, in so far as any speculation can take place in agricul- tural land, the basis upon which tho whole thing rests would be the value of agriculture as an industry, would not it'? — The basis is the value of agricultural produce, yes. There is nothing else that has increased the price of land except the price of agricultural produce and the profits arising. 8674. But even if speculators force the price up. they are basing their judgtrent upon the future of the industry — Yes, quite. 8675. As to the figures as regards population, did you make any comparison between the areas covered bv the small holders and the adjoining areas which were under ordinary farmers? — No, I did not. I took either 17 or 19 parishes round SpaldinR, and I took the census returns for those years each decade ; but I have never been in any other district where there an* no small holdings and taken the records. 8676. You could not say from those figures ? — I can say, for my own constituency in South-West Norfolk, where there are very few small holdings, that the rural poulation has declined each census during the whole of the time I have been there. 8677. Were these figures taken from the Lincoln- shire area? — Yes. 8678. You would have to make a comparison with adjoining areas, where the land and conditions are practically the same, in order to get a comparison ? — On adjoining areas we also have small holdings. 8679. Do I understand from you that some of these men have made such a success of their holdings, that they have practically capitalised them out of their H 8 114 liiiYAI. < i'M\|I-v|,,N ,,\ AdKI'Tl.TI KM. , 1919.] SIR RICHARD WINFIM v. M 1' Tor,/,,,,,,,/. holdings? I think you mid .-omothing about them hiring gone in without any capital nnd paid so much » year?— Yes. I had in 'mind at that time a man iiitinwl Huylock nt Walton, who took n farmhouse and 30 arm of land. Ho was nn agricultural labourer, and 1 think ho h is reared 10 children in thin house. Ho had such n small amount of capital that w«> tru-ted him with his tenant right for two years, which ho then repaid to us. He has now dur- ing the war taken a 300 acre farm from Lord Wal- t ingham ; and we hare admitted his soldier son. who ha* just been demobilised, into the father's small holding, and that has been done in IP years. 8080. You stated that you were quite content to trust the future, if the 06fc was extended another year. Is that the opinion of the men who are on these holdings? — As far as I have gathered it, I do not think these men want any subsidy. They have no fear for the future — not one of them. I have discussed it with lots of them, and I cannot find any man who has any fear for the future. 8881. And yoli' do not think there is in the mind of the small holder any lack of confidence in the future T' No. 8682. Would you say the same of the farmer?— In their heart of hearts I do not think they have. 8683. You mean that they do not always express what they really think? — that is so. If they can get anything out of the Government, of course they will. 8684. In regard to those future prices, of course on the figures you have produced these holdings "would not show a profit if the costs remain the same? — That is BO. 8685. But is it your opinion that the prices of corn can only go down at the same time other prices go down which produce costs? — Directly the prices of corn go down, the cost of team lalxuir will go down. It is horses which eat so much of the corn ; and if they are eating oats at 60s. or 70s., it makes team lalwuir very expensive indeed, and. after all, it is the team labour which is the most expensive labour. 8686. 1 noticed Mr. Cautley put this question to yon, but did not seem to follow it up sufficiently ; and I wanted to know whether it was in your mind thnt the price of corn could Dot go down without the cost of keeping horses and generally the cost of the work on the farm also going down? — Yes| that is BO. 8687. In your experience have you come across any element, outside of the farmers or small holders themselves, that might be developed to help farming? Take the question of transport as nn illustration. l)o you know of anything beside transport that might be developed which would help it? — Of course there are niiiuy wins in which we might and ought to help agriculture. 1 have a hunt' tract of beautiful lain! in inv (x)ii-t itiiem \ . where tin- mad- are iffiDMsible in winter. If a man dm-, nut thresh directly after harvc-t and get his corn in anil get whatever the market price i- then, lie- i~ done until the spring. I have thousands of acres like that in my eonstitn. Now vim may take all that land round the .Marsh dis- in Lincolnshire as being very similar. That is the question of transport. Then of course with regard to railway faciliti<-. there again wo might help. 8688. And you think the industry could !«• consider- ably helped in that direction:-- I am sure it could. 8689. Which in the end might reduce the cost of production-' — Would reduce it. t'li'iii mini: Dr. Douglas wishes to ask a supple- mentary question. 8690. Dr. Douglas : I want to go back on one or two questions which were put to you. and were not in your original evidence. For example, you t \ an opinion in favour of Land Nationalisation. — It wa- Mr. I/angford who led me up to it, and he asked me what remedy I suggested, and I said Land Nation- alisation; and, of course, I believe Lund Nation tion would be a remedy . 8691. I do not want to examine you on that subject at this late hour; but I want to put it to you that you have not put forward in your evidence any scheme on that subject? — No. 8692. You would not expect this Commission to consider it in the absence of that? — No, I do not think it is ripe for settlement. I am a member of the Land Nationalisation Society ; but I want to do it piecemeal. 8693. We could not consider tho matter without having a scheme put before us? — Quite. 8694. And that would apply also to any compre- hensive treatment of land tenure, would it not? — Yes, of course; and of Land Courts. 8695. Then one other point. You have spoken of the great appreciation of rental in consequence of the improvement of agricultural prices. I suppose you agree that rent is in large measure an interest on capital spent on equipping land?— Yes. I never suggested that the landowners are getting an un- • nablo interest. I do not think they . 8096. That is what T wanted to ask you. Do you surest the proprietors now are getting somcthin" more than a normal rate of interest, such as would he obtained on an industrial investment ? I certainly do not. I think before the war they were gettin. a good deal. I'ltnirman: We are very much obliged to you. You have given us most interesting evidence. (The'Witneii withdrew.) Mr. FALCONER L. WALLACE, late Investigator to 8697. Chairman: You have been kind enough to giro us certain statements of evidence, which 00 of a printed statement and particulars as to tho cost of growing an acre of wheat, and a letter of yours of the 23rd August. MM1), with a excerpt from your report upon wage's and conditions of employment of agriculture in Northamptonshire in March, li'ls." I pin these in as part of your evidence-' Yes. I also, if I may say to, gave a largo bundle of very • •|i tailed statements in which I have ib scribed the »y*tem of farming upon the individual farms, the. land, the condition, of pay, nnd the labour employed upon thone farms. There are also several cc. production last y«-nr of several --rops in detail. There i« .1 very itn|K>rtnnt statement showing the . producing meat on n feeding farm in Northuiiiher- l.md with .'very single item, the whole of the pro- - being worked out in detail, and a great many * Set Appendix No. Y the Agricultural Wages Hoard, called and examined. interesting statements in connection with all the '•s of farming. Evidence-in-chirf handed in by Witnrs*. 8698. Importance of Cnpitnl. In considering farm- ing profits, it may be borne in mind that" much of a farmer's profits are derived from selling and buying at the psychological moment. It is then ra understand one reason why the farming busineHs thnt has an ample working capital has such :i great aihan- tage over the business that is less fortunately ispiip- l"'d. It is unquestionable that farming was. up to MM I, for a great number of years immensely handi- capped through being under capitalised. Not only did farmers have to iN.ar constantly in mind the necessity of having something to sell alxmi n-ni time, which tended to restrict their operations, but the fact that most of their working capital had I .. be found in the form of a bank overdraft prevented many farmers from cultivating their land to the lx*t of their ability. 1 I'.iri'ciWr RcM/i/j.-Tho great variations in the financial results upon farms which are all approx- imately equally well farmed in their respect IM -i\l. , lire probably accounted for by the great dill there in in the rx*t of cultivating variou-. soil; by the- fortune's of the markets ami in a given year in relation to the style' of farnnV the business abilities of the different fan. MINUTES OF KVIDEXCK. 115 3 September, 1919.] MR. FALCONER L. WALLACE. [Continued. Some farmers make some income from business out- si'lo actual farming, such as buying and selling, dealing, and by valuing. 8700. Economical Size of Holdings. — It is the opin- ion of many good farmers, and 1 strongly share it myself, that farms of 400 acres and over are more economical to work than smaller ones, for the follow- ing reasons: — In a small farm, if such an operation as threshing is in progress, it entails a temporary sus- pension of most of the other operations on the farm while all hands are gathered for the threshing; this means idle horses, whereas on a larger farm emplo}-- ing more hands, threshing and other operations can be carried on simultaneously and the horses are not idle. Another advantage which the larger farm has over the smaller one is that where an operation has been delayed on account of weather, or it is desired to take special advantage of the weather, it is possi- ble on the larger farm to concentrate a larger number of hands on a particular operation. On the other hand, the largest sizes of farms, say, farms of over about 1,000 acres, should generally bo discouraged, because, firstly, on a very large farm there is a tendency to farm sketchily — not sufficiently intensively ; and, secondly, there is a huge demand for farms that are capable of being made to pay, and if one man or one company is allowed to concentrate too much land in his or its own hands, it means that one person or company is making a profit where two people should bo doing so. At the same time, to dis- courage farming on a fairly large scale would be im- prudent, as it would, in the first place, repress reason- able ambition, and, in the second place, the more well-to-do farmers are the backbone of the agricul- tural industry, and, on the whole, provide the beet conditions for agricultural labourers. 8701. Systems of Farming. — The samples given in this report cover three distinct classes of farming. The style of farming in the Border Counties is very similar to the Scottish system ; the rotation of crops is the same, with the exception that in the English Counties it ia the universal custom to keep a. small piece of permanent " cow pasture," whereas, in the North, our grasses are in' the arable districts all rotation grasses. In the Border Counties oats are the principal corn crop, as in Scotland. The style of farming covered by Series I.* is en- tirely different, and is typical of a great part of England. Referring, as it does, to the Midland it is, at the same time, typical of counties whero mixed farming is carried on outside the Midland area. It is not typical of the Eastern Counties of England, where other [ vstems exist. In South Durham and in Yorkshire a system of farming is carried on which is halfway between tho Border county and the Midland systems. The North Hiding is tho only portion of Yorkshire from which, within the limited time allotted to the inquiry, it was possible to draw samples. They in-« elude farms in the Dales. Tho wolds unfortunately were not visited. 8702. Increase in Farming Expenses. — In consider- ing tho present position of the farming industry, it may be borne in mind that, while the prices of farm produce are virtually the same in 1919 as in 1918, many of the costs of production have sensibly in- treased. The cost of increased wages is not the only item. Tradesmen's bills, such as blacksmiths', have gone up until they form a considerable item. Replacements of carts and implements are far more costly. Farm- work horses are dearer. In short, everything that is bought to carry on the working of a farm has gone up during the past few months from 15 per cent, to 43 per cent, increase. The 1918-19 profits, which I have not yet seen, must certainly be lower than in previous years. '• ' " ' "/ Equipping n Farm. — Whereas, before the war. £10 per acre was sufficient capital to equip any farm thoroughly, about £17 per acre is now required, and it will, if the present ratio of increase maintained, soon require considerably more. R704. Amount nf Labour Employed. — In tho ex- amples which are given, tho amount of labour is * See Tables in Appendix No. V. probably rather understated in counties where casual labour is employed to any considerable extent, because the records of the amount of casual labour employed are generally either not kept with accuracy or are inaccessible. 8705. The Most Prosperous Farm Workers. — Prob- ably the most prosperous farm workers in Great Britain are (1) tho Cumberland men, who board and lodge with the farmers, and live generally as one of the family. They are splendid workers. A very con- siderable percentage of the farmers in Cumberland started as farm labourers. (2) In the Eastern Counties of the North of Scotland, where single men's wages range at the present time up to £190 per annum, say, £3 13s. per week, including the value of allowances. (3) lu the Fen districts of Lincolnshire and its borders, where the farm workers are also virtually smallholders, though not in the technical sense under the Act; but the farm workers there hardly devote sufficient time to their employers' interest. 8706. Workers Housing and Gardens The housing of the farm vorkers, except on certain private estates, is extremely bad all oVer England, and it is much worse in Scotland. Gardens in England as a source of food supply and pleasure are quite inadequate, and allot- ments, which are generally sufficient, do not take their place. In Scotland gardens are not encouraged, and the workers do not have time to enjoy them. As a source of food supply they are less necessary than in England to the workers, as in Scotland abundance of vegetables are grown for the worker by the farmer. But as a source of recreation they ought to be encouraged. 8707. Inadequacy of Farm Steadings. — In very many parts of the country the farm steadings are inade- quate, or ill suited to their purpose. Unless prices of farm produce, and therefore farm profits, are main- tained, it will not be possible for farmers to pay the hi^h rate of interest that landlords will be forced to charge upon their outlays in improvements at present- day costs. [This concludes the evidence-in-chief.]1f Chairman: I will ask Mr. Green to begin to put question^. 8708. Mr. Green: With regard to tho economic size of holdings, do you share Sir Thomas Middleton's opinion, that a number of 100-acre farms should be developed at the expense of 300-acre farms? — I do not quite understand. 8709. Chairman : Have you seen Sir Thomasi Middle- ton's evidence? — No. I have not. 8710. Mr. Green: I think you referred in your evi- dence to your idea of a farm about 400 acres. It bears upon that point-' — If I may correct you, I have said it is more economical for a farm to be 400 acres or over than under 400 acres. 8711. I merely asked your opinion whether you think it would be more economical, and better for the nation, to have more 100-acre farms at the expense of the 300-acre farms by reducing tho 300-acre farms? — I do not know how to answer that question. 1 do not think I could possibly answer it off-hand. It is not a question to which I have had my attention directed. 8711A. Is it your opinion that the worst cultivated farms arc those of about 150 acres?— No, I do not think so. My experience was that the worst culti- vated farms are those which are much smaller than that — under 100 acres. 8712. You consider the Cumberland men, who are boarded and lodged by tho farmers, are probably the most prosperous labourers in Great Britain? — Yes. 8713. Some people have imagined from this, and the high wages they get in comparison with tho southern counties, that tho Cumberland farm workers do not desire smallholdings. I take, it that is not true, as 1 notice in Mr. Maurice Hewlett's figures§ there are 3831 holdings under 50 acres in Cumberland, and only f In addition to the above, Mr. Wallace submitted the Notes, Reports and Statistics which are contained or referred to in Appendix No. V. § ,SVc pago 53. " Wages and Conditions of Em- ployment in Agriculture," Vol. II., Reports of Investi- gators (Cmd. 25). H 3 116 UoYAL COMMISSION ON AUKICULTUUK. , 1919.] MB. FALCONER L. WALLACE. [Continual. loO above 300 acres. That points to the fact, doe* it not, that CumbtTlantl i- practically a county of smallholdings!- — I do not think it is a county of smallholdings under tin- Act, but it 18 a county of •mall "takes"; and in a n>|x>rt which 1 i--nt in to tho Board of Agriculture 1 hazarded a guow — it was only a guess, but made very carefully — that probably about SO per cent, of tho farms in Cumberland arc. now held by occupiers who started life as farm workers. When I say the farm worker is so pros- perous in Cumberland, I wish to lay special emphasis »n tho fact that he lives for tho most part in tho farmer's house, and lives very well, and ho only has to spend his wages upon cigarettes and boots. He lives very well indeed. 8714. Sir. Hewlett brings out the fact that the average siie of the farms in Cumberland is from 6 to 50 acres, whereas those in Northamptonshire are from 60 to 300 acres, according to your investigations? — Yes. 8715. But Northamptonshire is the worst farmed county of the two, do you say?— Yes, I should nay it is. Tho northern county is superior. Cumberland is a county of small farms. 8716. Mr. Hewlett says that tho position of the boarded man is exactly that of a domestic servant. I suppose from that we are to gather he is glad to escape from that position to that of a master man on a smallholding. Do you agree with Mr. Hewlett's opinion on that? — No, 1 do not at all ; because what 1 observed was that the farm servant was more like a member of the family than a domestic servant. II.- seems to be on the most friendly and intimate terms with the family, with whom for the most part he lodges. I do not agree with a good many of Mr. Maurice Hewlett's remarks in regard to the northern counties. 8717. With regard to your note about allotments, do you not consider the cottage garden far more useful to the labourer than the allotment?— \Yr\ much so. I strongly agree with that. 8718. As wo have had witnesses to inform us here that sheep do not pay, that bullocks do not pay, that milk does not pay, that wheat does not pay, and potatoes do not pay, can you tell us how farmers manage to make both ends" meet, and pay their income tax? — J am not prepared to say that those things do not pny under certain conditions. They may not pay under certain other conditions; but that u not my statement. 8719. j)o I understand that you do not believe it possible for us to arrive at any decision for the pur- pose of fixing guaranteed price*?- I think it is possible to arrive at a decision, and I think it is necessary to arrive at a decision ; but I think it can only be done by calling for a large number of returns from different parts of the country in regard to the costs of production. I would then wish to emphasise very strongly that after examining those costs of production, and satisfying yourselves as to the basis upon which they are made, you must then allow a large margin, because as I endeavoured to bring out in one of my remarks, it is not sufficient merely to say that the cost of growing an acre of wheat is so much and the rout of producing a pound of wool is so much, and then allocate a sufficient price to each of those rrticles to cover the cost of production plus a profit. iv farming is very much in the lap of the (.ml. very speculative; and. a« I endeavoured to show was the < -.:-.• last \c:ir. things do not turn out at all M they are very often expected to do. A farmer will vory often lose upon one < rop. and if he has onh heen allowed a bare, margin of profit upon tho other rrop. he will fail. What a farmer loses on the swings hn looks to gain on the round-altonta; and therefore. if you do not want to kill farming, you must allow n liberal margin of profit upon ench of the articles he produce*. 8720. In your investigation of cottage propertv have you romp to the conclusion that many young men who want to get married are obliged to leave their orrtipation on the land I .( the lack of cottage MMBBOdatioBr1 Yes: emphatically 8721. Yon agree that lalnmr is not likely to be attracted to farm work, if the labourer and his «ile and seven children «ay have to live in a small three roomed cottage aa you describe!' — The greatest want of agriculture in my opinion now is bettor housing. As 1 have publicly stated, no amount of wagos will satisfy a man who in not decently housed. :. Do you agree with me that new cottages should form part of the village street close to tho school rather than be on isolated parts? — That really depends very much on what part of the countix are referring to. In tho Midlands, no doubt, the farm worker objects very strongly to living outside a village. In fact, I came across a good many rases where cottages on the farm were empty because, although tho farmer was very short of labour and ollering almost any inducement to get feoplo to live 111 them, they would not live away from tho villages. Hut in the North that is not so much tho case. •-7'J.'i. Not onlv the labourer, but particularly tin- labourer's wife, t take it, objects most strongly? — But in northern counties you do not find to the same extent that general desire to live in a village. •-7JI. I gather, from evidence given at a previous Commission, that farm tied cottages were not pre- valent before the " Seventies "? — I cannot tell you: 1 have not tho information on that point. 8725. What do you consider to be the economic sise of a small mixed holding of medium land for the working of a pair of horses? — I am afraid 1 could not answer that question off-hand. It has been considered by county council authorities that a living for a family can be made off a holding of 30 acres and upwards. 8726. I wanted your experience and knowledge, and not that of the couutv councils? — I could not answer the question in that form. 8727. Y'ou say that a number of farmers are content with a, thresh-out of three quarters an acre, who could, if they liked, get six quarters. Do you mean t>\ that that the farmers do not do their best by the land?— They have not had sufficient agricultural train- ing to do their best in many cases. It is astonishing the extent to which the Knglish farmer is quite ignorant of the action of chemical manuring, for instance, as compared to the man in the North. 8728. You really stick to that statement?- Cer- tainly. •»7'29. Do vou really think the farmers in Northamp- tonshire ask themselves that question with all the reasoning involved which you set forth about the attitude of the farmer:' — That is the general feeling of doubt and misgiving all over the whole of the country. No farmer I ever met had the least objec- tion to paying very high wages. His only difficulty li;i, lie-en his doubt as to how long he would he able to continue to pay them. It is only fair to farmers that that should be known. S'.'M). What did you mean by hoping that the leaders of modern Trade I'nions would not follow the violent methods of Joseph Arch? — Joseph Arch lived a lone; time before mv day ; hut from what I could gather, ' even making allowance for the very conservative days in which he lived, and times are very (hanged now. I think he preached a rather violent doctrine from what I hear from those people who can remember his speeches. S7.'H. I think he would be quite a moderate man nowadays? — I think he may perhaps from what 1 can gather: but he rather rushed into a strike, for instance, by what I call rather a violent method. It may have been necessary in those days, with a very conservative people to deal with. 8732. You only go hy hearsay?— I only go from what I have heard from people who have hoard his <-lies. ^7:t'!. Farmers have told you that, I suppose? — Fanners, and farm workers too. -7.11. So that when you say in your pamphlet that you rather regret that labourers should have railway- men to represent them as secretaries of Trade Unions, have you ever thought there was a reason behind that? Ye-: the reason l>ehind it is that the agri- cultural worker is rather n retiring sort of nvan. H" bus not been used to organisations, and he has not been used to Unions, and he feels incapable of organising himself: he therefore naturally turns to another class of worker who haw l>een accustomed to organising, in order to get help in forming his body. But I think it is .1 very bad thing indeed for MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 117 3 September, 1919.] MB. FALCONER L. WALLACE. [Continued. agriculture, especially from the point of view of the agricultural labourer, that they do have to take the lead from people who know absolutely nothing about agricultural conditions. It has a very unfortunate effect. In many cases it leads to demands which are perfectly impossible, and leads to a certain amount of feeling which ought not to exist; because there ought to be no feeling against Unions ; only when impossible attitudes are taken up, it does lead to a certain amount of feeling, and it only arises from the total inability of a man like a railwayman to understand the conditions under which agriculture is necessarily carried on. 8735. Have you also thought th's out, that many of these railwayman have been working on the farm themselves and have been the sons of labourers, and left the farm because they could get higher wages elsewhere? They are quite accustomed to farm life themselves, and the men themselves make them secre- taries. That is one reason. Another, I suggest to you, is that in the past, unfortunately, many of the labourer secretaries have been boycotted and sacked by farmers for taking any official position in the Union? — Yes, I am afraid that is the case. I have not met or heard of leaders who are not farm workers who have been 'in any way accustomed to farm life. I have met some of these leaders who live in villages. I have one great leader in mind now, who is a retired schoolmaster, who certainly does not know much about agriculture, and I think another is a stone-mason. He does not know much about agriculture except from living in country villages, and in his very early youth when I think he lived with his father who was employed in agriculture. That is the kind of thing. 8736. Did you find it universally carried out in the Midland Countiea, which you investigated, that per- quisites of board and lodging were not counted as part of the cash .wages? — They were hardly ever counted as part of the wages. They were almost invariably given in. 8737. And you think that still holds good?— Yes, it did up. to last year, and I have no doubt it does now. 8738. Therefore, the men are getting more than their minimum wage? — Yes. I have stated that in my notes, I think you will see. 8739. Mr. •/ '. M. llrnderson: Referring to farm workers, you say that in the Eastern Counties of the North of Scotland a single man's wages range at the present time up to £190 per annum, including the value of allowances. How much of that do you reckon as allowances? — I was taking out from my own farms in Aberdeenshire the wages and the allowances, and I have not any men paid as high as £190. I took that from a statement which I saw published. The top wage in Aberdeenshire is about £150, the allowances coming to about £50 in the case of the married man ; and I put the cost of keeping single men at about the same amount. 8740. That would leave £140 for cash wages?— Which is higher than I have personally known paid. As I say. I took that from a statement which was published. 8741. I think that must be very much exaggerated, because I know the rate for a first horseman would not bo anything like £140 a year ; it would be more like £80 a year. Mr. Diincnn : It is quite correct. It amounts to that, and more in some cases. 8742. Mr. natclielor: It goes up to £160?— It does not apply in Aberdeenshire, but I think it does in oome other parts. I should say in Aberdeenshire it it is £150. 8743. Mr. J. M. Henderson : You say that in Scot- land, gardens are not encouraged, and the workers do not have time to enjoy them? — That is the case. 8744. You are in favour of some gardens for tho workers, are not you? — I am very strongly in favour of it. S71.1. To grow both flowers and fruit?— Yes. S"lf!. Would you wy that the culture of fruit in farms whom they have ample room, and very little labour is requirrd on fruit trees, might not 1x- a groat deal tin.-!' encouraged for household purposes and so forth0 The only cases which I have come across in tho ("oiinty I know best, which is Al>crdecnshirc, is where they have tried to grow fruit other than bush 25329 fruit, it has generally been a failure. Bush fruit might be grown a great deal more than it is. 8747. And apples, surely ? — Apples have very often been a failure. 8748. Then you speak ver\ gloomily of milk. Have you, in your many wanderings, ever seen the depot at Simley, near Shaftesbury? — No, I have not seen that. 8749. There are, of course, depots where the farm- ers deliver milk and are paid on the spot so much a gallon, and are finished with it? — Quite. My point is, why should they have finished with it? Why should they not share in the further profits by being shareholders in the milk factory. 8750. I was coming to that; but I was rather on this point : that you say in your book, on page 11 : '• The steadings are generally from the point of view of cleanly and economical milk production, of the very dirtiest and most ill-designed types"? — That applies to England : it applies less to Scotland. 8751. My object was to show that there are depots where the milk is properly cleaned and the condi- tions are good? — I mean, the farm steadings are so dirty and ill-arranged for milk production. They have mostly been built for feeding, and the cost of adapting them to milk production now is practically prohibitive. 8752. In some of your schedules I find it rather difficult to follow you : in fact, it would take a good deal of understanding. In series II.,* Cumberland and Westmorland, there is a statement showing the difference in profits on two scales of wages. There is a dairy mixed, the fourth example down : You say " wages £180 " and " cash profit " " lived, no cash." This man with his 300 acres of dairy and mixed, made no profit but managed to live. Is that the meaning of that column? — Yes. 8753. Then in 1918 he made £5 profit per acre?— Yes. 8754. What I cannot understand is this. You say that the profit on the capital is 28 per cent., »nd then in the next column you say the profit in 1914 at the present rate of wages would be £100 lower about? — Yes. 8755. You say he lived with no cash ; and you have taken it if he were paying the same rate of wages as now, he would have lost £100?— That is what I mean. 8756. But now, on account of high wages0 — Last vear, not this year. " 8757. Last year he made £1,500?— Yes. A detailed statement in "regard to that is among the examples which I told the Chairman are in the secretaries' office. 8758. The very next item is 350 acres mixed. The wages are £213 16s. Od. in 1914?— Yes. 8759. You say their cash profit is £86?— Yes. 8760. But the balance sheet profit is £222?- Because that includes appreciation. It is the differ- ence between the increase in capital value and merely a cash profit. I have taken out the cash profit. 8761. But the balance sheet shows a profit of £222? — Yes which balance sheet is in tho bundle. 8762. Then the next one is 200 acres. The loss in 1914 was £455 14s., and as to the profit in 1918 you mark here a loss, hut the balance sheet shows £878 13s. + ? — Yes. There again he did not make any actual cash profit, but he got an appreciation in his capital. 8763. That is not exactly what this means. You say he is at a loss. Docs the balance sheet show £878 13s. f loss?— Yes. 8764. Then that is a balance sheet loss as well? — That again you will find in the detailed statements on which this is based. It is the difference between merely taking the cash profit, as I do, and the real profit" which a chartered accountant would take according to a balance sheet. 8765. An ordinary balance sheet debits the valua- tion at one time and credits it at another? — Yes. 8766. The next one I wish to call attention to is 101 acres mixed. The wages paid there are only £17. and in 1914 he lived but had no cash profit? — Yes. 8767. In 1918 he had £40 cash profit?— Yes, that IK * See Table No. 3 in Appendix No. V. t This figure was subsequently altered to £378 13s. H 4 IIS 3 S«pt€mb«r, UMl'.j < "MMi»i"\ ON M.Kit i I.ITKI.. MK. FALCONE* L. WALLACE. [Continued, ••>. You »oro good enough to t*y that you bad .i< tuul balance tJieoU of farmers? — Yea ual balance sheets of real farms? — Yes; mude nut li\ i li.iiii-u-il accountant* over a series of in Home caeca dealing with five consecutive years farming. •>. Are these tin- farmer's own balance ahoetsF — No, they an- made out by a chartered accountant. i. From tboir own figures? — YOB. The firm of accountant* keep the books for the fanner. I Those would be for farms of 100 to 300 acres, •ucb as I bare quoted to you now ? — I cannot tell you which ; but some of these figures are actually taken from those balance sheets. -mi. Wo hare had one balance sheet, but that was of a very largo estate. We have had no balance sheet of small larins of 100 to 300 acres, and BO on?— 'I 'here are several balance sheets of these individual farms 1 have mentioned which are ordinary medium-sized farm*. 1. There is another one in the next tahle which 1 should like to ask you about. It is dairy mixed, tlu> tifth down. Them again the balance sheet shows JLI.IS5 9s. profit, with a caah profit of £1,202 in 1914.- lou will find the actual statements in the bundle 1 have referred to. ">. Then I will not trouble with any more, except No. x. 1 think there is a clerical error there. 1 think the £125 3s. ought to be £1,253?— No, that is right. 1 thought so too when I was reading over the figures, but you will see the reason in my statement. The actual statement of account is in the bundle. There was a special explanation of it. I. What is your own private estimate, as a practical farmer, of what the guarantee should be, if there is to be one at all? — Do you mean the price? S777. You know the Corn Production Act guaran- '•-. for the wheat of this crop? — Yes. You mean, what is my idea of what price should be guaranteed. 8778. That is it? — I am not prepared to give an answer, because, although I got out some figures for it last year, costs have changed very much ; and the only way you can arrive at any proper data, for that, is by asking a largo number of people in different parts country and averaging it out. There is nothing more bewildering, 1 have found, than getting out estimates of costs from different parts of the country which vary by several pounds an acre. There is a iea.son for it too; that is, the variable costs in pro- duction according to the situation of the land. s-77'.l. Have you formed any idea : year had been paid iu 1914, that is what the profit would have been. i. Did }ou take the 1918 prices?- No. All I did was to take the farming acmunis for l!il-l, and 1 simply imagined that those individuals <>i whom I had u note, and in each case 1 had taken a note, had I" -en paid at the t ate of the !'.»'> wages. Then the !:•! I profit would have been reduced no much. 8784. You iv\erely substitute'. 1 18181 I merely hub stituted that wage for the same individuals for l!'l I. 8785. Without taking into account any diminution? \Yithout taking that into account. ". \\iihou; conquering whether the sumo number of labourers were employed or not? — No; I took the actual individuals in each case. 8787. With regard to your sliding scale, what food stuff do you j-iupo-e this •}() per cent, of yours should apply to, which is to slide up and down according to prices? — 1 meant all food stuffs which are produced on the farm; for instance, oafs, wheat, milk, meat, and potatoes. That is what I meant. 8788. But you see in the excerpt from your report on " Wa culture '' you say milk, flour, sugar — rose the wages would have to rise similarly proportionately '' r- Of course that was a slip, 1 could not alter it after I had written it in my report; but sugar is an imported article. 8789. That is one difficulty 1 had?— This is an ex- cerpt from my report; and it occurred to me after- wards it ought not to be included. Of course, it is not home produce. 8790. You vould fluctuate this 40 per cent, with the price of home grown produce? — That was my idea. ^7!) I. But you will agree that meat and bread, to some extent, are also imported? — Yes. 8792. Are \ou going to make an allowance for the imjiortcd quantities? — No; because you will have to make it fluctuate according to the price of that article, whether it is imported or not. I mean to say, the farmer's price is regulated by the importations. 8793. So that you are going to take the- wh.ilc amount of food consumed by the faini labour- 1 suppose, and make that 40 per cent, apply to that?— Yes. 879J. What quantities of each nre you going to laker How are you going to fix the quantities <>r these food stuffs that -ire goi.- r into the com position of this sliding sealer 'I he Heard have had a large . number of labourers' budgets all over the country, which, I think, have been published in Blue Book form, which. 1 think, give you a very good idea of each article consumed in England. It was the subject of a great investigation. i. Have you any knowledge of the working of the sliding scales in other industries?-. No. I lu\e not. 8796. You do not know, for example, how they work in the coal trader -No, I do not. 8797. Would not it bo well to consider how it worked there before you apply it to another industry? It may not be at all on all fours. -71'*. You know in the. coal trade wages are Mip 1 to fluctuate- on the selling juice (,l coal:-' Yes ; but I have not said wages should. I ^aid a propor- tion of th It. makes the whole difference. -7!l'.». Yes, a little? It. is the whole differn ,-. I do not say the whole wage should flue tun to, by no I said a piojvort ion of the wage that 'pro portion which applies to the purchase of the stuff which is produced upon the farm the foodstuffs 8800. That is. of mui-e. tin- only part they could apply tor Yes ; l,u( (I,-,) j.. the difference between this and :m industry like the coal industry, because there you are talking about the whole wage fluctua- ting. I did not projiow- that. ffiOl. I oint out that it is very difficult to legislate equitably for the whole of the country at once, and there ought to he varying conditions in varying climate*. I say it is not fair to apply the same condi- tion* to a county like Cumberland, of which we have spoken, as would apply to a county like Northampton- shire, sav. '• Yet. yon admit yourself that the Cumlterland farm is much better and much more profitable than the Northamptonshire farm? — It is better farming. I hare not said it i* more profitable. 8844. There is one point Mr. (Irccn asked you about. You said there was no general denire for village lifi« in the Northern Counties on the part of the workers:* -That I found to be the case. 8845. You are referring to England, of courae?— The Border Counties. RR46. And Scotland, too?— Yes; I should say Scot- land, too. I do not think they like village life so much either there. You are aware that a great many of the Scot- •'nrm workers ohj<-ct very much to' the isolated tied houw- No ; I have not come across it in my part. - V' /••• . ' . 1 1. ., .., i;,,,,. •oarMJff Y. - 8*49. Would you agree with me that the wages paid to the farm workers ore considerably below those paid io other Industrie*?— Yea; I should aay, on the whole, they are. 8860. Do you agree with mo that the hours worked l.y throe men are considerably longer than the hours worked in other industries?- -That variea so much. It varies very much in different parts of the country. It depends how many hours you take out for meals and rest; and also the actual time of beginning and ending variea very much. 8861. I am taking the total hours for the week. Arc not they longer than in any other industry prac- tically?— I could not answer the question off-hand. 8852. Is it your experience that there is a shortage of farm workers at tho present time? — Do you mean all over? 8863. Right throughout the country? — Yes. on the v. hole in England. To some extent there is a shortage, too, in Scotland, I should say. On the whole, I would say there is a shortage. 8854. Do you agree' with me that there is a large number of men unemployed at the pi- nt time? — I do not know; but I will accept \<>ur statement if you sav there are. I havo not found a great many my- self. 8855. What is likely to attract more men to the land — higher wages and shorter hours, or what? — Better housing, for one thing; that is the • hicf thing. 8856. Single men do not want houses of their • I mentioned that in one of my reports. I think there is a great deal to be done in the education of •|M>\S. I think there is nothing to attract a boy in going on to a farm, in England especially. If you take Northumberland, he is reared up in his family where every member of the family works on the farm. Tho girls) work till they get married, and so on. But if you take anywhere in the Midlands or the South of England, what happens to the boy when he goes on the form? He is probably put with the horseman, and probably does not care twopence alxnit horses. He has the earliest and latest hours worked on the farm with the horseman. He. generally cheek* the carter, or something or other happens, and hi into trouble with him. There are no steps ever taken to give him a liking for farm life. For instance, if only in their school days they could manage to- train them, and give them a liking for farming by giving them classes upon a neighbouring farm, or having a County Council farm tea-hing them the skilled operatioiis like thatching, hedging, and ditching. You will find in my reports of different meetings. I asked boys why they had never learned to be skilled men ; and they said they never got the chance of learning, that the old hands did not take the trouble to teach them. I think a great deal can be done by educat- ing boys to give them a liking for farm life. Take one village. A boy takes it into his head to go as a policeman, and another boy goes as a policeman ; then the whole lot of boyd go. In the next village you find they goto the railway; and so they follow each other like a flock of sheep. If only you -y>uld get them interested in the farm work and get them to learn the more skilled work of tho farm earlier in their life. I think it would go a long way to help to attract them. I gave an illustration in one of my leports, I think in the Buckinghamshire report* of an experiment which a very enlightened farmer there made in the way of educating hoys. :md the good n ults which came from it. I venture to draw your attention to it. It is a very interesting illustration of my meaning. 8857. Thisi matter of education is going to be tackled by tho various education authorities throughout tho country? — I am very glad to hear it. 8858. Taking the important commodities produ-cd from the farm, say, as compared with coal and machinery, do not you think that the rate of wages are too low- to attract these men to come to this in- ilii^rv, and that they ought to he brought up to the level of other industries?--! think that if you give a man a good home and a good garden, he Mill be content to work in the country for considerably less) wages than he will be in a town. 1 Hut you want to attract the younger men on to the farms, do not you;' I think that will go a long way toward1; it. I place the greatest emphasis possible upon a good bouse and a good garden. It will form one of th" greatest possible attractions to * See page 12. " Wages and Conditions of Employ- ment in Agriculture." Vol. II., Reports of Investi- gators [Cmd. 25]. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 121 3 September, 1919.] MR. FALCONER L. WALLACE. [Continued. men who now drift into the towns, to remain in, the country, and to come back into the country. 8860. I think you say here that the economic size of a farm would be 400 acres up to 1,000?— No. What 1 meant to say was, that a farm is of more economic size to work if it is 400 acres upwards than if it is below 400 acres. 8861. Does not that mean that you would have less men on the land than if you had, say, a farm of 400 acres? — There is only one family there. Would not it be better if you had four families controlling 100 acres each? — I do not think the size of the farm has really anything to do with the number of men employed per 100 acres. 8862. But would not it give a monopoly to one person? He would draw the benefits out of 400 acres, instead of four families doing so? — You mean to say, am I in favour of splitting up a 400-acre farm and dividing it into four 100-acre farms? I would have a large number of small farms; but I am not prepared to say that I would break up every 400-acre farm into 100-acro farms. I think that would bo a great mistake ; because, as I think 1 have said somewhere, the rather larger farmers are the backbone of the industry. I think they provide the most and best employment in most cases — not all. Cumberland is a county of small farms; and there they provide very good conditions for the men. But taking the country all over, I think it is the biggest farmers who very often provide the best conditions ; and I think with (very industry, if you are going to take the biggest and the strongest men with the most capital out of it you will ruin it. You want to have all sizes. I am all in favour of providing a large number of moderate holdings like 100 acres, but do not for goodness sake take your strongest and best mm out of an industry, as you will be taking the backbone out of it. 8866. You say in your evidence-in-chief, §8705, that the workers of Cumberland are very excellent and splendid workers. Are they better than in other countries? — I think they are as good as any I have seen anywhere. I attribute it largely to the fact that they are very well fed and well kept. 8864. Do you attribute their efficiency to the fact that they are well loolced after? — I attribute a good deal of it to that. Then they are very interested in their work. They live with the family, and they take as much interest in the work as the farmer docs himself. The main point is, 1 think, that they live so very well. 8865. Do you find much complaint against the agri- cultural worker as to efficiency — that he is indifferent to his work and so on, since the war in particular ?- No. I have had more complaint since the war of the inefficiency of labour supplied, which has been soldier labour. They have been very willing fellows; but they have not known much about it, and have not found it easy to learn their job. That is what I have had the most general complaint of. 8866. Mr. Nieholls : I only want to ask vou on the point of education of boys, whether you have found in any case where a boy really tried to make himself specially efficient, the farmer has encouraged that boy by any extra that he might give him? — Yes; I have found cases where the farmer did, but the boys gener- ally complain that the men themselves do not en- courage them. 8867. Supposing we go on with the education of the boys, do you think it would be a good plan to give the lads certificates or diplomas on the understanding that as soon as a boy did get a certificate or diploma of offiricncv. that would moan extra payment over his ordinary wages? — I think it is a splendid idea, and I am suro every farmer would jump at it. 8868. Would you be surprised if I told you that for a very long time I have been advocating it among farmers, and they are a little bit shy of it. I mean it is a verv strong thing with me; and I have always felt that young fellows who took an interest in their job and really cared to become efficient, were not en- couraged as they ought to have been by the men who employed them. The excuse was: "Well, if I give him something extra, it will unsettle him and make tlio others dissatisfied "? — I do not think that is a w.nml argument. I nin very strongly in favour of your idea. I think it is a splendid ide:i. 88fi9. I have always felt that just as you give a lad or a girl something to show that he or she has passed a certain examination, say, for ambulance work or some other thing that proves efficiency, they are prouu of that; and a farmer ought to be proud that he hau got a young fellow who is keen on that line, and that he should encourage him? — I quite agree with you. I always make a point of giving a good man a bit extra. 8870. Mr. Smith : Do you believe in the workmen being organised? — Certainly I do. I have stated so in public. It is a necessity. 8871. I see you suggest a system of sliding scales as a method of paying wages F — Yes. 8872. Have you really thought that out in connec- tion with agriculture? — Will you put a point upon your question? 8873. Have you thought it out from the point of view of the difficulty that would exist in applying it? Would not it mean uncertainty existing all the time as far as the labourer was concerned, as to what his position was? — Not if my scheme worked as I think it would work, because the labourer's well-being would be unaffected thereby. 8874. You are speaking now from the theory of it. I am speaking from the point of view of its applica- tion. Do not you think that one of the things that is essential from the point of view of the labourer is, that he should know what his wages are to be and have some assurance each week? — You see the whole point is, that with the money fixed which he spends on every purpose except these particular articles I have enumerated, if he is able to buy these particu- lar foodstuffs for less money, he does not need so much money, and therefore his position is absolutely unaffected. The money which he has for spending on luxuries or other necessities is stable. 8875. It means, if your suggestion were carried out, that part of his income would bo speculative, and depend upon the prices of certain commodities? — It would depend upon the prices of certain commodities. He would always have enough money to buy these commodities. 8876. But the point comes as to how you are going to determine the varying point of his wages. I want to suggest to you that the machinery that would have to be established would be so cumbersome, and the difficulty of coming to an agreement would be so great, that there would be continual irritation in the industry, which in itself would bo bad? — I do not think that would be so, if we could find some auto matic basis. For instance, I suggested a sliding scale in England would be the recognised basis. Then there ought not to be any misunderstanding. It is a means of enabling the farmer to pay the high wages which no farmer wants to reduce ; and the status of the position and the comfort of the workman remain the same. 8877. Do you know that this has been tried in certain industries, and it is gradually going out because of the difficulty of it? — I know a sliding scale for wages has ; but I did not know that a sliding scale for this particular purpose had been applied. 8878. Do not you know that it is difficult to apply it in industries where the labour is concentrated, and where the article is produced day by day? If it is difficult there, it would be much more difficult in an industry like agriculture? — No, I do not think so, because you are talking of quite another matter altogether. You are comparing the fluctuations of wages with the cost of producing coal and iron, for instance, whereas I am merely talking about a por- tion of the wages fluctuating with the cost of pro- ducing food; that is to say, that portion of the wages which is applied to the purchase of the particular article of food. 8879. It is part of the wages? — Yes; but it always provides enough wage to buy the article for which it is intended — the food. 8880. Dr. Douglas : On that point would not it be a great difficulty in applying a price scale to wages, that the available scale would always be that of the preceding year? Your cereal price scale would always be that of the preceding season, would it not? — Why would it? 8881. Your year's prices do not become applicable until after harvest, do they? — That is true. I had not thought of that point. 122 r/jto*6«r, 1919.] IJiiV.M. < "MM|>s|,,\ ()N Ai.lilrl I.I IIJI . Mit. KAKONKK I, WALLACE. •r. .„...,,/ 8889. It i* ma important practical point, in not it:- -V«», it i*. 1 am not prepared to say bow we can get over that difficulty in Scotland 8883. Does not the same difficulty arise in Knglnnd. In any period nt any month, the cxiMing ml. charge applies not to that period hut t<>- the one befoi. • ; hut I think we cm with :i little con- sideration find a way round that difficulty. I admit the difficulty. 8881. I take it you had not thought of that aspect - —No, I had not. I admit that ; but I think we may find a way round it. 8885. Than with regard to other matters, as to important foodstuff's, there is really no such general price fixed as in the case of cereals. In the case of meat, for example, which is of so many different qualities, under normal conditions, you have not a controlled price, and it wae very difficult to as scale of prices? — I do not think it ought to be. 8886. There is not anything of the sort in existence just now? — You could average a price. I do not pro- foss to have worked out the whole of the thing in detail. It would take more heads than mine to do it. I only want to enunciate the principle. 8887. I quite understand. I think you say in your evidence that the costs of production vary very widely? — Yes, very widely. 8883. Both on account of different costs of tillage. and of different degrees of productiveness of the soil '•> — And different scales of wages and different climatic conditions. One sort of soil takes much more work- ing than another. 8889. How does that affect your judgment of a guarantee proposal as a fixed policy? — It merely makes my point, that you must allow a very wide margin above the costs. Some men will make more money out of it than others ; but you cannot help that. 8890. That is to say, if you want to increase pro- duction end bring in land that would not be culti- vated without a guarantee, your guarantee must apply to that less profitable land? — Yes, it will have to. If you are going to make an overhead price, you cannot avoid one man making more money than another. That must be expected. 8891. Quito so; but you do not moan to suggest, I think, that your guarantee should be a guarantee designed to give an increased profit? It is simply a guarantee against loss, is not it? — No; I do not think a guarantee against loss will encourage farmers suffi- ciently. 8893. Not even if they have the chance of tho open market? — I should not like to express a definite opinion. I should like to have a great many people's opinions on that. The point is, that you might guarantee a farmer against loss, and yd he might not make any profit at nil. and ho would not carry on. I think you must assure a farmer a reasonable <>|i|«>rtunity of making n. definite profit. 8893. You recognise it is on extraordinarily diffi- cult proposal, that you should guarantee something more than the mere avoidance of loss in the industry r It is very difficult, and you cannot legislate for far ahead. 8894. But is it not very desirable that you legislate MMIIO way ahead t — I do not think it is possible under tho changing conditions of agriculture. Look how the co»ta have varied between last year and now? Go round to any group of farmer*, 'or farmers' unions, anil g««t from them estimates made by Delected men, n-. I did : and po over thorn nnd check them minutely If. and find out what enrh man thinks it will rent to pmduro an arm of any particular crop. You will find a most astonishing variation. 8895. That applies to th«< amount of tho guarantee in any caso; but do not you think a guarantee would lose a good doal of it* effect ivenesn if it was of very short duration:' Doe* not tho farmer look forward to hi« whole rotation? — Yes; by all means, a few roam. 8898. You would i- 'iiat the more years you could make it apply to. within a reasonable limit. tlie greater would !»• tli.- value of any s|iooial guaran- Cli-nrlv: Init T think it emphasises the impossi- bility of your being able to fix tho price for more than :i very few years ahead, because it changes very rapidly. 8897. In your experience at present, do you find that farmers have a strong disposition to put land hnok to gnus? What is the tendency jn*t now? — I have not boon travelling about England much since I closed my investigations last year. 8898. Take your own district in Abordoenehiro? — No, 1 do not tliink so. You see, all we have done was .•-imply to plough up half the second year's grass, and plough all tho third ye:i I rid <>1 the third year, instead of leaving it down three or four years. 8899. Did you make large increases on that scale of cultivation during the war? — I do not know what tho official figures are; hut it mad. :• -.HK] deal of difference. 8900. Will that scale of cultivation ho maintained if nothing is done? — No; I should certainly say they will go back to the old system, because it suite them much better. 8901. Aberdoenshire is a county where there is a very open choice between grazing and cultivation, is not it? — You see, we want the grass in the. summer: and I should think if there are no special re;i they are quite sure to go back to the system of keeping all the grass down three years, and a little of it four years. 8902. On the whole, the Abordeenshiro farmers have found it rather more profitable to graze a good deal of their land? — It is somewhat difficult to say, because it has been a year of remarkable drought. It has been the greatest drought since 1868. 8903. Yes; but I mean over ,n period of years it has been the tendency, has not it. to graze a good doal of the land? — They have a very strict proportion. It does not vary much. 8904. But it was varied under the pressure of the Government? — Only a little; to the extent that they ploughed up their third year's grass at the end of tho second year. 8905. Is that all that happened during the war? Was there no increase of cultivation? — No: there were one or two private parks ploughed which had never been ploughed up before, but the acreage is inconsiderable. 8906. Was your Agricultural Committee not active in that matter? — You see. in Ahrrdoonshiro we are all under rotation; and therefore the most you can 'v do is< to shorten your rotation. That is all we did do. 8907. The same applies in my own district, and yet wo secured a very large increase?—! did *<-e some figures stated as to what the increase was in Ahor- iiire. but I do not remember what it v J. It was not anything like ">() per cent., for example? — I rnnnot remember what the figure «:>< although I saw it published. 8909. So that there is not now a much larger area under cultivation than was the ease proviously?- Thero is no more tinder cultivation. snin. Than was the case in 1!)H. for example f NO, Aliordconsl,' not lend itself to it. spot of land is under cultivation already. M. Hut there JB a great deal of grass?— No. is not; only the strict amount, according to our rotation. 8912. Hut that is a pretty considerable proportion , in your rotation, is not it?- No. : What proportion? How many years of the whole rotation are in grass? — It is customary to keep all the grass down three years. Mtll. And the tillage cycle is what?— It is a six shift system mostly. *- oiir, T should nttnrh the irreat«'-.t importance totlint. It is a tliinj' I should l'k>- ni'i.t -•rnnjrly to Urge. 8933. It is essentially a matter for practical in- struction, is not it? — Yes; practical instruction, and giving them a liking for the work. I beg again to draw attention to an experiment which a farmer made with wonderful results in his district. It is in my Buckinghamshire report. He got some little boys on their half holidays, and" paid them on the results. He educated them and got them interested, and made the work a pleasure to them. 8934. Mr. Dallas: I would like to ask you about these guarantees. You suggested that the guarantees should be of such a character as would allow a pretty wide margin of profit on everyone of the agricultural products ? — Yes. 8935. Do you realise that that would mean a sub- stantial burden on the taxpayers/ of the country? — I do. 8936. Do you think that people who are interested in other industries, would quietly agree to pay money out of their pocket to help to keep agriculture going ? — No, I do not. 8937. In all probability if that were agreed to, they, in turn.' would also be asking that their particular industry should be subsidised? — Yes, I am afraid they would. " If the country will realise that unlesb they do something of the sort, they run the risk of this very great occupation of agriculture disappearing under unfavourable conditions, and they realise tho very large proportion of the working classes who other- wise would live in the country will cease to live there, they might become more interested. A great deal depends on the effort of the farmers in that direction. 8938. Do you, as a Scotsman, suggest that Scottish farmers, and particularly the Aberdeenshire farmers, have lost that characteristic of independence, and standing on their own legs and fighting their own battle, without taking charity from anybody? — The Aberdeenshire farmer has only just recently been confronted with this very high scale of costs ; and nobody can tell the Aberdeenshire farmer how far the costs, other than wages, are going to come down,. or how soon they are going to come down ; and that is a very important matter, because they have gone up from 14 to 25 per cent, the last few months. 8939. But he is making a profit over his costs ?— Yes, he is doing well. 8940. Probably doing better than he ever did? — I cannot tell you what the result of the accounts will be this year, as I have not seen any. My investiga- tions were only in 1918, but I should not think they would be so high. 8941. Have you anything to suggest to the Com- mission that might be done to help to encourage agriculture without imposing a burden on the tax- payer?— No, I do not see how it can be done. 8942. In the course of your investigations round tho various English Counties, you have come into con- tact with the Unions and with the men in the Unions? —Yes. U!M3. Have not you found that agricultural laliourors \vho take an active interest in their Unions, are very often victimised and lose their job? — I do not think so now. I think that was in days gone by. 8944. Would you be surprised if I told you, as a member of the Agriculture Wages Board, that within the last month I have had one case and within recent months many cases, of agricultural labourers who have lx>on dismissed from their employment for taking part in the work of the County Committees? — I am very surprised to hear it ; and I can safely say that in the last year I visited, I could not tell you the number but upwards of 200 farms, and I never found a single case of it. 8945. 200 farms is a very small percentage out of about 500,000, is not it ? — Perhaps it is a small per- centage, but tho 200 farms were fjiir samnles. 8946. Would you be surprised if I told you that the wages side of the Agricultural Wages Board have had cases reported from every part of England and Wales? — Do you say there are 600,000 farmers? S947. Mr. Batchelor tells me it is 200,000.— There will lie some black sheep among them ; but it is certainly not a general failing of the farmers. There a vo some sticky Conservative old people left, but I do not think there are many. I think the wnr has npenrd many people's eyee. 124 ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICDLTUBK. 3 Stfltmbtr, 1919.] MR. FALCONER L. WALLACE. [Continued. 8943. Would that not account for the agricultural labourer* often putting somebody else in official posi- tions in their I munsP — No, I do not think so a bit. 8949. Mr. Anker Simmons: You agree that one of the beat things that could happen would be, to im- prove the status of the farm labourer? — Yes. 8950. "Tho proposal put by Mr. N it-hulls just non- falls in with your own views P — Rewarding a boy by firing extra nay if he has a certificate or diploma is, think, an admirable suggestion. 8951. I have often spoken on the same question. Do you think ft would be possible to differentiate in UM same way that there is a differentiation between the bricklayer and his labourer, that that is a differen- tiation by having a more or less qualified farm labourer who should take a status somewhat equal to that of the ordinary mechanic? — They do, do not theyP I mean, in England you pay your horse- man, cattleman and your shepherd, more than you pay the ordinary labourer. 8953. They do and do not. I nm one of those who believe that the feminine influence has a vory great deal to do with every side of life; and what 'I have in my mind is this: that a domestic servant v, ho is " walking out," as they call it, with A mechanic, rather boasts of it against her fellow domestic servant who is '' walking out " with a farm labourer. Do not you think that, indirectly, that has a good deal of influence in keeping men away from farm labour, and that that would be rectified, to a great extent, if there could be a class of farm labourers who would hold as good a status as the ordinary mechanic?— I do not know what the farm labourers would say to that. It would rather slight some of them, would it notP 8953. Could it not be brought about by a system of apprenticeship? — Yes; if you begin when they arc young, certainly. I think that will be merely carry- ing on the same system of rewarding the small boy who has got a diploma, so Ihat when he grew to be a man you would reward him by having another dip- loma, and so on. If you could do that, it might assist matters. 8954. A system of apprenticeship always appeared to me to be the way out of the difficulty? — But I do not think the farm labourer is looked down upon now as ho was before the war. I think that is one of the changes the war has brought about. 8955. I hope it will prove to be so. I do not want to repeat questions, but I want you seriously to con- sider this. Do you think it would be in the interests of agriculture as an industry, if this Commission decided that some kind of guarantee is desirable, for it to recommend a guarantee which would really in- volve a profit P — That is the same question of guaran- tee against loss or guaranteeing a profit. 8956. I am asking it again for this reason, that I am a little doubtful in my own mind as to whether you have really weighed the importance of that ques- tion?— I am not prepared to give an answer now. It is a very very difficult question indeed. I do not think it will be enough to guarantee against loss only. 8957. I should bo glad if you would reconsider it; because the decision of a witness like yourself on this point, would be valuable after reconsideration P — I have seen the point discussed; and my feeling all along has been it would not lie- sufficient, but I am nnt prepared to express a definite opinion. I should like to talk to a great many people about it. It is a very difficult point indeed. 8958. Then with regard to the difference in valuo •o far as the output of work is concerned botwoon your farm labourer and Cumberland, and your fnrm labourer in Berkshire, do not you think me climatic condition* have a great deal to do with the amount of work which the men are able to perform? — The cli- matic conditions in Cumberland are horrible. It is the most relaxing place I was ever in in my life. Whon I was there it seemod to be always raining. 8959. It may rain; but that would apply to - land? — No; I think the thing is that thev give them such good food. Thev have splendid meals, and they nn- remarkably well done. 8960. Wo have had a number of men down South from the North, and my experience has been that they commence by working harder and producing more output than our southern men do, but in a \ erv short nun- they get down to lint level of l!i- sonlli count- I li.u.- heard that before. S< people have told mo that has been their experience. I think very likely, comparing the south country cli- mate with the north country climate, omitting ( um- berlaml, that has something to do with it. Then- is a change of food, and a generally slack atmosphere among the other workmen too. 8961. You do not consider it would be practicable to adopt the Cumberland system of living in of farm labourers?— No. It is really very objectionable from the point of view of the farmer, and the workers would much prefer to have houses. They all have to go away now when they get married. 8962. It is not a system you would recommend ?- No, I do not recommend it; but I attach great im- portance to the very good living. I am quite sure they live a great deal better than they would do if they had to buy their own food. 8963. In the papers that we have not yet seen dealing with the cost of production of different crops, can I take it the tignrcK are based U|M>II estimai upon actual costs of production aM-crt-aincd from the farmers that you visited? Take questions like plough- ing, harrowing, drilling, and so on? — There is one case I have given there which I made up last year in Northamptonshire. I took it from my own books as the actual costs. There are other costs I have given there, which were given to me by other people, such as for instance, the Farmers' Union ; and they did not give the details of all the operations. 8964. One more point. I think the information you give us in these, pages where you deal with farm accounts will be of great valuo to us; and, in order to make it quite clear, is this lost column intended to show to us what the effect would be on the farmer to-day, who found himself face to face with the prices which prevailed in 1914, and with the present charge that he would have to meet for agricultural labour? — Exactly. 8965. In taking them out, I notice that, practically, it means 25 per cent, of those farms will work at a loss, and all of them at considerably less profit than in 1914? — Yes. that is so; and of course I have not, taken into consideration the reduction in hours. I took the May, 1919 wages ; but I did not reduce the hours. 8966. Mr. Ai-hby. Following Mr. -Anker Simmons' last question ; when you were arriving at these figures you did not allow for any reduction in the staff of the farm, did you? — No. 8967. Was it your general experience as an investi gator, that there had been considerable reduction in the staff of the farms? — Between which dotes? Do you -mean since 1914? 8968. Yes?— Certainly there hnd. There has been a great reduction since 1914, during the war period. i. Is it not most natural whenever you have .1 considerable, increase in rates of wages, that there should be an attempt at least to reduce the si a If: I.ooking at the statistics which T have got out. of the amount of labour employed per 100 acres. T do not see that they can reduce it much more. They certainly cannot farm woll if they do. 8970. They cannot reduce it more than they have reduced it? — No. I think they are below the proper mark now. 8971. Even KO, they may manage their fnrms with less labour than they had in 1914? Yes, they managed to do it during war time It has been very sketchy farming. An awful lot has been neglected, as. for instance. ditches have been left, hedges havn not been cut, weeding has l>cen allowed to go. You cannot call it farming. They did the best they could : but they could not povsihly continue to farm with the same quality nnd number of staff that was employed during the wnr. In consequence of the rifluclion of labour then, they have arrenrs to catch up. 8972. You were verv much impressed with the effi < ieru-v of fhe Cumberland farm workers? Tho north country form workers ; T do not mean only Cumber- land. 8973. Were you not also impressed by the high proportion of young men in those counties P — There MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 125 3 September, 1919.] MR. FALCONER L. WALLACE. [Continued. certainly was a very high proportion in Cumberland, because the married men mostly had to go away. 8974. May 1 put it to you in this way. You went to Northumberland comparatively soon after being in Oxfordshire ? — Yes. 8975. Was it not your general impression that there was a far higher proportion of men, say, between 20 and 45, in Northumberland than in Oxfordshire:' — I do not think I noticed anything of the sort; except in Northumberland, where the system is for whole families to work on the farm, and there are more young people there, because all the girls work on the farm until they get married. I think there may have been more boys there. I do not remember any par- ticular impression, and I have not any figures before me at the moment. 8976. I put it to you definitely that you did think, when you were in Oxfordshire, that there was a very- high proportion of old men in the County? — Of course during the war there were. I see your point. More of the younger men did go from the Midland County than from the North, undoubtedly. I think I matin that comment in one of my reports. S977. And, therefore, the comparative efficiency would be affected to that extent? — It would be. J certainly think there were more young men did go from the farms in the Midlands than went from some of these northern counties. 8978. Will you consider the question of education for a moment. I, like yourself, think it is essential that there should be some increase in skill, and cer- tainly a great increase of interest among farm workers in their work. I want to put to you that there is no advantage to the farm worker to develop skill in certain operations for which there will be no demand, as, for instance, thatching if you keep on increasing '.he number of Dutch barns ; or shearing, if you use more shearing machines ; or hedging, if vou are going to adopt systems of patent fencing. Is that not the case? — No doubt, to a certain extent, that will apply ; but, then, all operations in farming are skilled. 8979. I admit that ; but is it not your experience, and was it not borne out by some of your meetings with labourers in Northamptonshire, that there had been a failure to develop skill more or less because there had been a failure ol the demand for skill by the farmers? — No, I do not think that; certainly not. There has been a great demand for skillid labour which was unobtainable. •). During the war, yes? — Before the war, I know all round the country where I farmed it was a most difficult thing to get thatchers. There were one or two thatchers in a large area, and everybody wanted them at once. It was the same way with men who rould cut and lay a hedge, and with all the more skilled operations. 8981. What happens in other businesses? A boy enters, say, at 14 or 15 years of age, and there are many businesses and industries in which there is no system of apprenticeship. Do not the employers, through their other workmen, teach their young work- men the business? — Yes, certainly. 8982. Po far as technical skill is concerned, would not you apply the same principle to farming?— Kxcept that the boys complain that the old men do not take the trouble or give the time to teach them. You can ((iiito understand a man cutting a fence, which is mostly paid by piece-work, would not bother to teach a boy. He wants to get on with his work. :!. I remember the case some years aeo of a very skilled drainer who refused to have unskilled drainers working with him because they were unskil'ed, and he was not i.ble to earn as much with them as with Ins fairly skilled assistant. The farmer in thit case paid the drainer who was working on his farm £1 for if two youths he sought to assist him one winter. It was quite good business. It was a small sum, but it induced the drainer to teach the assistants. Do not you think the farmers would be well advised to adopt pome such lines as those?— Yes, I think they might do so, perhaps. 8984. Do not you think, as a matter of fact, that that U the only method by which you can teach the great. ]>ro[X>rtion of the youths engaged in agriculture t ill of their work, by providing sumo inducement f..r 'ho men who have the skill to teach the others? — Yes, I think that is a very good point. 8985. Supposing you had a County Council farm with quite short courses, you could not teach more than, say, 100 a year? — Teach them what? 8986. Teach them any of the skilled operations? — My point was not only what we technically call skilled operations. I say all farming is skilled opera- tions. We know that to our tost when we employed the unskilled people in war time. Why not teach them the management of horses, cattle and sheep? I am not talking only of thatching, ditching and draining ; but all farming operations. Why not teach them the love of animals, and how to under- stand their management as well? 8987. I am glad you said that; because if you had a County Council farm of, say, 200 acres, or something like that, you might not be able to take the boys through a course that would give them what you want to give them in a greater number than, say, a dozen or 20 in each year; and the ultimate value of that depends on the extent to which they give the teaching they have gained to their fellow workers with whom they work? — Yes, quite. 8988. So you do come back to the same principle, that the development of skill in farming depends on the workers' teaching each other, and the farmer inducing them to do so?— Yes; you have made a good point. 8989. You are a business man, and I believe a very able business man. What would you rather depend on as a business man in the farming industry — your own judgment of the capacities of your land and the use to which your capital should be put, and of the trend of the markete; or some guarantee under which you might possibly be compelled to .adopt certain forms of cultivation and certain forms of production that would be against your better judgment? — And would certain costs be compulsorily imposed upon me or not? Would I be free to pay what I liked to my men, and pay what I liked for all the things I re- quired to carry on my business; or am I only going to be free on one side and be tied on the other? 8990. As far as wages are concerned, that is a question I personally could not answer; because if yon got rid of the Corn Production Act you would still have other forms of what you might call com- pulsion, or not compulsion, but which would certainly affect your standard rate of wages. What is your general answer to that question? — My general answer is, and I cannot go further than this, that if costs are imposed upon me-, and I am not left free to use my own judgment and to farm as cheaply as I possibly can, and to pay what I like and buy what I like at whatever price T like — if that is going to be imposed upon me, I want to be protected on the other side clearly. 8991. When you use the phrase "Costs are im- posed " upon you, you mean, I presume, costs imposed upon you by Legislative action? — Yes, I do. 8992. So that if you were free of costs imposed upon you by Legislative action, you would be satis- fied to use your own judgment as to how you would use your land and capital? — I do not think I would be contented, if you moan this: to farm now without any sort of guarantee now that prices have been raised to the present level; because they have, to a certain extent, been raised to that level artificially. T do not believe they will ever come down again ; and I do not want to see them come down either. 8993. You are farming in Scotland at the present moment?— Yes; and we are paying more than the minimum wage ; and in some parts of England they have paid more than the minimum wage all along. 8994. That is not then artificial ? — No, it is not. 8994A. So that, as a farmer in Scotland, where wages are not artificial, you are quite prepared to go on and use your own judgment in the matter of organising your farming district? — Do you mean by using my own judgment, whether I am content to farm without any sort of guarantee or protection ? 8995. Yes?— I am not; because I think all coste are so high now, and I think the future in regard to prices of what I am going to produce is so absolutely guess work and indefinite, that I am not prepared as a general farmer to go on farming. Personally, I am in a special kind of business — the pedigree \,,KI.-I i.n I;K. . 1919.] MH. FALCONER L. WALLACE. / •.,.,,/ »to<-k hii-iinem. If I were in general fanning. I would itmsider ni\ business from :iml 1 (I > ii»t s.i% I would In- prepared to u'" on funning without MHIH- i;iinrniii< i- I do tint think I would IP- I tui^hi be content with a very small return. I might hold on just a bit longer to see how things wont ; but I «ottld run a (grave risk nil the time- <. large part of 111% <-ii|iitnl. liocause when prices go down my capital would sink 8890. Farming is not your only business, it is? — No, I am not dafMMMrt on my farming profits 899*. In your other business, are not conditions ftomcwhat uncertain at the piesent moment - but th.-n we have not tile i-icrease in costs, mind %oti. 8898. Are you sure of that: Th'1 costs are merely temporary ; the same thing that makes prices high makes our costs high. When prices go down, our costs will go down too. The costs in my other business have been those of freight and things like that. They work together : whereas in farming they do not. 8999. The prices in farming also depend on freights and other things like that, do not they!- Yes, partly : but all these new countries will produce, and you will have more foreign competition against home grown stuff after the war than before. I admit before the war the price of produce was :it a very low, level all over the world, and 1 say it will not go down to the 1914 level ; but nobody can form an opinion worth twopence at the present time. 9000. May I suggest to you that your position is this: that your costs in agriculture have inci> in much the same ratio as they have increased in other businesses, but that they are not likely to fall in the same ratio in farming as they are likely to fall in other industries? — I do not think wages are likely to fall; but I think, for instance, the cost of cake 'and implements and things of that sort are likely to fall. 9001. The one thing you really fear is, th'at wages are not likely to fall?— I do not fear it. I do not want wages to go down ; I merely want to be kept in the position to pay them. The last thing I want is for wages to go down. 9002-3. I quite believe that. I uant you to consider this rather carefully. You agree that wages ought not to go down. Do you not think it possible that if you had some experience of working with a smaller supply of labour, with total labour costs not rising in the same proportion as rates of wages, and some experience in the use of new machinery and general methods of economising labour, farmers are going to lienefit by that experience and still keep their total labour costs in a lower proportion than rates of wages- |i.. I -ummarizo your question "orrectly when 1 say I understand you 'to mean, that will not the introduction of new machinery and improved methods counteract the Irgher costs of wages? Is th: t what you mean? 9004. Yes, partly- I think it will partly counteract it; but how far it is mere guess work to say. 1 certainly think a farmer will be able to cheapen his i nsts of production by improved methods and more modern machinery. 1 think there is hardly any limit to the improvement that can lie obtained by improved methods: but how far he will be able thereby to counteract the higher costs due to wages. 1 do not know. It is mere guess work to say. 5 That brings me to my last question. You •i tin- last paragraph of your Interim Report. vniir general opinion that farmers you have •I from whom you obtained these acc-nint-. were Letter farmers than the average farmers even in their on n district? Yen, certainly. 9000. Would you tell UH in what particulars they l>etter farmers:- According to my North Country Scotch notions they farm lietter: (hey use far more artificial manures, they went in larg'elv for the use fif baiiic slag and wild white clo\ . i I .-a me across farms of. I will not commit myself to how many but where a very large proportion of the farm had been v-ry poor, rushy, bqgjfv sort of grass, and had Wn turned into first elans 'grazing simply by basic- slug and wild white clover. The result 'was thai. although the farmer did not pay any more rent for hud be. I, al.l, . to mnVP a fine 'profit out of it owing to his own improvements. That is the kind of way which 1 could enlarge U|>on. by which I mean they are better farmers than the avrnge. !HKi7. The use of manures is one way. Without going into so much length, could vou part i< -nlai ise one or two othi-rjsr I nought their farms wen- cleaner and more up i • i aimed When you go about a farm, you get an impression of a well farmed farm where it looks as though the man had made the ii|-.st of his land. The general im- pression was that they certainly used more farm manure. 9008. To put it quite briefly, from the human point of view they were men who were rather more intelli- gent than the average, and with keener hiuiness m'.s- Ye--, that is about what it \\ 9009. And it is your considered opinion that if %«>u could extend the knowledge on technical matters, and de%elop rather kroner business instinct among the farmers, at the same time providing them with a capital, that would have a considerable effect on the prosperity of the industry? — A very great effect: more than considerable. 9010. Mr. Urn: With regard to the guarantee, do you agree that the guarantee is not asked for by the farmer, or is not suggested, with a view to put tin;: profit into the farmer^ pocket? — No, I do not agree, farmers, at the same time providing them wiih view of putting profit into his pocket— not more profit than he is making now. mind you ; but more profit than he anticipates he will be able to make in the future without it. 3011. Why?— Because prices will go down, and costs will not go down in the same proportion. fHH2. Hut my interpretation of the intention of the guarantee is. not that it is put on for the benefit of the farmer, but that it is put on in response to a national need to have more cereals grown and to have the land under the plough ; and that if you insist on the farmer putting the land under the plough, you must in common justice, if you gi%'c a L'uaranteed minimum wage and control him in other directions, say to him : " We insist that you grow these cereals : but %ve recognise it is only just that we should giv<* you some sort of guarantee against a heavy loss."?-— I quite agree with you. If the country wishes to ensure its food supply, it has to pay n premium ; and it is not fair to expect or ask the farmer to his own disadvantage to ensure the country's food supply by farming his land not to his own best advantage, unless you .recompense him for doing so. That is perfectly fair. 9013. It is not from the farmer's point of view primarily that this guaranto »ed. hut from the point of view of the National need ef having food produced in the country. Would you go further. and agree that tho farmer would be just as "wojl pleased to have no guarantee if he were given a free hand to lay down his land to grass again? — As a tanner I would not. and I think a lot of fai would not be at all contented to have no guarantee and he allowed to lay down their land to grass. 0014. If they would not be content with that. would not they IK> content to risk the market I do not think that would im-ct the views of a good many of them. It would not meet mine. My point is, that so long as you have cv*-ts oomptiUorfly im- posed upon you, it is the duty of tin- country that imposes those. cost« upon vou to help you to meet them. That is my point, t do not mean merely with •d t<> I he ciuestjcin of laying down \.uir lam! to or not. T mean farm prices in general. !M)ir,. Hut it is a National qtuwtion? It is a, •rial qntttion : and I think it is t tin- Vat ion. !Ki|t;. It is not meiely a sectional um ., D No it is not a sectional question at all. h \ lio'nal question, bi-caii.se it is a National industry which cffcet.s the well-being of a very large proportion of (hi- nrorking d well as of the more well In do. 9017. You agree i- Me that the- land should be kept in cult Ivation 'J I do. but not • under corn. I think tlr- country is naturally a stock raising country, and I think it is nlin.^t certain it will revert To that (ositioti. Hut vou must have some sort of guarantee all the same, because you have to MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 127 3 September, 1919.] MR. FALCONER L. WALLACE. [Continued. meet your costs just the same. You have to grow Trheat as a rotation crop in England in any case. 9018. But if you cultivate it with a view to stock raising, you still have corn in your rotation? — Yes, quite so. 9019. Supposing your proposed sliding scale could be developed and made operative, would you legislate for a certain fixed time, say 12 months! ahead. I mean, you could not be having changes constantly? — Xo, you could not. You see the Fiars' Court is a periodic thing, and the tithe rent charge is a periodic thing. I have not worked it out in detail. It will take some very clever heads to work it out in detail. 9030. I do not mean the details, but to work it out? — Yes, it will have to be periodic adjustment, because the prices fluctuate. 9021. With regard to the price per acre of certain crops, do you think any reliable basis can be arrived at, or that we shall have to take a large number of cases of actual costs, and then strike an average which would be as nearly fair as possible ?— That is the only possible course in my opinion. You cannot get anything exact. 9022. It really will be only an estimate as nearly correct as possible? — Only an estimate, because you See until you have actually threshed your corn out. as you know yourself, you never know how much you have got off the land. Then you have to apportion tho various expenses to ea"h crop, and there is a great deal of estimating in it. You can only get ft approximately. You will find in different districts you will get the most bewildering variations which are plausib'e if not justifiable, and in some cases quite justifiable. I think the only possible thing is to get a large number of estimates and very care- fully look into them and examine the basis upon which they are sent in. They used to ask me to arrept all sorts of things without any basis whatever, and I simply refused to do so. They had to show me how they got at the figures. Then you will have to take a broad view and average the lot. and allow plenty of margin, on my theory of what the man loses on tho round-abouts he looks to gain on the swings. 9023. Would you take earh individual crop as a bnsi.4. or would you take the rotation? — Yes; you rannot tako each individual Top as a basis unless you lump them all together afterwards. That is tho great danger of it. That is what I want so much to impress on the Commission, if I may ; the danger of taking the cost of production of each crop in rotation, and allowing for a little bit of profit on that crop, and so going through the whole rotation. You will make a perfect mess of farming if you do that. You must treat farming as a whole, and you will have to take the whole cost of farming as a whole. Either •;\kf the crops singly and lump them together after- wards, or take the whole rotation. 9024. I am very glad to have your definite opinion. That is my view too. In your pamphlet, you say yon think the profits have been simply more or less a personal matter, and it is not a question of cheaply rented farms or good farms, but just well-managed farms? — I think so. to a great extent ; and luck too. 9025. TX> not you think that the best land is the cheapest, oven with a rent at 10s. an acre more or more than that, with two equally good farmers? — Yos, I think it is, but not necessarily the land that is naturallv brst. Take some of that land in Northum- berland, bolow Beal. in some of that clay district which was once derelict land. That has been turned into most beautiful feeding land by closer and basic -lag and more modern treatment. I would not like to say. and I am not stating, that that sort of land might not be as profitable as some of the very fine red land. 9026. It would on that particular land, but it is not the land I have in view. Take two farms, both fairly on°i1y worked, but one naturally good produc- tive land and the other of poorer quality ?— There is mi question about it, of course, that the better land rroiild br tho more profitable. 9027. That rathor contradicts the impression that tliK Convoys?- Yos. Of course a groat deal has to do nith tho r<-nt. What I had in my mind was. _ where a man might rent some poor land of this description, cold olav 1-ind. and might get it at a very cheap rate and make money out of it, and he might make as much out of it ae out of naturally good land. 9028. A good arable land might be very sandy land and would not produce so much? — Yes; and it costs a lot of money to cultivate, of course. 9029. Do you consider that a lot of the so-called pro- fits of the farmers during the war are merely what one might call paper profits? — Certainly they are. 9030. Or deferred payments; and that a great lot of the money will have to be put back into the land? — I call it inflation of capital value; it is inflated capital. I mean it is here to-day and may be gone to-morrow. A man's capital ie increased as the value of his stock has increased ; but if the value of his stock goes down, away goes his capital. That is a point I want to bring out. That is why I have only taken the cash profits in my statements, and have ignored any profits you get from the balance sheet which includes the valuation. 9031. A great deal of the cash profit which I was alluding to is merely more or less illusory ; because if a man wants to put back his farm into its pre-war state, he will have to return a lot of that surplus profit?— Yes. 9032. You mean to suggest that part of his cash profit is derived from neglecting his farm ; and there- fore he has to reinvest a great deal in his farm to bring it up to date again ? — Yes, I have no doubt that is the case, but I could not say to what extent. 9033. Still, it is more or less general? — It is cer- tainly undoubtedly the case that almost all farms that I have seen are very badly in arrear now from neglect and want of labour during the war ; and no doubt they will be- very expensive to bring up to date, and will want an extra amount of labour employed upon them in order to bring them back into a good state. 9034. An increase of outlay generally? — Yes; and to that extent yoti are right in saying that a certain amount of the cash profits which have been made will have to be put back into the land. On the other hand, one of the points I wish to bring out, and feel justified in doing so, but which I could not prove as much as I would like to have done by figures, is that a lot of these cash profits huve already been put back into the farm in increased manuring and im- piovements in stock — not larger amounts of manure because a man got so little for his money; but a larger amount has been spent in the form of manure and improvement in the stock. I find that very frequently the case ; and I was able to prove it quite to my own satisfaction, but I could not bring it out in my figures. 9035. I agree that is so. Now, with regard to the amount of labour employed upon large farms as against small farms. I am not saying this by way of running down small farms, because I do not know. I believe in them, and I believe there ought to be 100- acre farms and possibly less. But on the point of the labour employed, do you think the labour employed would be more on 4 or 5 farms of 100 acres each, than it would be on one farm of 400 or 500 acres? — No. From what I have observed I think there would be less labour employed on 5 farms of 100 acres than on one of 500 acres. But against that, mind you, there would be the occupier himself. There would be 5 occupiers. 9036. Yes; but include them, because they would naturally take part in the working operations? — I thought you meant the men employed. I stick to what I said. 90.37. You think a great deal could be done by educational means? — Yes, I feel that very strongly. I think the farmer can do a very great doal himself by interesting the men and teaching the men per- sonally. 9038. Yes ; but do not you think tho young farmers want more education and enlightening? — Yes, cer- tainly I do. 9039. By extension of Agricultural Colleges or Demonstration Farms? — By the extension of Agri- cultural Colleges. I find tho influence of tho Agri- cultural College very wido and immensely for tho good of the countrv round about them. In our part of tho world, in Abordeonshire, any man who wants to be I ll'S ROYAL COMMISSION ON AQRICULTtTKK. , 1919.] MR. FALCONER L. WALLACE. [Continued. _»ing like • farmer, goe« to the Agricultural Co'lK-ge and works there, ne ought to do that much more in Kogland. It U the greatest possible want. In MHMotim uiih that, do you advocate farm- rt here tin- principles taught in tie classes can be shown in operation!'—! was thinking of Profenor Cili lirist. if I may mention his name, and the largo amount of good he does simply by going round and \ Citing farmers themselves. '.NU1 Cockle Farm brings a lot of farmers HUT.. and tlic\ MV the result*; and tho students go th. r. it is very valuable. In Scotland they take the student* about ami visit all the farms round about for educational purposes. That is very desirable. !Ktr_'. You would advocate competitions for the men in th.-iu liiui:. ditching. In-due rutting, and so on? — I would advocate anything that would encourage the men. 9043. ^fr. Edwards: Looking at your column of profits all along the line in 1914, I find it varies between la lOd. per acre to £2 3s. per acre ; and the same variation occurs in the year 1918. What occurs to me is the difficulty of meeting these variations in any guaranteed prices? — Perfectly true. That is a point that has struck me myself. These variations ar" absolutely bewildering. 9044. Could you suggest any reason in the method of farming or in anything else, that would account for this great variation in 1914 when th:ngs were normal?— You will find a description of the farm and of the system of farming carried on in the farm in that bundle of papers which the Chairman has. from which you will be able to draw conclusions as well as I can. Beyond that, I have ventured to suggest in a remark here the only reason which I can ascribe to it. It is in my general observations: " The great variations in the financial results upon farms which are all approximately equally well farmed "—as these are — " in their respective styles. ::re probably accounted for by the great difference there is in the cost of cultivating various claases of soil, by the I oi tu no of the markets and the Beacon in a given year in relation to the style of farming, and by the business abilities of different farmers." That is the only reason I ascribe to it. It is one of the most puzzling things, and 1 cannot get at the bottom of it. 9045. The great majority of your farms here are comparatively big ones? N 9046. Do you think that these farms are tyi of the farm- of Kngland and Wale-:- They arc very .il of those counties where I took them; because I was very careful to select farm- which are strictly representative of the diMiict. Imth as to size ami method. 9047. But do vou recognise the fact that 1 per cent, of the farmers of Kncjaml and Wah« handle under 101 acres? — I do not know what the statistics are, except in these counties I visited. I think that meets the point of the gentleman who wants to break the 400 acres into 4 farms of 100 acres a-piece. There are a great many 100-acre farms already. 9048. My point is th-it the six..- of your farm after all is not typical. It certainly is not typical of my country, Wales, where they arc still smaller, but it is hardly typic-il of England?--! would not like to rely upmi 'the si/.e of my farms to net a general average size of the country. The Board of Agricul- ture has published statistics in regard to the sises. 9049. Yes, I have those here!'— I think they are \ery typical farms, both as to size and the style of the farm of the visited district. My trouble was, I visited an immense number of farmers who were not able to supply me with any figures, and therefore my choice was limited. 9050. You did not go over the border to Wales, did you? No, I was withdrawn. The investigation came to an end when I got as far as the North Riding of Yorkshire. Chairman: Wo are very much obliged to you. (The Witnesi withdrew.) EOTAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. APPENDICES TO VOLUME II I 2 LIST OF APPENDICES. P«ge. banded in by Mr. P. W. Clarksnn in connection with his evidence given on 27th Auguot, 1919 3 2. Accounts and costings handed in by Mr. R. Oolton Fox as part of bis evidenoe-in-chicf. 2nd September, 1919 4 3. Tables and accounts handed in by Mr. Castell Wrey in connection with his evidence'given on 2nd September, 1919 :— (i) Tables showing Costs of Production of certain Crops in 1917-18, with Finan- cial Returns, where it can be given 6 (ii) Do. do. 1918-19 11 (iii) Profit and Loss Accounts for a farm varying in size from 4,150 acre* to 2,700 acres for the years 1911-1918 13 (iv) Balance Sheets for a farm varying in size from 4,150 acres to 2,700 acres for the years 1911-1918 19 (v) Summaries of Valuations, 1914-19 ±-' 4. Corrections and additional information handed in by Sir R. Winfrey, M.P., in connection with his evidence given on 3rd September, 1919 24 5. Reports and tables handed in by Mr. F. L. Wallace in connection with his evidence given on 3rd September, 1919 :— (i) Excerpt from Mr. F. L. Wallace's Report upon Wages and Conditions of Employment in Agriculture in Northamptonshire, March, 1918 25 (ii) Ad Interim Report upon Farming Costs, October, 1918 2.r> (iii) Appendix to Do. do. : — Statements " A " showing actual ascertained results upon 54 farms, years 1914 and 1918 28 Statement " C " showing the difference, in per cent, and per acre, in the profits under the two scales of wages, 1914 and 1918 ... ... 31 Statement " D " Table showing in percentages the actual ascertained increases in capital during the war years on H6 farms 31 Statement " E " giving the total proportion of arable land (54 farms) 32 Statement " F " giving the number of men per 100 acres (36 farms) ... 32 APPENDIX No. I. Handed in by MK. P, W. CLABKSON, in connection with his evidence given on August 27th, 1919. Milk production. Details of costings foi: third period : February 1st to April 30th, 1919. (S«« page 251.) Detailt of Cettingt. Home-grown Fodder : — £ *. d. Clover — 4 cwts. per day at £7 15*. per ton (whole period) ............... 137 1!' 0 Straw — 3 cwts. per day at £4 per ton (whole period) .................. 37 4 0 Roots— 1 ton per day at £2 10*. per ton (whole period) .................. 20210 0 Straw (purchased), 4 tons at £4 2*. 6d ..... : ...................... 16 10 0 Cake (purchased) .................................... 168 16 0 Labour .......................................... 81 4 8 Rent and rates on buildings ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... 4 2 W Depreciation loss on cows ........................ ......... 10 9 0 Depreciation on machinery and dairy utensils ............ ........... 470 Repairs .......................................... 1 10 o Washing utensils .................................... 6136 Delivery to station ................................... ' 13 7 0 ' 684 12 8 Deductions : — 12 Calves .................................... £22 9 3 Manurial values .............................. £30 0 0 . -- B2 9 3 £632 3 5 ^ SO««D AIO O — OO O « "> ^ • ., : j r .- « CO • ^* *^ • t0 «> O ** •" / W * - N C 5> 0 •* Ol~ O O O >0 ' 1 * — , — — i M * » A •*• « ^* r- r- ^ « ^" A c* r oOiOOOiONo:)— » — •» ^ .^ w ^ ^^ -—. • *- • — 1 7 1 *it *c •§ 7 «c 00 - •-- r* CO | K? 10— >0 to -J « O O WOC1 - — i i ~ r. -'. r -^ ~ t .-.-_: - 1 • ««SS !"- 3 ^ S « i- — 1 -• « -^ CO ^^ CO •* « 1 s •* ft • -' *"" *^ c« n >o c*; t<< | S ^ t. O A CO 'H 2 ^ 00 « «tt b- •: o> co •* « .- 8 --- t- _ — o in10 g «« 35 SS °* ess - ~" § = - H s £ t 00 5 M- s»-lr»»-.co««oo «o -1— ^» j3 ^J ^- « 0 tO Tl • 71 E " 'S-SS-"6"0^ | o Is ki ^^ JJ to ^ ^ — to 0 CO : ft » 1 C4 -- SC 95 f^ ^ C4 C*l 00 •* -Ss ~~ **i — ao * -•• *O ^ - eSc?22m«S"* 2 i •'- - 8 _• •c 5 2 5 »«" -^~ S -c2 *C CO v i »M ~- *: N to o * -- / n '- r u 2 rn . • • • • • tt -:__—- C|> QO o» CO '-£ ::::::::§fl:£ •2^ £ -3 "^ CO • » • r* M-! o a 31 i i :* I £ 1 : : : : « « rv3"!'*1 s. -K«. i ^ ® %« 3 ... 2- : :s . . .^rss* * * 5 "« i "S 8 5 * 0 - ' ' S J H " S H "s _: - -i ec r- CO ,. » t- r 1 5: oo* . £ A CO M »- 1 tc CO y' ^ o . Mt '^ ** ^ "•/ 1 fi ""^ toco e» o M 2 ^j to oo 10 i— oo X • «CO«3« S (NC1.0 0-N g o 1 <* S2°°S SS^" j Sco e* r. 71 ^ OO ^™ CO •*» •*« co o — | "* a co" -*"« | ^ ij CO 4> CM to to * a •w *° to • s W co » 3> -t. t- to '* „ C4 4 a JB ^ CO 00 OO IO N a c's .2 .s s 5 2S""eo o 3 .-. ^ * **•! — ^ o o> o S> to -*• — ' 1 "="" a • __^— tO UJ ;.. 1C CO to I- CO U OO^CO_ d 1- O W— T • 1 1 A 3 O •* eo to J ^•ao « W «, to to co or- ° ">' ^ ts . co o to : •? i" I T,- 0 AtOtO S 2 * •• of | -fl * jg s - "-a8 1 § = s ^* i* *» " • • • ^ • "5 •« 2'S"1 I J2 aT |-r *8 ^1 t_- t-oo — •i K : • : « 8t : : T s'lj 3 I: il •> ^» §^ 3* 3 ^ ' —" bC « ift< 9 • 00 i ,;j s 5}Sf liffl !! •-i-e 'I e l"is "S 1 Pi* 1 I 'IHS i 1 08 ^ -^ OS ^ j8 >> •-; e8 *^s £ •S o^"^^ ^ m e fll3] oooE>ra ri 111 WHEAT. Cost per acre — 6'aJe Field. £ ». d. 1 Plongh;ng 130 1 Drag Harrow 040 2 Harrows ' 040 Drilling 026 3 Bushels wheat at 10*. 3d.— 82*. per quarter 1 10 9 2 Harrows 030 Tillage - ... 2 11 3 Rolling and Harrowing ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 040 Hoeing 026 Opening-out ... 014 Reaping 060 Twine 060 Stocking 026 Forking 014 Raking 010 Carting 0 12 9 Raking and Getting ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 016 Thatching 016 Thre-hing 0 18 3 Winnowing ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 020 Delivery— 4 -mile haul 080 Rent, liates and Tithe 199 £10 17 11 OATS. Cost per acre—Flatt» Field. & ». d. 1 Ploughing ... ' 130 1 Harrows 040 3 Harrows " 060 Drilling 026 14 st. Oats at 2*. 8}d. per st.— 65*. per qr. 1 17 H Tillage 209 2 Harrows 030 Rolling 020 Hoeing 026 Harvest, Threshing and Delivery and Rates (see Wheat Crop) 4 11 11 £10 13 7 OATS. Gram Phxtghed 1918. £ i. d. |i :t o 0 18 0 040 080 026 1 17 11 080 Tillage 209 020 026 Harvest Threshing delivery and rates (See Wheat Crop) ... 4 11 11 £11 18 7 BABLET ON ROOT GBODKD. £ *. d. \ Ploughing 130 :! Harrows OHO Drilling 026 H bushels seed at 10*. -80*. per qr 110 0 2 Harrows 030 Tillage 209 Rolling 020 Hoeing 026 Harvest, Threshing, delivery and rates. (See Wheat Crop) 41111 £10 1 8 MM 6 APPENDIX No. III. Handed in by Mi:. C vsi KI.I. WKKV in connection with bin evidence given on September liud, I'.'l'.' 1. — Tables showing Costa of Production of certain Crops in 1917-18, with Financial Returns, where n can be given TABLE 1 (a). Whtat "Squarehead Matter" after Beatu (10 acret). — J 1 1 i 1 1 H 1 ;u CL, 1 — 1917. Sept 19 2 4/6 1 •n- it • fil- £ i. d. 1 0 6 20 7 4/6 7 ?/- in 6- _ ^_ 1 .. r. 11 «; 21 3 4/6 2 ?/- R 6- 1 .. 356 22 2 i r, 4 A/- 1 4 9 Oct. 17 1 4/6 1 6/- 1 2 6 18 2 4/6 1 ?/ _ 3 fil- 1 9 0 18 1 l ,; 2 6- 0 IK 6 A IIP I4' 1 9/1 1 6/- 22 bushels Wheat sown at 75/- per qtr 10 6 3 0 13 61 2 8/1 0 8 1 2T 10 8/1 6 5; R 6/- Stocking cost, 1/3 per acre in this field Carting Wheat J day 0 12 6 1 19 8 "9 g 8/1 R fi/- R fi/- i t 5 14 6 29 1 5/- ] «/- 083 2 8/1 6-balls Binder Twine at 5/- per ball Thatching — 1 day 1 10 0 0 16 •i 4 4/2 — — 5 2/9 - — — — Threshing— Hire of engine at £1 per day— 1J days Engine Driver, 6/8 ; Feeder, 5/6 Coal for Threshing — 11 cwts. at £2 per ton Cartage of Wheat to Station, 38 qtra. at I/- per qtr. \ 10 0 227 1 2 0 1 18 0 500 Bates— 2/8 in the £ on £4 0 10 8 1 7 6 Interest on Machinery at 2/2 per acre • 1 1 8 C. B. sold, 33} qtrs. at 75/- per qtr i. 5 .1 68/- „ £52 11 8 £ i. d. 125 12 6 17 0 0 Cost per acre £6 5s 2d .. 142 12 6 62 11 8 Profit £90 0 10 Cost per Qtr., £1 7s. SJd. TABLE 1 (ft). Wheat after Clover (It. 32 ttcret). 1917. Kept. 12 1 9/1 3 S/4 Ploughed by Government Tractor, at £1 per acre... £ t. d. :<-j o 0 0 19 U 1 '.' 1 n 1/4 0 19 " 4 1 9/1 3 1/4 0 1'.) 11 i 15 1 9/1 3 6- 1 7 17 ] 9/1 3 «- 1 7 IX ] 9/1 3 6 1 7 • n •> 9/1 2 fi/- 6 6 342 11 •• 21 4 1/6 2 2/- g 6/- Drilling 2 18 0 2 1/6 g 3/4 1 9 0 1 1/6 3 3/4 0 14 6 2i 4 ; 1 7 2/- 6 61- Drilling 2 1 3 1/6 9 14 236 8 qtra. 2 bush. Sqnarehmd Master grown in Coast, 28 17 6 Carried forward £81 3 2 — a 9 s J 1 « & a « •?. a Women. 1 - i Horses. 3 & Prisoners. 3 £ — 1918. Mar. 7 1 4/fi a 61- Brought forward Harrowing £ t. d. 81 3 2 0" 16 6 Apr. 10 2 4/6 4 61- 1 13 0 May 17 Aug. 9 „ 10 1 4 2 4/6 8/1 9/1 — — — — i 6 61- 6/- — — Sowing Sulphate Ammonia, J day ... 6 cwt. „ at £16 10s. per ton ... Mowing Road Round, i day Cutting with Binder 053 4 19 - 0 16 2 2 14 2 8 9(1 8 «/- 403 ___ fi 3/4 Stocking, ^ day ,. 0 10 0 12 _ _^ ^_ fi 3/4 „ 1 ., 1 0 0 13 6 3/4 1 „ 100 14 8 3/4 „ J „ ... . 0 13 4 20 4 8(1 1 fi/- 5 «/- Carting Wheat 374 5 8/1 1 5/- fi 6/- ? 3/4 2 1 OJ 21 <» 8/1 a fi/- 10 6/- 3 3/4 •1 (i 4J 22 I 8/1 •}. fi/- 5 (!/- ? 8(4 2 19 3 25 balls Binder Twine at 5s 650 Nov. 20 ? "/- „ _ Thatching — 4 days 200 Dec. 10 ., li 7 9 »/- 5/- — — 4 6 3/4 3/4 — — — — Threshing — Hire of Engine at £ 1 per day — 2 days Engine Driver, 6/8 ; Feeder, 5/6 „ ., ,, ,, ... ... ... Coal for Threshing— 14 cwts. at £2 per ton 200 306 3 17 2 1 8 0 800 Rates— 2/8 in £ on £6 8/- Management — at 2/9 per acre... .. ... 0 17 1 480 Feb 27 E 6/- — — 1 3/4 — — - - Int. on Machinery at 2/2 per acre Cartage to Station — 2 mis. at I/- per qtr Threshing — Hire of Engine — 1J days at£l per day Engine Driver, 6/8 ; Feeder, 5/6 — 1J days Coal for Threshing — 10 cwts. at £2 per ton 394 4 16 0 1 10 0 3 15 9 100 Dec. 10 Dec. 11 Feb 27 1 1 { Or. Threshed— 60 qtrs. good Wheat at 75/- 3 „ tail „ 68/- „ 46 , good „ 75/- 1 „ tail „ 68/- £158 12 8 £ ». d. 187 10 0 10 4 0 172 10 0 380 Cost of Production 373 12 0 158 12 8 Profit £ i. d. Cost per acre 4 19 If „ qtr 1 11 8i £214 19 4 TABLE 1 (e). Spring Oatt after Old Turf (12 Acret). 1918. Felj. 4 4 4/fi 3 2/9 14 «/- £ t. d. 5 10 3 „ 8 4 4/6 __ _, 3 2/9 14 «/- 5 10 3 U 4 4 ,'fi 3 2/9 14 «/- ^_ _ 5 10 3 ., 11 4 4(6 __ 3 2/9 14 «/- .^ „ £ day 2 15 14 Mar. 8 1 4/6 ___ _ 1 2/9 1. «/- — Drilling Oats 0 19 3 4 4/6 _ 10 «/- 3 18 0 1 2/9 1, «/- 0 14 9 , 9 1, 4/fi _ 5 6- 1 19 0 ,. 14 4/fi 1, 6/- 12 sacks Date, sown at 60/- per qtr Cambridge Rolling ..... . 17 10 0 0 16 6 .. 15 4/6 8 «/- , i day 083 Apr. 12 4/fi __ 1, «/- . 1 dav 0 16 6 „ 13 4/fi _ — _ _ •/, fi/- 0 16 6 , 26 4/6 _ __ __ 9 «/- • 0 16 6 May 10 4/fi ^_ ^ 1, fi/ 0 16 6 11 4/fi __ — 2 fi/- > 0 16 6 .Tune 10 _ _ 4 2/9 ._ Pulling Charlock 0 11 0 11 __ 13 9/9 _ 1 15 'J 12 _ 11 ?M 1 10 3 13 1 4/6 ^_ ^_ ? fi/- Mowing ,, ... ... ... ... ... 0 16 6 U 1 4/fi __ •> fi/- _ i day 083 18 1 4/fi 1 fi/- 0 10 I! 21 1 4/6 1 fi/- 0106 1 2/9 029 5 4/6 , a '2/9 4 6/- Carting, \ day 1 7 -H Aug. 29 I 9/1 a 61- 0 13 6} 4 H/l B B/- 0 3 Hi | 8/1 ^_ 3 B/- 4 61- 1 19 ,xj Binder Twine, 3 balls at 5s. per ball Thatching — nil. Threshing. Hire of engine at £1 per day 0 15 0 0 10 0 Carried forward £61 8 4| 8 -- I I 1 t 1 1 I i $ — — 4 •. d. ft — — 4 »/- — - — — Brought forward Engine ilriver. 6/8 ; feeder, 5/6 — ) day Coal for Threshing, 8 cwln. at 4f per ton 61 :< 7 7 0 16 0 Cartage— nil. 900 Ratm— 2/8 in A on £7 4/- 0 19 >* Management, at 2/9 per acre 1 1.1 0 Intercut on Machinery, at 2/2 per acre 1 6 0 £78 10 8) Cr. OaU threshed — 12 qtn. consumed on farm, at 36/- £21 12 0 * 78 10 Si 21 12 0 Latt £56 18 SJ £ t. d. ™ Cost per acre 6 10 10J Cost perqtr 6 1U 10} TABLE 1 (0/- per 6 11 3 19 i 4/6 — ^ ^_ I «/- _ Harrowing twice over ... ... 1 2 6 ApY 25 | «/- 1 fi/1 _„ „ twice 0 14 0 MJ_| _ ^_ 1 «/*» 1 6/- __ Rolling Gate, j day 066] Aug. 2 2 8/1 — — — — Mowing round and mowing parta which were 0 16 2 »f Sept 17 1 B 9/1 8ft H 6/- 3 4 6/- «/- Cutting with Binder, J day ... Stocking in this field cosr 1/4 per acre 4 balls Binder Twine at 4/- per ball Carting Oatu, i day 1 0 3| 080 0 16 0 1 19 84 .. -•• 4 5/- — — u 3/4 _ — Stack not thatched. Threshing— Hire of engine at £1 per day — 1 day... Coal for threshing, 5 owte. at £2 per ton ... Engine Driver. 0/8 ; Feeder, 5/K — i day No cartage — Data consumed at home. 0 10 0 i) 10 0 I 4 6 3 12 0 Rates, 2/8 in £ on £2 17s. 8d. 078 0 16 6 Interest on machinery at 2/2 per acre 0 13 0 C. R., Sept. 26— Threshed 34 qrs. of OaU. Cost of Prodnction £ i. d. Coat per qtr - 16 7 „ «cre 4 14 - £28 4 24 £-js 4 ^ TABLB 1 («)• Jtarlty after Carroti (19 acra). 1918 Jan 28 4 •'/•» Forking Twitch j day... £ *. d. 066 J.-.I. K 4 4/6 3 2/9 14 •;/ .r> 10 3 • 5 i '. 4 2/U i; 6/ 6 16 6 7 4 4M •| ?/» 14 6- 4 day .. jaay 2 1ft 1} ,i 4 4/6 3 2/9 14 n 2 15 \\ D 4 4/6 3 2/9 14 6/ 1 . 5 10 3 In 1 i •• 1 4 6/- 1 11! :< U , 4/6 1 ?/<• 4 1 11 :i , 4 4/6 4 ?rt» 14 1 , 6 1H II Mr 9 | 4/6 5 6/ 260 11 4 4/6 2 2/9 g 6 Drilling Barley 2 19 6 U ? 4/6 g «/- 2 5 u 11 1 4/6 4 6/- 1 13 0 :.l Imshels Barley sown at £4 per quarter 25 10 0 Carried forward £66 19 9 19 — i 1 (C & CQ 4/6 9- 7 6/ ^_ 2 13 0 4 4/6 ? 4 *»/- __ 1 10 6 7 4/6 ?/ 4 «;/ _^ 1 10 6 9 i •; 21- 4 6/- i day... 0 7 74 II 4/fi 2/ 4 6/ 0 15 3 19 4/fi 2 61- 0 16 6 May 2 1 >, 3 6/ 126 4/6 1 6/ 053 l.S cwt. Super at £15/7/6 per ton, 6 cwt. Su). Amm. at £6/10/- 15 15 9 •( | 4/6 1 2/9 1 fj/ 0 6 74 „ 11 4 4/2 — — — — 46 Iba. own Seed grown at 2/6 per Ib. Hoeing and Setting Out, 4 day 5 15 0 084 Carried forward £50 18 5J 10 — I 1 • & S A 1 1 1 a 1 I | — 1817. M«y, IS ., 1» .. IS ., 14 Juno 4 6 4 1 6 I S I 4/6 1 sT 2 :• a i $ S/9 .... i B/- — — Brought forward ... Hoeing and getting out, 1 day 1 day Jday »day Hoeing £ •. d. SO It 1 10 6 1 2 2 0 H 1 0 16 S 0 13 3 H 1R | •) i day 0 8 Hi July 6 2 I ,; 7 1/9 i fit- 1 6 6 „ 10 ?/- ? 2W i «/- i day 0 S 4j S3 6 4ft 7 H/9 i dav 1 2 If 1 4 ' Sow soot, I day ... 0 4 S 12 owt. at £3 per ton 1 16 0 A air. 6 4 7/9 .^ ^ ^^ 0 11 0 6 5 .. ,, i .lav 0 6 H'i 7 1 *>/» 1 083 8 A 1 .. 083 g S ?w 1 0 8 .1 NOT 13 1? 1/4 1 0 0 14 9 3/4 1 10 0 II A 4/5 084 16 1 - 10 3/4 0 16 8 4 4 ' I ?/_ 1" ?/q 6 fi/- Carting ) day 21 loads 1 8 8) 18 5 1/4 0 16 8 ? 4/2 ? ?/9 8 «/- S 3/4 Carting, 31 loads 2 19 10 19 1 4/'> » A H/ S 3/4 , 30 „ 2 IS 8 fi 1/4 Falling Mangolds 1 0 0 . 20 9 3/4 1 10 0 4 1 " ? ?/9 fi «/- Carting 10 loads 1 day ... 0 14 fi$ . 21 4 1 " ? 2.U H «/- 33 , 2 18 2 M 4 I " ) ?/"» R fi/- 31 1 „ 2 18 2 300 Rates — 2/8 in £ on £2 ! 4/fi 1 6 063 M It'. 1 fi/- 1 , ..... 0 10 6 4 cwte. Super. Phosphate and 1 cwt. Sulphate 18 0 0 26 4/6 | t| 1 2 6 27 I .". s «. 1 2 6 . 29 I • B «/- 1 2 fi 29 I .. I fi/- 0 if, r, 29 J 4/6 I 6/- 0 16 0 1 2/9 2 6/- Rolling 0 14 9 Mar 2 1 2/9 1 61- Carrot« sown— 50 Iba. at 6/- per Ib Rolling 16 0 0 089 June 1 1 4/6 1 ,; 0 10 r, 4 1 2/9 I 61- 089 July 11 1 I .'. R 61- o r, 7J 12 1 i .; 3 61- 1 2 6 12 1 i .. B 61- 0 11 3 12 2 i . 6 61- I 1 2 fi 15 3 i r. 9 61- . i .. H 7 6 Hi 2 4/6 | 61- Drilling Sweden 0 16 0 Iff 1 2/9 I 61- Swedes sown— '27 lot*, at 3/- per Ib 4 1 - 089 u 1 i , 2 61 jelling 0 14 9 17 1 • '. 1 6/- 1 day 041J | 4/6 • >i 2 8/- 0 19 i | 1 i •; 1 •• •. 2 «/_ 0 I'.i 3 ., 7 7 4 8/1 M/l — — — — Singling Swe 'es, J day 0 14 H| 0 8 1 .. Sept. 8 2 *V Hfl 040} g 5 R/_ " 1 " ':: ::: ::: ::: 076 ij 4 Si- 1 0 0 10 2 ft/ l 0 10 0 "/- 6 12 7) Hated, 2/8 in the £ on £4/10/1 Management at 2/9 per acre, being ^ agent's salary and the whole of the bailiff's wages Interest on Machinery at 2/2 per acre 0 12 II 1 4 9 0 19 6 £78 18 10| 11 2. — Tables showing Costs of Production of certain Crops in 1918-19, with Financial Returns, where it can be given. TABLE 2 (a). Hay (8 Acres'). — o S Cd m 8* M I Women. I Prisoners. 1 Horses. S i — — 1919. May 1 1 •K Chaip Harrowing, J day £ t. a. 040) July 7 1 !" 4 B/- 110 1 8/- Mowing Round, f day ... 060 " 18 1 8/- 1 «/- Side Raking, J day 070 1 8/ 1 Tedding Hay, i day 070 „ 30 4 1 IM. an hr. fi B/- Cocking Hay, ti p.m. to 9 p.m. Shaking-oat Hay, $ day 0 10 0 096 7 8/- fi fi/- 4 B/- 176 B/- 6- Horse Raking, ^ day 056 „ 31 I B/- I 056 4 8/- 2 w- 1 5- fi Carting Hay, ^ day 0 19 9 Rent — 25/- per acre for 9 months Rates— 2/8 in the £ , . Int. on Machinery at 2/2 per acre Management at 2/i> per acre ... 7 10 0 100 0 17 4 1 2 0 £16 12 14 TABLK 2 (J). Bay (34 Acre*). 1919. Mar 11 2 V | 'I/ s 6/- £ *. d. 1 12 0 1 B/- s 6/- Carting Slag to Field 130 IS 2 5/- ? 6/- 120 14 1 51 1 fi/- 0 11 0 „ 15 I W- 1 6/- 0 11 0 17 2 "V- f 6- • 1 2 0 I, 18 July 1 1 ? »/- 9/_ — — — — — I 4 6/- «/- 5 owta. per acre Basic Slag sown, at £4 per ton ... Cutting Hay 0 11 0 84 0 0 220 fl q/- 4 «/- 220 , 4 1 q/ I 2 0 10 6 7 2 ft 2 «/- 180 g 1 4; 1 4/1 2 6/- Horse Raking 104 9 4/_ 1 «/- 0 10 0 , 10 4 15 8/- 3; _ 1 7 5/- B/ 1 */« 6 16 6/- fi/- Turning and Raking Hay — J day 1 18 8 12 11 0 11 2 8/ , 4! 2 5/- 1 4/4 g 6/- , .', day 1 15 2 Rent, 18/- per acre, for 9 months Rates at 2/8 in the £ 22 19 0 313 Interest on Machinery, at 2/2 per acre 8 13 8 4 13 6 Estimated Crop — 12 cwts. per acre. £98 17 1 TABLE 2 (c). W he it after Fallow (36 acres). 1918. i i i H 2 6/ Steam Ploughing at yd. per acre each -4 men Water and Coal Cart .. .... £ c. d. r> 8 0 0 16 0 i 31 — Cook 030 St-pf *J 2 6/ 1 3/4 5 6/- Harrowing and Drilling 254 1 H/4 2 6/ 15 4 H 2 f./ 6 *»/ 280 19 "/ 2 3/4 g 6/ ** 228 1919. Mftv 21 2 Rl 5 6/- Wheat sown — 2 bush, per acre at 79/- per qtr. 3 11 0 220 M 1 °l 11 g «/ 1 5 0 •I ^ Aug. 11 1 2 4 2 SI- Ql~ - i r,,- — — g 6/ Cutting road round \\ heat — i day 093 2 14 0 .. i:i 2 »!- - — — 6 «/- ,, „ ., — i day 1 7 0 £57 6 7 LI TABLE * (./). t:,,rl,y a/ttr /V.;<«*w (1 J aeret) — 8 i ! 1 ~i s & i 5 B 1 — : mi Apr. 11 i 6/- 3 61 * «. d. 1 4 0 n 2 61- HI ., M t I'l- g • — * day n 12 n 15 f 61- 0 61 280 .. If, 9 61- — 6 r, — 1 day 280 ., 1!) 4 B- — 11 .-, — 1 day 1 2 6 . il t. M 8 ( — — 2 ] 3/9 i .. i 4/4 16 | 61- ,\ Harrowing and drilling—} day 7 9 10 0 9 9 ., as t '1 1 ,-, 3d bash. Barley *own at 79s. per qtr. li in :i II 2 54. 24 1 6/- • 1 4 n , 26 1 fit 2 3 n 1 May 13 1 «/- 2 • Rolling 0 18 0 „ 21 1 4/1 __ i 6/- — k day .. o .-, i n ] i : 1 6'- 1 day 0 in .' n 80 3 6/- — — — — 1 «/- Sowing Sulphate of Ammonia — } day 1 owt. Sulphate of Ammonia gown at «lfi 7 ••. 6d. 0 12 0 li 16 6 , 31 1 7/7 2 6(- 0 19 7 Jane 2 1 7/7 g 6(- „ — J day II 12 9 4 4/7 Spud Thistles ii 16 8 3 fl 6/- | i - 2 4/4 — 4 dav 0 12 6 £50 6 11 TABLE 2 (e). Spring Oats ajter Clover (13 aciei 2 roud* 20 perc'iet). IM& Oct. 11 9 «/- 4 61- £ t. d. i 16 0 12 H 6h 6 61- 211 n 14 ? 61- 4 61 in; >' 1C n «- | H/4 V? 61- r> o 0 N T 2 i «/- 1 S/4 s 61- 7 4 4 i «/- 1 3/4 4 6- 13 4 5 i 6- 1 3/4 4 61- 18 4 6 i fi- | •'if 4 61- 13 4 7 i «/- 1 H/4 4 61- 13 4 8 i 6/-' 3 61- 4 0 1919. Mar 29 ? fi/- 1 HI4 3 61- Drilling Oats 1 13 4 1 6- 7 6- Harrowing ... ... ... 300 May 5 „ 6 10 — — — — 2 1 3 4/4 4/4 4/4 32 bushels Oats town at 15/6 per bushel 1 Guard, 6/- ; digging docks, j day II M II 1 ,1 24 16 0 0 6 10 070 0 18 0 12 3 4/4 II II II 1 0 13 0 13 R 4/4 1 Guard, 5/- 1 2 4 16 i 6/- 1 4/7 ] fi/_ 0 16 2 21 7 4/1 Cutting Thistles 192 22 i 7/- 1 6/- Rolling, J day ... 066 22 ft 4/9 Spudding Thistles, } day 063 22 i 7/7 1 61- 0 6 91 24 3 4/2 Spudding Thistles 0 12 6 £57 4 6 TABLB 2 (/). Beam after FlaJf (15 Aeret). f '.'!•>. Sept.... — — l 41 — — — — 2 e/- Steam Cultivating twice at 9rf. per acre each — 1 men Water and Coal Cart t .v ,/ 250 d IH 0 1 s- Cook 030 Oct. 17 2 6/- 5 6/ 220 18 1 6/- 3 6/ 1 4 I) 1 « 2 6 0 It* 0 1 n s 1/4 2 « Carting Rubbish 1 7 0 19 4 6 10 6/- 4 4 (I 2 a 3 3/4 2 6/- 1 12 0 21 4 « 10 «/- 440 2 6/_ 2 3/4 g 6/- Carting Rubbish 1 - 2 3/4 2 61- i day 048 ,., 4 */_ 10 6/ 440 • 4 « 10 6/ 4 4 0 M 3/4 1 6/- ( 9 4 3/1 | 6/ 0 11 4 1919. A or 23 — — — — — i 'i — — I f»/ 40 bushels Beana HOWII at 25;- per bushel M 0 0 0 4 in' 24 ; 'i \ 6/- 1 o 9 y Ma'y 2 2 •/- il'2 2 6/- 1 8 2 24 2 6/- 412 2 0 1 8 2 1 « 6 4/2 •) 4/2 0 9 llj ft 5 4/2 1 1 i> In « 2 61- 5 4/2 | 4/4 t 0 9 3J */' £86 6 OJ *Q *° OiCOOOC^Ob- O , <•» —» O Oi 00 »O W 0.* °* ^ 1 1^ o os tO O to CO O eg ^J o co O i-t K5 CO OO .2 OS 1-1 "* ""* ^8 "H * : : ' : : : : : ;..... 0 00 OHM cor-fMoiOi ::::.:: s Oi CO to M «^ ^H --O 5O CO to CO ••** CO 43 J Ofp4 of § : : i : : : : : : t : : : cs : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 5 3 ^-j o> -^ — w ^ 13 • • • : ••::.:: 0 -2 ;**; I I J * i : i i : * co || '3. fl 0 : : : : : : : ; : : : : ^ .... : : : : : ::::::: 3 •3O '5a • o -a M ^ ^ — : • : : M bo . ; : : : : : ::::::: a. § I o a ^f &0 ^^ ^H P 5 : : : : • : : : ...•So . • : : : : : : : a : ^ 2 3 n S 0> ^.OD o tl ' '"S ' § -a" 2 Z a r«?« 2,701 a ret for y, j)ri'i WA, 1911. 8 • 0L *wi)J «>* - aa 0 s J • £f ^^SaDfl - *r* r~> -^ £j £ ^ *^ s8 ^* KOOJOH J3 a 3 S « I | ycaoam i'l § •^« •§ C > 5 ^ j £ ^»:-JI 1 1 sg III 1 i isiijs i S2IIJI I Keceipti, viz. : — Live stock— Horses ... Cattle ... Sheep ... Pigs ... : : : :1 1 !|:!|s | 1 i^.a^ 3. •§ :8|s « § -cb"SScd • 8 . * *"^ w 'a oo ^MOfflW gs'g J" cn^ O^2 ^ rl ® ^ _50«3 $ fl fi t« M 8 ^B-S-bSl^ • 8" § o K^.S h 3 § B s £-?|<3rS'3.9 t a S -2 a S o 2 a -3 = ^ a, BQM£H»9P4 ^ R) § " M ^5 ^ a> A S5i \\ ^ X -^ 2* "i * a, a, S * i z (j a r7 • 1 t- O »O >. * "^ 1 ^^ A ^ « t- » -r o T» (• . Is* C< O 2 s | *° •"•' - t «« KiSSBSSS? =« g"** iC OO CO t-^t- »o ' 1 *••*•• OS 10 ^ CO a •• M 4 I : f i : : : : : '••'•:'•'•'• o :::::: ::::::: fa H s, 2 . 2 r-T : : : : : a : : : P o" PM 0 O rH .... • • •" • • . • : I :::::: i«* : to :tf £ 1 la?«. Is •• ^ S » So »< •* ; ! ! ;|lJ ^2- |J |f 'His KliiljlJ?-! f£££fi ^| ; ^ ' 5j !j4 !fS •? a o S s jH 1| ' 'i.'filsl 'I "i *1 -aS^r : g| J-g'l *•§ ^•itaiS^ig^^a^^.^ •« Is ff^i=l ' J S'2 a 8 B-3 J "^ « 5 *s •§ s S OD " o .3 6 -9 6 ° -S M 1 JJ jj^l sSll I J ? A j 4 M*i 4 M K « M t> O 2 >9 M ^ |l Illlllllllllll 1 d K ^ M & ^ 0 c 1 1 ~ *•• O ~ •*••*•» s • o 1: 2t-e» 9 " ' - 8 £ « K £36.456 •^ o «- oo e» I 3 £ - •* ;i;!l fi'li} 3*,sJ s. 1 .§iS Is3 8« is:? :8M £ e c eo ts 2 B •§ f-^tS c *5 2 . O . tj •8 fi f : S"* c i c^tiii 1 I I a 9 1 ISS2 IN 1C »0 10 -^ O <*• Ci O „• 05 ft O 00 52 O » 85 •S- : :« i \l% •S.^ - , liliiiiiliii 1 { « 0. 1 ft™ V T. jjlft fi ::::::::::: ) ::::::::::: ' ! ! i ! i 1 I i i : :• :::::< s "efl : i i i if i • '• S :.::;:: .£* ' a ' i "t; J- i S o f fl ; = = = • g of S ' :i '•• • 55 .2 * < :8»::^-::S^"'' • -.2. i :,-c HI.! :Jfj] >.§¥al_-: :»§&- •"§ $2^ HJli 15 « o » OS s 1 f, 1 1 J 1 t B W * c t •*» o « t* •** -,; x — • c-i . •: .- t* OS O CO *« tO iOi-HOOO»O CO CO 5 O 0* 01 ** O CO 22 O SOSt-C^OlOi-t •* C* 3 »ft CO rH »O N ?O 1 GO 05 CO CO 1-1 s" s *; ^ * 0 C =« o. S o u ^ O O O •* OOOOi-" ^ ~H ;O t~ 94 t- O QO <-< <-« ib co i-t co r 15.616 2 8 Stock on hand at April 6, 1916, per Fox and Vergette's valuation 23,520 15 6 39,136 18 2 Debts owing to farms at April 6, 1916 ' 1210 0 £39,149 8 2 •::::• : :::: ;::;:; i : : : : : : : : : P • .-:•:. 3 : : : : : : : : : r ......{. a : : : : : I : : I 1 ::::•; | :::::- I ::::: 1 . i o £• 2 ||l j| | | | | 1 i Peas (bought and resold) Hire of horses, tackle, &c.. Dairy produce Keeping and joisting Poultry Implements sold Valuations (Crosswayhanc Plants and seeds Jly Receipt i: — Live Stock — Horses Cattle.. Sheep.. Pigs ... Produce— Wheat ... Barley .. Oats Beans Hay, Btraw » " O. Ilia, «&. ^ ,rs «i« ti 1 s? | €3 £ W *" -i «« 3 i~ ^ o o to to _, 00 »» 00 OS *» ?* 00 ~ ffi • D, i ilJU ^m5^S II M c3 "^ r - — vr OS ^— « 2S i OS ti 1 OSOOSOlOOtOtCOO-^-4*CO to ^ OSOOOS-^iONt-C^OWOO ^S ? - - - 5 m os ' ^ * °° N S 5 os — 5 ~ T «~-T r-" = C^ CO ^ i i t i i t i i i i i i t- 1 .»*»s-.M..|««...s«. •- •r — oo ^ c co co o : : : : : ^ o w eo o ""•SS"'*' : : i : : ~* 00 M ::::::::: '• a o 1 a 35,847 1 Salavce (profit) 3,301 £39,149 ••!•:•! : • • : a : Labour Tradesmen's accounts Feeding stuffs Implements Manures Plants and seeds Rates Rent Insurance Stationery, fares, &o. Carriage, &o. (freight) Hire of horses, tackle, &c Valuations Keeping and joistiug Poultry Service fees Bank charges Stock on hand, at April 6, 1914, per Fox and Vergette's valuatio Halancf. being profit on year's working DB. i : i : : : : i : ::::::,::: ' 1 OS T3 9 • ; • : ;| i ; • • • : i ; = j • : i i ^ jo* iCiimSSli-^ ! iWoo;PH :-aig::»::-8'Sffl"^-js-t' "^ l| a!2»« •«2«i3BjS 11 ! ll i 1 1 K 16 > r.~ • I ! a; .1 3 o. 00 • So o i.-; « -•*•*« 00 -K 00 N £ V 9 s. «r 0> Jialance (profil 17 o ^ to »-H •~i O O O O t*» W M t— 00 O O =S rt COTN" to 10 era ^ ^ '° rt ' i— i to »o re «r «- co o cc *o >o o 1— 1 i-t 1-1 (N cT^-T c^T i-H CO •* =« 4H •— (•* 5Ot>. Cl fr- CO r-< OOOOO •** fH M r-i -*4 ~ -~ °° OV-IQO c^GO'rt ii; ® : : >o i—< i i i j ; | ~a _ O O> CO CO CO ~ r~. co c^ it CO oo j ; II* "^ •!!• Ifll" 1 ** 5 4 ^ 35 • ' ' • g •| : •& : : • : : : : : : : : e : : : : : : : • ••S ' '-o ' JJ '3 '3 S ' « 13 -3 ^ ^ : g1 : : g> : :« :S Ilia : I ::!«::!: :::i oo -• •«" *C *C ** t* bo - o .2 .2 .S 43 'J •^ : :S : =o :| : :.:| :| : i : | : : :| : :| • 3 u^^u^-o g-ag il ^§ ^-s « 1 « s '":§ ::cs : § : 1 ::*§ -" : : | oJSiig1 ::-S; •S^^ &.1! ^ ^ x§ i l| 11* '^ ^o c" j| $Oo'^,S x^^ * EH ^ u ' d a) OCQK 3 «^^^« g 3 * -* ^ ? 51 i il US ^> --'^'Sg'S'd^Sl^Jggw^ 1 i •c: • o I Li 35 2=5 — ^~. «* to co oo i w» •* cs o n Hi/ £a» (O** to ia c ; T QO t- •°.« 10- M IM N •i, ; 0 COt-O^M^ -f 0 s>o«»!c-KO : s £ ^- * ~ ^- ^H — « "" . *^ OS(-'-O-**C : '• '• : ;|| : : : : : : : :aa| : i ; ; i • i i g •s Is -1 . 1 a : • : • '^OT-, : ::::::: o § : ....:.. .3^ CL, g B 4 i • >..*•• ati S :::: :J5§: 3:::!-:«)2: 5. 13-0 • a » 5 « .2 J a '£ • :::::: • g in * ,2 W - Jd " " ^ "^N ^ ^ . $ 'O ' *"* S |- i^|Ki ||o | «, |s| l*~\ ' ' * 1 S j3 -^ * k o ccSS ^^S TaiM''!1'^^* "SI Jmaa^» C'S'2 1 W |l| |1| | ; J£| : n be ^ : y, v * ^ 'S fl> * S 9^ y] ^_*-» 2 * fcc<2n ® §^j*j *3%>»a '^nSh^'Jfior? • • B • A M "•- *v0-*5ao°5!e«MM *>_ ov *'O'^?flaj'*55- •* S> -"S "rf®^*430^ 1 rf j s£SgE(3£ ^ "^3 'C OJ t> a ^ £ ,aiisi«^ | Jrfl .; Jz2s2 •f* ff. •*+ w> -r" 18 5 ^ O "5 QB i- « a II - w 01 - - - r r 1 r r •-. r. : r. W £ c 4 ' r- «- •-- «•- c ' • - - " — • r : r P 000 - « i l> •J • « •— » « - e « •e «o . g ^ o> o . i t 1 : - • •-. ~ — i - :. - : i - I i i- .- r. «g oo ' J r* x - ' ••.-:- 'S ." * 5 <« 3 •v . . 1 . . g : .- : : i : • ! = 1 ! i;i ;l • V 1 l« ; iS. • i : 3 I 3« o 1 _n s'-S R it - - - • ' 15 0 o • 8 amount o I II 8.1 • > ° ^ 4. I i 4. i j -I tf -' 1 & le dd ii :S^ *- ^3 £ I Live ts II S5O( 1 in J| - i-s . 1 l i i ! ^ O e> • rm •m * m o\° S S S»£ g «0 10 Oi -r — ' — 0*^^ 4 S 5« g •1 :::::'* •* : : • : : •" - — f * >2 tD • • • ;O to = ~. o — 00 C< W to GO : : : : :j g* ' W -^ • 5 >c | * :::::: a : : : ...:.. .: ,, ,, 4) -2 ' ' i . . : : * : : ; : ; : : : "3 : 1 8 « i *• .6 . . 03 •0 . . 8. 0 * '"o . ' • 3 oo" 'a J3 c • ^* J.s . .a a 4-* C *~ '•£ '-S J • g ?i :l -5 > « o a *s • •5 ««, !» !-2 o 8*^ g> *o ^ O V ^ ^ .; js»3 •< ?i3 J H Feeding stuffs Manures I'lanta and seeds Rate* Renu Lett rent paid by al Insurances Leu refund by Ksta Stationery, fares Carriage freight Leu refund carried Hire of horses, tackle, Implements ... Bank charges »5 5 3S ^ 0 4J •™a "g •,•0 o iS§ J U? 1 I&" 1 1 . 1 « fl 'I 19 •n' ~ *• 10 t^ O OO (O ^; •* •* t» ! 0 oi t^ OS o OS e.) 0000 0 =« c^ os_ »__ ^.""l -^ . -r*t. "*1- 06" c* ^- rH C4 CM 71 • • •1 1 • <— * . o> • ' = . : : 1 2- 1 i : f 2 oo -i •g •i to . "^ * : ^ 6" : 1 o» I* •3 to 0. |: i •** •?S 2 i O 1 S 1 >, 1)1 II *| ^ — _ t < §c<1 tic S M ll « Ii >^ •2 d S 2 I] S i— < II CO i-H 09 || s to 2,700 acr ding April Uh, a! U l! 1 i! fi IJ i i 1 1 ! ft ! f i * 3- £ i •9* If ^ - = to x> | ^ O O " 00 to | ^•00 C 00 g "1 •000 — 0 g> •»2° ""In "^ „• O O 1-0) •B | 'M *• ^ ^= s s ** «.5. S. S 2 * tl 'i 1 -»< O CC t^ QO ^* 1 ii i| •?, '. B • • —I — 10 1. . . • — rt B 1 a 5 : ' -«s B 00 H-t- to R :*'Ij — • • ej * ** o ' ' etf -£ °° 1- * *** *H *n - g •f «" ef B « in 3 jj • o ^ O X : 1 : : M i : : i .-^ : : : • i - . . 3 • .a • • • * . * • ; • * • GO 1 ; ; ; ; 5 : : : : * • • • 3 1 .5 : : : : -c . . . , .2 : = = : 1 : : ' : ; ^ 2 S 5 If ; : • • rS . • . ; — 0 .". J J Ci d ' 22 OS O* 2 5-S" - — fl"jf 2§ rfJ" OS to to 2 o «£ 2 > toto ii 11 •2 1 it .3 5 ^ ^ " 1^1 l 1 ^ s If 1 ill «s ill -2 .2 ^ M U S ^.26 S« .1. 1 S -go ^'-SH' ^Q I|B | || J 1 .- ys W O .3 co W O ,^02 W O . g d t5 d A 0 Q P K 3 5 ** I • ^!o « — «o \ «| Mfe £2 i. it H f! H 1 1 k • ^ i •§ 2 I hi C I S4 5 1 1 1 -•-••= *,& <= .§> ^ •* eo t- ^«,.- » M • r 00 O t- S >S 1 ^ CO O » | wSS tt 2 "» 1 w o* i B •z «f i-T • -' IN 1 .^ .^ S_ o6_ t- ir_ 7 =*) § i 3 i : ""'I: s CO • . i • M *» « o CO g ; . , — — . * — r 1 i < -*•' V ea 1 ea : M 1 i ... •~5 if 2 ss : s 1 S S »• — S » " a -I i « — *H • f 1 °- • g" s Is O. 4, yij'i id Sl ||| I.-S •B"! i i! •2 •** a o \ tO V 8 • A JVM o (5 r T 21 o -I Oi 5C iO N I-H •2 '*"3, r .§ K 4 :,. SUMM\l:li:> OF VALUATIONS 1914. Total Value. Avenge per head. ~3 Hone* £ *. d. .' r.05 10 o £ ,. A :u 6 0 640 Semite 8,975 0 0 1100 1,%J Sheep :i.-'76 1 0 1 13 0 148 Vigf :cjfi 13 0 240 Implement* 1,867 1 2 Threshing tackle, &c '.':H 13 0 354 1 n 3,105 10 8 Mil 10 U 273 6 1 Produce on hand... 1,269 18 6 £23,279 3 11 1915. Total Value. Average per head. 06 Horees £ >. d. 2,755 0 0 £ *. ,/. 41 U 0 607 Bearta . .. 8,594 0 0 ll! 10 0 1,714 Sheep 2.H93 13 0 1 ll 0 188 Pigg 476 17 0 2 10 0 Implements 1,743 17 0 2,420 16 4 200 0 0 61 2 0 Produce ... 1,273 12 0 Cake 591 6 3 193 16 4 21S 5 1 Machinery... 927 10 6 £22,444 15 6 1916. :.i Hortes 508 Beasw 1,137 Sheep K.I Pigs Implements Culti N. -A Prod u Cake Feeding Htuffs Artificial in Machinery. Total Value. Average per head. £ ». d. 2,757 10 0 £ i. d. 61 1 0 7,378 15 0 U 10 0 2,319 0 (i 2 0 (I 385 10 0 260 ** 1,776 2 9 2,208 11 3 l*>il 0 0 3,556 3 0 561 14 1 nffs . . 136 1 1 390 2 4 1 340 15 ii £22,960 4 6 1317. Total Value. Average per head. £ ,. d. 31)10 0 0 £ .. d. M 16 0 i-l Beafltft K.685 0 0 17 in " 1 085 Sheep 2,527 0 d L' 1, 0 2OH Pi(f8 694 0 0 360 L'(I91 0 0 1,311 0 0 '72 14 0 cultivation*, seed, and artificial applied 2,051 0 7 461 0 0 36 16 6 617 10 8 83 6 0 New Road 100 0 0 £26,640 6 9 23 SUMMARIES OF VALUATIONS— continued. 1918. Total Value. Average per head. 67 Horses £ x. A. 3,812 0 0 £ x. d. 56 17 0 486 Beasts 10,470 10 0 21 10 0 581 Sheep 2,778 0 0 4 15 0 171 Pi<*s 962 11 0 5 12 0 3,156 6 6 1,423 13 5 180 8 0 88 14 0 2,305 19 0 1,358 0 0 5,115 3 1 £31V.51 5 0 1919. Total Value. Average per head. RS Horses .... £ *. d. 4 095 0 0 £ *. d. 60 4 0 402 Beasts „ 8,032 0 0 19 19 0 1,140 Sheep 2,590 3 0 250 228 Pigs 1,234 11 0 580 Produce on hand... 6,403 8 (i Cultivation seeds, io. 2,794 10 6 1,388 17 4 273 0 0 Implements 2.403 5 6 Machinery 2,087 0 0 Draining ... 74 9 0 • New Road (part cost) 50 0 0 £31,426 4 10 24 APPENDIX IV. Handed in l.\ SIR K. \\INKKH. M.i'., in connection with his evidence given on Septemlirr :»nl. 1!MO. Q. NUM. 'I'lu. price paid f«r uat seed was £1 3s, 9d. Q. 8060. I hii\i> ;I!M> reduced the estimated yield of barley by one quarter and put the market price at 90s. At the same time, I may add, in 1918 this tenant threshed out 5J quarters to the acre and sold it at 70s. Q. 8101. No charge was made for thatching the wheat because it is the invariable custom to thresh as soon as possible after harvest. Q. 8119. I find, on enquiry, that the explanation of the charge of 4 cwts. basic slag and 1 cwt. ammonia i- that the slag only was used in 19*19. The ammonia «:i- used in 1913. The smallholder, in 1919, took the advice of the " Farmer & Stockbreeder " and sowed the slag with his wheat. Q. 8127-30. Regarding the cost of ridging raised by Mr. Overman, I find the smallholder estimates that ho would do 3 acres a day, and another day for split- ting, and he puts the cost at 5s. 6d. per acre in 1913 and 13s. in 1919. This I have corrected in the state- ment. Q. 8154. The cost of seed in 1919 was 30s. 2d. per acre. See corrected statement. Q. 8161. With regard to Norfolk, I was asked the size of the holding. I find it is 38 acres, 4 being grass, and the crops this year are as follows: wheat, 6 acres; oats, 6} acres, amongst which new seeds have been sown; barley, 7^ acres; mangolds and turnips, HJ acres ; old seeds mown twice, 5 acres. Q. 8178. With regard to team labour, the Lines. smallholder charged for one man and two horses 9s. per day in 1913, and 27s. 6d. in 1919. Manual labour in 1913, 3s.; in 1919, 7s.; harvest labour, Is. 6d. per day. Q. 8185. The smallholder bought his seed potatoes of a merchant at Spalding for £7 per ton delivered. They were second-grown Scotch and raim- fruni Gedney, 15 miles away. Q. 8194. The cost of dressing the potutoe, was 10s. 6d., and putting them on rail 7s. This should be added to the statement on page 300, and should come off the profit. The potatoes were delivered in April and May. Q. 8199. I find 1 cannot give the actual cash received for the potato crop in 1913, but in ll'll 10 per tent, of the potatoes were actually delivered in April and May, and the remainder were undelivered after the, 30th June and the grower received the Government controlled price. He reckons the cost of re-dressing them amounted to 12s. 6d. a ton. Q. 8204-8227. I find the smallholder is not able to tell me the actual cash he received for wheat in 1913 ; neither is he, I regret to say, able to give me a balance sheet. Q. 8210. The explanation of this is that no arti- ficial manure was used in 1913, but 3 cwts. was used in 1919 at a cost of £1 5s. 6d. Q. 8224. The expense of getting the second crop of seeds was omitted ; this should be : mowing, 5s. ; making, 5s. ; carting and stacking, 5s. ; thatching, 2s. ; total, 17s. Q. 8251. Half a sack of seed used. Q. 8255. I find that the explanation suggested In- Air. A -hi iy is a true one: that although the land was ploughed deeper, owing to it having lieen previously cleaned, the operation was less expensive. Q. 8521. There are 30 resident tenants at Wingland. and 43 non-resident, making a total of 73. Tin- largest holding there is 51 acres, and the smallest 2£. 25 APPENDIX No. V. PAPERS SUBMITTED BY MK. F. L. WALLACE IN CONNECTION WITH HIS EVIDENCE, SKD SEPTEMBER, 1919. SIR. Tillypronie, Tarland, Aberdeenshire. 23rd August, 1919. I have the honour to submit for the consideration of the Royal Commission a suggested basis for corre- lating the wages to be received by the agricultural workman with the price which the farmer receives for his produce in such a manner as not to affect the farm workman's standard of living. I have the honour to give the suggestion in the form of an excerpt from my Report on Wages and Conditions of Employment in Agriculture in the County of Northamptonshire, already published in a Blue Book under that heading. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient Servant. (Signed) F. L. WALLACE. Tin- Chairman, Royal Commission on Agriculture. EXCKRPT from Mr. F. L. WALLACE'S Report upon Wages and Conditions of Employment in Agricul- ture in Northamptonshire, March, 1918. Finally I would venture to suggest, for the con- sideration of the Agricultural Wages Board, the desirability of correlating the minimum wage of the future to the cost to the farm servant of certain alimentary commodities, and thereby correlate the wage to the selling price of farm produce. In an earlier section of this report, dealing with " the AttHude of the Farmer " towards the wages question, the writer drew attention to the danger which lies in fixing wages by Act of Parliament at a compara- tively high level, owing to the uncertainty which lies in the future of profits upon farming the land. From the returns which the Board are now receiving in regard to agricultural workers' budgets, it should not be impossible to compute the quantities of the alimen- tary necessaries of life required by an agricultural working man and his family to live well. The sugges- . tion is that the minimum wage should be made to rise or fall automatically correlatively to the prices of food stuffs, and thus, instead of the farmer being saddled with the payment of a certain wage to his men, whether the price he received for his produce enabled him to pay such a wage or not, as the price the farmer would receive for his produce would diminish, so, in approximate ratio, would the amount of wage diminish which he would have to pay to his men. Similarly, if th« cost of food — such as meat, flour and sugar — rose, the wages would have to rise proportionately. . It would be necessary to this scheme that a portion only of the minimum wage as fixed by Act of Parlia- ment should be ear-marked as covering the cost of alimentary necessaries of life, and only that portion of the wage would thus be liable to fluctuation. The remainder of the wage would thus be left unaffected directly by a rise or fall in the prices received by the farmer for the produce of his farm. Supposing, for the sake of example, it were found that 40 per cent, of the wage is required by the labourer to purchase bread, milk, meat — in other words, farm produce — then it is suggested that this 40 per cent, of the wage should be governed by a sliding scale according to the prices which the farmer mi- liis produce. The tithes rent charge might be taken as a basis. The remaining 60 per cent, of tin- wage should not be altered. If the price of foodstuffs fell it is probable that the prices of other things would fall somewhat, and in that case the jinn-basing power of the 60 per cent, would be in- creased. Under this arrangement if the farmer got less for his produce he would have to pay less wage to the labourer, but the labourer's standard of living would not be lowered thereby. The prices of tea, sugar, and other imported articles .should not affect the wage to be paid, as, if the prices of these articles fell, the farmer would himself get the benefit equally with other people. SIR, Having received a request from the Director of Investigations that I should present an ad interim Report upon the results of my recent investigations to date into farming costs, I have now the honour to present to you the attached (id interim Report, together with a Statement of Analysis in Tabular Form (Statement A). I have the honour to be, Sir. Your obedient servant, F. L. WALLACE. Investigator to the Agricultural Wages' Board. 2Wi Octoler, 1918. SIR -HENRY REVV, K.C.B. AD INTERIM REPORT UPON FARMING COSTS. In the Notes which I have presented to you from time to time, I have indicated a drift of mind towards certain conclusions. In my present Notes and in the Tabular Statement I have endeavoured to bring into prominence certain outstanding features based upon the upwards of 70 statements of account, balance sheets, and details of costs which I have already had the honour to present for your consideration from time to time, and which have been collected during the past few months in the Counties of Northampton, Oxford, Buckingham, Cumberland, Westmoreland, Northumberland, Durham, and the North Riding of 'Yorkshire. It has been my endeavour to put before you, with two or three intentional exceptions, only statements of information collected from farmers who have been most carefully selected as being, in the general esti- mation of their neighbours and of the farming com- munity generally, leading farmers whose ability and science place them in a prominent position of respect, and whose success or otherwise may be taken to be a fair criterion of the capabilities of farms and of farm- ing of a similar character in the neighbourhood. At the same time, it has been the endeavour to include under review all classes and scales of farming in so far as time has been available for research up to the present. It is to be presumed that Government cannot base a policy upon the results of poor farming, but only on the results of farming where the utmost has been pro- duced by the means at the disposal of the farmer ; the samples have been selected, therefore, from farms accordingly ; and it should be borne in mind that the average English farmer would probably not be ablo to show such good results as those shown in the typical cases given. While the farming community have been freely con- sulted in regard to the sources of information which should be tapped, and which could be regarded as representative, it is important to note that no farmer can be aware of which of his neighbours has supplied the statements of accounts presented for your inspec- tion, unless the informant has made it known himself ; for it is, and has been, and will be, a matter of honour ith your investigator strictly to preserve the anony- mity of each of the gentlemen who have so kindly, willingly, and patriotically given all the information at their disposal to help this inquiry. Similarly, every precaution is 'taken to disguise the locality of the informants' farms. It is greatly to be regretted that some of the infor- mation collected, although of extreme interest to the inquiry, does not lend itself readily to statistical treatment, and, therefore, the tabular statement is hardly commensurate to the total of information collected. in I'njiitnl \'u' I •. i. a\uur has made to distinguish Ix-twccn cash profit*, on the one band, and, on tin- other hand, such proportion of the balance -h. .-t profits as nr<> largely due to appreciation in tli value of ,t... k. or ili<> <-i|iu\a. lent of such stock, w h . h \\.i- alioaih o tout bnrk intn ihr Fnrm*.— Attention should be drawn to the instances in which a largo proportion of the profits made since the war have )>eon put back into the farms in the form of higher manuring. Improvement lias also been, in naiiy instances, made in the quality of tin- live took kept ami dealt with, and these latter im- provements cannot be seen in the aeeouir .< rinr r'niiniiK/ Mitlitnl? tif tl(, \tntliil>tti»it in Ihi .YI/I-//MTII 1'oiiiit'n* utol in tin- MiiUniiil ; I'rmmt MI tlmilx <>/ t'liim iny on mott Farms — A good deal has been said in the foregoing remarks in regard to th<> superior methods of farming in most of the cases cited. There are few farms, however, on which further improvements to increase productiveness could not still be made; and it is greatly to tho credit of fanners in general that, in most »l the cues which hare come under review, the farmers, as they recovered and increased their capital and became financially more independent than has been the case with them for very many years past, have turned their attention to making such improvement*. F. L. WALLACE. Investigator to the Agricultural Wages Board. 38th November, 1918. rSteiMIMif " A " show actual ascertained results upon 54 farms. They also show what would have been the 1914 results if the wages paid to the 1914 staffs had been upon the official 1918 scales. In several counties, notably in the Border Counties, the wages actually paid in 1918, and in many cases in 1917, were above the official mini- mum wages. In the event of prices for farm produce falling to nearer the 1914 level than the present-day level, and if wages, which are a chief item among farming costs, do not fall in proportion, it is useful to see to what extent pre-war as well as the latest ascertained profits would have been affected if the present (May, 1919) wages had been paid in the respective years to the staffs actually em- ployed in these years. Statement! " B " show this upon 46 farms out of the above 54 farm*.* C " showh tlu> difference in percentages between the ascertained profits and what the profits would havo been if the same staffs had been paid the latest wages. h-ment " D " shows in percentages the actual ascertained increases in capital during tho war years on the 36 farms. It is important to differentiate between profit as shown by n balance sheet — which includes, of course, increase in capital as well as cash profit — and actual cash profit. ^tnii i'n nl •• K " gives the total proportion of arable land, taking all the 54 farms dealt with together. Stnlt-inent " F gives the number of men per 100 acres employed on the 36 farms. The detailed statements from which the above- mentioned summaries are compiled are appended.* Except where otherwise 'especially mentioned, these statements were made by myself, and were based on figures extracted from the farmers' books by myself, with the farmers' assistance, and if the necessary clerical assistance and the time had been available actual balance sheets would umn- frequently have been submitted. In a few coses, chiefly among the smaller men. the i/w iliril <>f the farmers had to be accepted, but not before I had satisfied myself by investigation and cross- examination that the farmers' statements were approximately correct. A good many more state- ments of account could have been submitted if tin- pre-war bank pa&s book could have been analysed ; but, unfortunately, in too many cases the pre-war balances were mixed up inextricably between business and private transactions. * Not reprinted in this Appendix. "A."— ACTUAL ASCERTAINED RESULTS. TABLE No. 1. — "A." SERIES I.— OXON, BUCKS. NORTHANTS. Profit 1914. 1918. (or Loss) Acreage. Descrip- tion of Farm. in 191 4 at present rate of wages, i.e. 1918 scale of wages. \Va_-, - Cash Profit (or Loss). Profit per Acre. Capital. Profit on Capital. W»gm Cash Profit (or Loss). Profit per Acre. Capital. Profit on Capital. £ ». £ *. £ i. Per cent. £ ». £ *. £ *. Per cent. £ *. No. 1. Loss 875) 1914 Mixed 1,565 12 349 7 7*. 1 1/7. 11,500 0 3-0 2,315 10 475 5 13*. 3d. 13,500 0 3-5 430 11 715(191*- No. 2. CM 385 ... Mixed 299 11 552 12 £1 8*. 4,000 0 13-7 395 11 2,153 7 £5 12*. 5,000 0 43-6 456 11 1917. Ttf f\ 1 ___ rtu. O. 370 ... Mixed 569 2 321 19 | £1 4*. | 2,743 15 13-5 — 1918. Nn 4 Loss 1* U. ^. 385 \I914 Arable 606 0 MB I 4,500 0 _. 835 19 Loss 7,630 0 Loss — 422/1918 BhMp. (Bal. Sht. £30 19*. No. 6b. profit.) — — 681 0 910 8 — 6,000 0 15-6 434 10 781 14 — 11,000 0 7-0 — No. 7. 1,206 \1914 Mixed — 1,506/1918 1,473 0 £1 4*. 14,230 0 10-0 — 4,000 0 £2 13*. 25,314 0 16-5 — No. 9. 1916. 470 ... — — — — 6,003 0 — — 700 0 £1 10*. 8,318 0 18-0 — No. 12. 198 ... Mixed 2.-.1 1C, 411 17 £2 2*. — — 352 7 574 1 £2 18*. — — — (Bal. Sht. No. 13. Low profit.) Loss 478\19I4 Midland 371 14 334 11 — 5,000 0 — 844 8 6,817 0 £1 4*. 5,000 or u -a 807 5 4K4/191I- grazing. (Bal. Sht. % I'nre 4358 14*. feeding. profit.) No. 0. 350 ... — 917 19 32 15 1,. lo./. — — 1,059 2 58 1 3*. 3rf. 7,855 2 •79 — No. 10. 2601 1914 _ _ 560 7 M .;. 3,000 0 18-7 G17 0 £1 18*. 5,114 0 u-o — •U9/1918 NO. 11. »7« ... — 325 2 314 13 £1 5*. 2,866 12 12-0 415 16 fifi 6 4*. 9d. 3,427 3 1-9 — 29 TABLE No. 2.— "A." SEBIES II.— NOBTHUMBERLAND. Profit 1914. 1918. (or Loss) Acreage. Descrip- tion of in 1914 at present Farm. Cash Profit ; Profit. Cash Profit Profit rate or Wages. Profit (or Loss). per Capital. Acre. on Capital. Wages. Profit (or Loss). per Acre. Capital. on Capital. wages, i.e. 1918 scale of wages. No. 21. £ s. £ i. £ ». Per cent. £ £ ,«. £ *. Per cent. £ *. 50 ... Mixed 913 18 1,867 17 £2 6*. 13,400 0 16-0 1,429 17 4,131 5 £4 7*. 13,654 0 SO -2 1,704 6 £2,2205*. £6,050 16*. No. 22. Bal. Sht.) Bal. Sht.) 1,000 ... Feeding 892 8 1,200 0 £1 4*. 10,000 0 12-0 1,429 12 — — * 17,000 0 — 663 0 No. 23. Loss 1,000 ... Breeding 650 0 Lived, no 13*. 10,000 0 — 1,040 0 900 0 18*. •17,000 0 53-0 390 0 cash No. 24. profit. (1916) 500 Feeding, — 47 0 1*. 10d. 1,500 0 5-3 70 0 150 0 £1 1*. £2,500 0 20 0 mixed. No. 9. :»;.-, Mixed 177 12 200 0 10*. 1 !«/. 2,800 0 7-0 375 18 800 0 £2 4*. £5,000 16 1 14 No. 11. 184 ... Mixed — 50 0 5.v. .V/. 750 0 6-6 3 10 84 0 9*. Id. £900 9. — No 12. 50J Mixed 19 2 20 0 8*. 220 0 9-0 30 0 20 0 8*. £280 7-1 10 0 No. 13. Loss 101 Mixed 17 0 Lived, no — 800 0 — 68 0 40 0 8*. llrf. £1,000 2-5 51 0 cash. No. 14. Loss 310 ... Feeding 178 0 200 0 12*. lf)d. 3,000 0 6-6 332 0 Loss — £5,000 Loss 96 0 No. 16. 2,795 ... Hill 68 0 300 0 — 2,000 0 15-0 — 600 0 — *£3,400 17-6 212 0 sheep. No. 17. • 400 ... Mixed 286 6 350 0 17*. fid. 4,500 0 7-7 339 4 850 0 £2 2*. *£9,500 8-9 243 0 * This capital is assumed by Investigator, .the farmer not having npfumption that the 1914 capital had increased by 70 percent, in 1918. + This Balance Sneet Profit is entirely due to appreciation of Stock. { This figure should rr-ad £378 1 3*. stated a figure. The figures for 1918 are based upon the TAHLE No. 4.— "A." SERIES III.— DCBIIAU AND YORKSHIRE (North Riding). 1'rofit 1014. 1918. <"r \*>-f) DMcrit>- in 1!'14 at Acreage. tion of Farm. Cash Profit Profit Cash Profit Profit rate cf Profit (or Los.). per Acre. Capital on Capital. Wtgm, frofit(or Loss). per Acre. Capital. on Capital. wage*, i e . 1 '.' 1 s goale of wagon. £ *. £ *. £ «. Percent. £ *. £ *. £ *. IVrw-nt. £ *. No. 1. Loss 400 ... Mixed 819 0 350 0 17*. W. 8,500 0 10-0 1,012 0 1,200 0 £3 5,500 0 21-8 183 0 No. 2. 131 ... Utel 82 0 30 0 4*. 6rf. 600 0 6-0 30 0 600 0 £4 11*. 1,000 0 60-0 32 0 No. 3. Ill ... Mixed — Lived, _ 460 0 _ — Lived, — 781 0 — — no cash. no cash. No. 4. 1,600 ... Hill 204 9 737 11 — 2,206 0 — 210 19 811 1 — 2,157 10 — 731 0 sheep. Stock only. (Bal.Sht. Stock only. £820. 3*. profit). No. 5. Dairy, 751 2 1,262 0 — 4,307 4 29-3 1,082 8 711 13 — 8,046 16 19-6 931 0 mixed. (BaLSht. (BaLSht. £1,485 9*. £1,5832*. profit). profit). No. 6. 1,400 ... Feeding 641 4 861 11 (Bal.Sht. £1 1*. 6,039 0 14-2 968 18 1,403 13 (BaLSht £1 12*. 7,417 2 18-9 204 11 £1,6008*. £2,2477*. profit). profit). No. 7. Loss sao ... Arable, 600 0 100 0 6*. Id. 3,900 0 2-5 900 0 1,000 0 £2 6*. 7,800 0 12-8 200 0 feeding. No. 8. Lots 323 ... Mixed 413 10 125 3 7t.M. 6,097 14 20-5 690 4 1,512 2 £4 14*. 9,460 8 16-0 51 11 No. 9. 96 ... Mixed 43 15 60 0 10*. M 750 0 6-6 20 10 70 0 14*. Id. 1,600 0 8-0 — (small). No. 10. 685 ... Sheep 99 8 100 0 2*. 1 1./. 2,100 0 4-7 82 10 200 0 5*. I",/. 4,200 0 4-7 90 8 No. 11. 110 ... Hill 40 0 227 10 — 2,286 0 9-9 — 427 6 — 4,000 0 4-7 207 10 sheep. No. lla. 41 ... Hill 18 0 Lived, — 356 10 — 7 0 60 0 — 792 0 10-6 — sheep. no cash. No. 12. 280 Feeding 2S8 0 200 0 14*. 3rf. 2,500 0 8-0 530 0 400 0 £1 8*. 4,100 0 6-3 31 0 No. 13. Hill 204 9 637 6 — 2,785 18 19-0 — — — — — — cheep. No. 16. 220 ... Mixed 131 0 200 0 18*. I'-/. 3,500 0 5-7 118 16 800 0 £3 13*. 6,000 0 13-3 149 0 No. 17. Loss 260 ... Mixed 314 0 150 0 1 1*. <;,/. 2,300 0 6-6 495 0 600 0 £1 18*. 4,550 0 10-9 31 0 No. 24. 224 ... Feeding 101 8 275 16 £1 5*. 3,250 0 8-6 207 0 l,02fi 15 £t 12*. 4,940 0 20-7 170 4 No. 2fi. 2,600 ... Hill 188 9 634 6 — 3,687 11 14-8 293 17 1,041 16 — 6,697 13 18-2 466 4 sheep. ffatt. — In regard to the no-called capital in 1918, where the capital amounts to simply the doable of what it was in 1914, it indicates a disposition on the part of the farmer to guess at his capital increase, owing to valuations not having been made in many nuns Doubling the pre-war capital is rather too much. On the average, an increase of { or } as much capital again, say an increase of 70 per oent. in 1918 upon what it was in 1914 is probably near the mark. 81 •' C."— STATEMENT SHEWING THE DIFFERENCE, IN PEE CENT. AND P3R ACRE, IN T PROFITS UNDER THE TWO SHALES OF WAGES, THE RESULTS BEING SHEWN FOR WHOLE GROUPS CASH PROFITS. — Series I. Series II. Series II. Series III. Ozon, Bucks. Northants. Cumberland, Westmoreland. Northumberland. Durham and Yorkshire. Old Rate of Wage. New Race. Old Rate of Wage. New Rate. Old Rate of Wage. New Rate. Old Rate of Wage. New Rate. 1914 1918 1914 , 1918 Per cent. 10-5 16-2 Per acre. £1 5*. 8d. £2 4*. I,/. Per cent. 5-2 22-0 Per acre. 9s. 4d. £2 12*. Od. . Per cent. 8-3 12-4 Per acre. 13*. 9d. £1 19*. Od. Per cent. 6-1 8-9 Per acre. 9*. 5d. £1 10*. Od. Per cent. 9-2 18-4 Per acre. £1 0*. Od. £3 18*. 9<2. Per cent. 5-0 14-1 Per acre. 11*. Od. £2 9*. Od. Per cent. 11-0 17-1 Per acre. 10*. Jd. £2 13*. Od. Per cent. 10-0 15-3 Per acre. 3*. 3d. £2 17*. Od. TOTAL FOB SERIES, I, II, III. Old Rate of Wage. New Rate. 1914 1918 9-7 per cent. 16-0 17*. 6d. per acre £2 13*. \d. ., 6-5 per cent. 8*. 'Ad. per acre. 15-1 £27*. Od. „ — Farms 100 acres and under included above. Farms 50 acres and under included above. Old Rate of Wage. New Rate. Old Rate of Wage. New Rate. 1914 1918 1914 11(18 6-6 per cent. 8-0 1"*. ad,, per acre. 14*. Id. ., 20 • 1 per cenf,. loss. 1-1 9'0 per cent. 7-1 8*. Od. per acre. 8.. Od. „ 27-0 per cent, loss I • 4 per cent, profit Note. — In obtaining above results interest is almost invariably ignored ; the profits (cash profits) being regarded as interest. y,,te. — Only results from four farms of 100 acres and under and from two farms of 50 acres and under are shown. No. 1 •D."— STATEMENT SHOWING CAPITAL INCREASES IN WHOLE GROUP. CAPITAL INCREASE. SERIES I,— OXON, BUCKS, NORTHANTS. Example : — 17-4 percent. | No. fi Example : — 83-3 per cent. No. 10 „ 2 ... „ 4 ... 25- 69- 0 „ 5 » „ 7 .. . 73-5 38-5 „ „ 11 Average 50 • 3 per cent. SERIES II. — CUMBERLAND , WESTMORELAND. No. 2 ... „ 3 ... „ 4 ... Example : — 100 54- 49 0 per cent. » „ 1 8 No. 8 . ,, 9 . „ 11 . „ 12 . Example : 66 "6 per cent. 44-0 „ 20-0 „ 27-2 „ No. 13 ,, 1* . 5 . ... 22 A terage 54 -y per cent. Example : — 70 '4 per cent. 19-5 Example : — 100-0 per cent. . 66-6 No. 21 ... , 27 .. 1 • S per cent. 75-0 SERIES II. — NORTHUMBERLAND. No. 28 .. „ 29 .. Average 66-6 per cent. 41-8 61 '8 per cent. 163-6 per cent. 22-2 SERIES III.— DURHAM AND YORKSHIRE. ... 1UO-0 percent. ... 56-0 „ ... 100-0 „ ... 100-0 ,. Average 71-5 percent. Total Proportion of Arable in Series I.. II. and III. combined No. 1 ... 67- 1 per cent. No. 7 2 ... 50- 0 n » 8 3 ... 74- 1 ,, 9 5 ... 87- 0 ,. 10 22- s „ No. 12 „ 16 „ 17 , 24 64-0 per cent. 71-4 „ 97-8 „ 51-1 25-6 per cent. 25329 1914 MM E,"— HILL SHSK!' TREATED 8EPABATELY AXD NOT INCLUDED ABOVE. Old SuterrenL New SUtament Profit 9-5 per cent. ... percent. u-o „ in Capital 87-4 percent. 12-6 percent. ll-s No. I » a ,, 3 , 4 No. 1 ,, 8 ,. 3 » « „. 6 ,. 6 , 7 No. ai „ 22 , 23 So. 1 ,. 2 "F."- PERCENTAGE OF LABOUR (PRE-WAR) PER 100 ACRB& SERIES I.— Oxos, BOOKS, NORTHANTS. 4 per 100 acres 0 men). No. fin ... 2 per ICO acres (2 men). 1 M tt S men). » 8 ... ... 6 i. tt „ (6 men, 1 boy) 1 tt tt »t c men). .. ll! ... ... * ,, 11 ,, (3 men, 1 boy). I' N tt H men). Areragf 3 per 100 acres. SERIES II. — CUMBERLAND, WESTMORELAND. 3 per 100 acres n men, 1 boy). N... •* ... ... 3 per 100 acres (H men). :.' 11 n i-' men). 9 ... 1 tl (1 man). 1 t* It M man). 11 ... 2 It (I man, 1 womau). 1 H !• II n men). 12 ... 4 11 (4 men). 1 11 II II c man). 13 ... 3 tl (1 man, 1 boy, 1 girl). 1 it 11 II c-' men). 14 2 11 (2 men). 1 tt II II man). 17 2 t* (2 men). Average 2 per 100 acres. SERIES II.— NORTHUMBERLAND. 2 per 100 acres (2 men). Ko. 27 1 per 100 acres (1 mau). 2 11 ii ii ( I man, 1 girl). ,, 29 ... 2 „ 11 „ (2 men). 2 ii ii C- men). Arerage 2 per 100 acres. SERIES III. — DURHAM AND YORKSHIRE. 7 per 100 acres (3 men, 4 women). No. 8 •«« .*• 4 per 100 acn> (li men, 1 woman). 2 » 1* !l (] man, 1 woman). ., 9 ... 2 „ II „ (2 men). 1 n (- men, 2 women). ,, 12 ... ... 2 ., 1' „ (2 men). 1 II II C man). „ 16 ... 2 ii II -, (2 men). 1 n 1. II (-' men, 2 women). „ 24 :< .. II ., (3 men). Average 3 per 100 acres. Nate. — In working oat these figures for each series, as most of them come to a decimal figure, I have taken each one to the nearest whole number. Nate. — It is the opinion of many gcod farmers, and an opinion which is shared by the writer, that the ideal number of men for nrat-clacs farming on an average mixed farm of grass and arable anywhere in the midlands of England, would be fonr men per every 100 acres, or at least three men and a boy. This rule may apply to any average county in England where labour conditions and/or labour output of work are not exceptional. It is interesting to note, therefore, the percentages of labour employed upon the 45 farms (.pre-war) from which a return of 1914 profits has been made. VOLUME INDEX. NOTK. — .4 full Index will be printed when the evidence /.< complete. BANNISTER, M.D., Land Agent and Agri- cultural Valuer, Hayward's Heath : ... 5718-6120 Arable land : Conversion of grass land to ... ... .>973-5976 Conversion to grass land 5884-5&N8. 5978-5979 ' Capitalisation of industry 604X-6050 production : . method of dealing with 57*7-5791, 5813-5816, 5922-5924 Method of calciTSr^» ... 5733-5880, i;n'.i7-6104, 6105 of Various crops, estimates ... 5720-5738, 5762-5773. 5787-5802, 5817-5850, 5865, 5876-5877, 5964-5966, 5970-5972, 6066- 6076. 6101-6104 Dairying industry 5889-5898,5904-5910. 5913. 5932-5934, 6024 Farmers, feeling of uncertainty among 6079-6083 Farming, divergent results and causes 5937-5949, 6005-6017 Foreign competition 5980-5981. 6079 Guaranteed price 5881-5882, 5902-5903. 5911-5914, 5925-5931, 5954-5963, 5977-5979, 6018-6024, 6026-6036, 6051-6054 Horse labour, cost of ... 5736-5737, 5744-5753, 5784-5786 further Information to be given 6117-6119 Labour ... 5892, 5913, 5915-5921. 5982-5990, 6043-6045 Land sales, and purchases by farmers ... 5935- 5936,. 6085- 6096, 6109-6116 Meat prices 6077-6078 Milk, control of prices ... 5X94-5901, 5991-6004 Ploughing : Horse, coat of 5803-580»!. Co 55-6065 I'm. tor. cost of ... 58C2, 5865, 6101-6103 Wages, minimum and actual ... 5985, 6037-6042 Wheat, yield 5832-5839,5951-5953 BOURNE, R. C. : 55545717 Experience of V5577, 5618-5621 , 5653-5661 Costs of production ... . 5681-5690, 5707-5714 l'>ctric power 5634-5638 ' iranteed prices ... ... 5587-5589 Hor«i lalx.ur, cost 5559,5581-5586 Hours, reduction to 50. probable results 5561-5562, 5.V.i-_' 9601, 5i;i(i 5.II:;, 5r,17, 5641-5647, 5091-569K Labour • Cost ... 5564, 5595. 5613, 5662-5672, 5675-5678, 5682 Efficiency 5648-5652, 5673-5674 Meat, cost of production 5563,5701-5706 Overtime 5564, 5695-5696 Saturday half-holiday 5699 Tractors 5606-5607 Wages, increase 5556-5559, 5562, 5564 5595, 5613, 5628-5633, 5662-5672 BUCKLE, ALBERT, representative of Cleve- land Chamber of Agriculture : 4960-5553 Arable land, conversion to grass 4962 (1), 4963-4968, 4972-4974, 5206- 5212,5321, 5398-5406 Calves, rearing of 4962 (3), 4988-4995, 5032- 5037, 5192-5197, 5283-5284 Capitalisation of industry 5141, 5287, 5476 5480 Cleveland District : Balance sheets, production not pos- sible ... 5257-5262, 5301-5302, 5329-5338 Costs of production, estimates 4962 (5)-(10), 5013-5023, 5074-5078, 5089, 5094-5095, 5097-5101 , 5102-5145, 5158 -5164, 5322- 5326, 5424-5427, 5432-5444 Cropping system ... 4962 (4), 5009-5012, 5045-5050 Bent, etc 5038-5039 Yield per acre of various crops 5016-5025, 5055-5057, 5070-5073, 5091- 5092, 5106 -51C8, 5285-5286 25329 BUCKLE, A LBF.RT— continued. Compensation for improvements 5418, 5514 Costs of production : Difficulties of estimating ... 5024-5026, 5146-5147, 5503-5504 Manure, method of dealing with 5024-5025, 5051-5053, 5062-5066, 5097-5102, 5149-5157, 5258, 5322-5326 Dairying industry : Decrease 5002-5008, 5253-5254 Labour 4962 (2), 4975-4987, 5032-5037, 5227- 5234, 5239-5244. 5307-5312, 5316-5319 Daylight Saving Bill 5553 decreased Fertility of land 5472-5474 Foreign competition 5396-5397,5552 Guaranteed Price : for all Agricultural commodities ...4962 (1), 5468 Amount ... 4962 (1), 4969-4971, 5027-5031, 5070, 5165-5183, 5217-5222, 5339- 5345, 5369-5373, 5455-5459, 5466- 5467, 5534-5536 Basis 5460-5463 Compulsory cultivation question 5273-5276, 5465-5466 Effect on rent 5277-5280 Guarantee to suppliers of tractors, etc., not necessary 5213-5216 Need for ... 4962 (1), 4972-4974, 5304- 5305, 5359, 5398-5406, 5552 Period 5201 Premium question ... 5346-5351 and Relation to cost of wages, etc. ... 5199-5204 Horse labour, cost 5096,5122-5128 Horse ploughing, cost 5114-5130 Income tax ... ... ... 5517-5521 Labour : Education 5379-5384 Efficiency question ... 5H75-5378 Prospects of 5548-5551 Shortage ... 4962 (2), 5267-5271, 5546 Land : Purchases by f aimers 5289-5291,5297-5300, 5484-5494 Sales 5292-5296 Tenure 5418-5419,5495-5496,5514 Machinery ... 4962 (2), 4980-4981, 5306, 5320, 5538-5544 Milk, control of prices and need for free market 4996-5002, 5043, 5079-5086, 5184-5191, 5236-5238, 5245-5253, 5422-5423 Minimum wage ... 5522-5523 Profits 5263-5266, 5303, 5360-5367, 5497-5498, 5505-5511 ex-Soldiers, settlement on the land ... 5391-5395 Transport facilities ... ... 5515-5516 Wages 5028,5223-5232,5242-5243, 5387-5388, 5448-5454, 5524-5532 Wheat straw, price 5432-5439,5444-5447 6756-6964, App. I. 6786-6790, 6892-6894 CLARKSON, P. W. : ... Cheese production ... Dairying : Capital 6938 Cheshire farms system 6833-6843 Conditions required to put industry into satisfactory condition ... 6881-6888 Losses 6756, 6769-6778, 6791-6821, 6830-6832, 6849 Special difficulties ... 6759, 6778, 6794, 6821-6829, 6852 Feeding stuffs ,. , 6796, 6815, 6853-6856, 6957 Housing ... 6869-6871,6897-6899,6903-6906, 6942-6950 further Information to be supplied ... 6909-6911 Labour . ... 6856-6872, 6899 6902, 6908, 6935-6937, 6961-6964 M 11. IXDKX. i 1 VBKSON, P. W. Milk : Combine ............ 6888-6891 Cost of production ... 6756,6779-6785, 6795-6817, 6819-6820, 0912-6929, 6951-6955,6957-6968 Deliver, ......... 6930-6931 Price. . ..... 6778, 6850-6852, 6881-6886, - Yield Saturday half-holiday Wages ..... : 6756, 6763-676*, 6813-6815, 6873-6880,6960 6957 FOX, B. COLTOX, Malton District, East Riding: ......... 7129-7589, A pp. 1 1 Position as witness 7171-7175, 7422-7424, 7440 Arable land, conversion to sheep rung ... 7160-7164 Balance sheet ... 7284-7306, 731 7- 7323. 74 12. 7403-7480, 7528-7535, 7571-7581 Barley, yield ............ _ 7209 Capitalisation of industry... ... ... 7245-7248 Costs of production 7130, 7133, 7215-7251, 7271-7283. 7324-7341, 7393-7405, 7428-7433, 7481-7490. 7413-7418, 7506-7515, 7519-7521 Fallowing ............... 7137-7143 Guaranteed Price : Amount 7132, 7146, 72o2 72o5. 72:51-7233, 7262- 7264, 7343-7301, 7369-7389, 7437-7443. 7450-7453, 7_518 not Favoured, but need for ... 7144 7147, 7182-7184, 7194, 7419-7421, 741- Period ............... 7194-7195 Sliding scale question ...... 7188, 7 196-72 11 Hours ... 7134, 7454-7457. 7477, 7500-7502 Labour, decreased efficiency ... ... 7559-7500 Land, purchase by farmers 7369-7376, 7434-74.''.. Oats, yield ............... 7269 Profits ......... 7425-7427, 7586-7588 Bents 7149-7153, 7212-7214, 7370. 7540-7553 Saturday half-holiday ......... 7134 Sunday work ............ 7495-7499 Tariff ............... 7133,7183 Wages: Basing of, on prices proposed 7131-71:!:!. 7146-7153, 7155, 7160-71(14, 7165-7170, 7176-7181, 7253-7261, 7390, 7406-7409, 7458-7459, 7460-7462, 7481-7490. 7491-7494, 7503-7505, 7556-7558 Wheat, yield ... 7177, 7180-7181, 7366-7367 World prices ......... 7359,7583-7585 Yorkshire Farmers' Union ...... 7173, 7524 GOODWIN, THOMAS C., representative of the Cheshire Chamber of Agriculture : ... 6121-6755 Kxperienceof ......... 6125-6127,6131 Arable farming ...... 6136,6138,6430-6434 Arable land : Conversion to grass land 6390-6394, 6565- 6568 Conversion of grass to ... ... 6435-6436 Artificial manures ............ 6640-6643 Capitalisation of industry ... 6275-6277, 6424-G429, 6753 Cheese production ...... 0000-6605, 6652 0656 Cheshire farms, details . . . 0496-6497, 6597-6610, 6616-6618, 0755 Co-operation among farmers 6122-6129, 6102-6172, 6306-6310, 0372-6376, 6548-6552, 6711-6714, 6747-6752 Co-operative Wholesale Society ... 6168-6170, 6306-6310, 6372-6376, 6515, 6701-6708 Cost* of production : Manures, method of dealing with ... 6682-6685 of Various crops 6 1 22, 6 1 85- 023 1 ,6283 -630 1 , 6359-6366. 0377-6381, 6395-6409, 6665- <5, 6686-6688, 6692-0';% Dairying ... 0367-0308, 6140, 6475-6481, 6501 Fanners, feeling of uncertainty ... 6135-6139,6311 Feeding stuffs ............ 6633-6639 ^•n competition ...... 6142,6235-6238 Guarantee to manufacturers of ploughs, etc ................ 6569-6572 Guaranteed Price : Amount 6130,61*7,6249-6256,6264,6316- 6321, 6360-6352, 6382-6383. 6619-6626, - GOODWIN, THOMAS C.— *o*ti*u«l. Guaranteed Price— <•"»'. Basis "745 for all Cereals advocated 6442-6445, 6690 0091 and Guaranteed acreage and nature of crops 030-J 03U.-I. 0322-0327, 0353-0.-.50 Need for ... or>2. 0257 6263, 0724-6726 ,«1 031-.'. 6384-6385, 6657A-6665, 6720-6723 Hours 6122, 6144 6152. 6266-6270, 6387-6389, Income tax ... further Information to be supplied ... 0329 633(1 Labour : on Arable and Dairy farms 97*6-6788 Conditions, Cheshire ... 6466-0407. 6558-6664 decreased Efficiency and lack of interest 'ii J2. 0153 6161,6174 0184. 6274. o-r.;. 03"l . .•.:•.'•.'.» 0371. 0410 0415. 0 !'.>'.'. 053'.! 0547. Land : Purchase of farms by farmers 1 1 OJ44. 0348. 0408-0474. 0513 0518. 6715-6719 Sales 0345-0349 Tenure 6882-6849,6606 Machinery 6528-6538, 6747 07.VJ <>;!!>. Mi-fa oo'.'i' Overtime 0268. 0271 -0272. 04.V.I O.|05 Ploughing : Horse, cost 6585-05*'.. 0592-6596, •;• Tractors 6587-6591 Potatoes 0700-6701 Production ... 0132 0130, 6161-6102, 0273. 6331, 6415A-6416, 64H2 0484 Profits ... 614(1-6142, 0247 6248, 6485-. Rates, Cheshire 6278- r. Bents, Cheshire 03;iH- 0400 Transport 0173 Wares ... 0195-0200, 6422-6423, 6440 045*. 0504-0505.0014 0051 Wheat, yield 0012 SADLER, J., Secretary of the Cheshire Milk Producers' Association, and of the Cheshire Chamber of Agriculture, ami the Cheshire Dairy Farmers' Association : ... • ... 6965-7128 Arable land, conversion to grass ... ... "i>'.)3-7096 Cheese production 6968-0970. 7' '24 7050 Cheshire farms, nature of 7077-7093 Dairying : Decreasing 7056-7060 Profits 7061-7067 Hours 0965, 6981-0984, 7015-7018, 7109-7113 Housing ... ... ... 6998 Labour ... 6985-6997, 7001-7002, 7008-7010, 7013-7019, 7102-7106, 7115-7120, 7126-7128 Milk: Cooling OH7:1. -6974 Fixing of prices ...7006-7007, 7051-7055, 7096-7101 Saturday half-holiday ...O'.'70-0(i*o. 0;i'.i'j 7000. 7003 700.-, Transport 8986,6971-6972,7011-7018. 7009. 7H73 \V;iges 6988-6990,7181-7126 WALLACE, FALCONER L. : ... 8097 9o:,o. A|.p. V. Aberdeenshire, arable cultivation ... **'.'*, *1'!0 Arch, Joseph 8730-H733 • Balance sheets 8752 8775. 9o|.. Capitalisation of industry 8098. App.. p. 20. Costs of production ' ...8702, 871!>. 877*. **:>l. , 9021 !"I23. App. V. Cumberland, laln.ur cunditioiiH ... 8712-8716. 8863-8804, 8958 -VOu Farm steadings *7'I7. *75n 8751 Farmers, education 8787-8788, 9086-9089 Farming results, variation ami causes ... *"'.''.' '.mi! i yn-jH. '.ml.", '.ml!. App.. pp. •_'.•. Farms, size 8700, 8708 S71I v. sson-8862, '.in:'.:. !iii:',o, App.. },. 27. Foreign competition 8999 Guaranteed Price : Amount 8887-8894, w'.'55-.s:t57. 8934-8937,9010 '.m|-_> Need for ... 8780, 8989-9004, 91 12-91 18 Period 87*1, *-% 111. WALLACE, FALCONER li.—i;,,iti>nml. Housing ... 8706, 8717, 8720-8723, 8743-8747, 8844-8847, 8855, 8858-8859, 8922, 8961-8H62 Labour : Education ... 8705, 8712-8716, 8856-8857. 8866-8869, 8931-8933, 8950-8954, 8981-8988, 9037, 9040, 9042 Efficiency ... 8865, 8818 8821, 8823-8830, 8972-8977 Organisation 8870 Shortage 8852-8853 Status 8952-8954 Meat prices ... ... ...App., p. 27 Milk prices ... ... ... ... ... App., p. 27 Northern Counties, system of farming App., pp. 26-7 Overtime 8836-8843 Prices, world 8992,8999 Profits 8820-8822, 8938-8940, 9029-9034, App., p. 26 Unions 8734-8735, 8943-8948 Wages: 8729. 8736-8738, 8809-8819. 9002-9004. App., p. 27 Sliding scale proposal 8787-8808, 8872-8886, 9019-9020 W<><>1 prices... ... ... ... ...App.. p. 27 WINFREY, SIR RICHARD. M.P., Chairman of the Lincolnshire and Norfolk Small Holdings Association : ... 79)54-80%, App. IV. Agriculture, profitable nature of industrv *!.".*- xi 60, 8327-8328, 8417-8419, 8431-8434, 8437-8438, 8517, 8563. 8567. 8618 Arable land, conversion of grass to 8494-84'.i.~.. X;,IMI BailifK xilai-M-> 8467*11'.* Barley, yi.'M 8063-X065. XH3 -sun Costs of production 7'.»C>. *336 S3.".;*. x.v_>8 .«;,:;:;. sr,s;, si;.m; Deeping Fen smallholding, costs of pro- duction and details re farm 7972-7974, 7!'xi; 8032, 8050-8055, 8086-8088, 8104-8111. 8179-8204. 8244-8261,8283-8311,8686 8587. *.Y.f_'-»r,iin Feeding stuffs 8515-8516 Game laws 8126, 841 1-8414. 8503-s;,n7 Guaranteed price : Amount 8330-8351, 8500A-x:,n7, *r.i;i 1-8663 no Demand from small holders ... *\'.»\. 8680-8681 Good cultivation should be insisted or, ... 8335, 8342, 8568-8569, xc.r, I -sc,r,H not Necessary to prevent land going out of cultivation ... ... ... 8539 • X512 8509 8512, K5-;:, X566 .. 8513-8514 Period Premium question Land : Increased value 7971, 8071-8078, 8271. 8618 8626, 8673-8674, 8695-8696 Nationalisation ... 8397-8400, 8690-8693 Purchases by farmers 8361-8366 Sales 8619 * 6 •_>•_> Tenure 8890-8992,8429-8430 I. .iii.l Acquisition Bill 8624-8625 Land Courts 8401, 8538, 8570-x;,7i.' Lincolnshire and Norfolk : Small Holdings : Co-operation -t of land x.~)*s- 8589 • |is .-. livestock 71*70, 8096 8097, 8522. 8573 Di-mand 8426-8428,8551. 8683-8684 general Details ... 8170-8176, 8543-8545 Ditching 8107-8109 Finam-ial rewrite... 8275-8281,8649-8660 WINFREY, Sru RICHARD, M.P.— continued. Lincolnshire and Norfolk — conl. Small Holdings — mitt. Horse work, etc. ... 8047-8049, 8053, 8089-8095 Labour, remuneration ... 7987-7998, 8098-8100, 8233-8236, 8240-8243, 8294-8311 Life on 9576-9581 Position of holders 8420, 8559-8560, 8669-8671 Rates ... 8201-8203, 8217-8219, 8270 Rents 8267-8269. 8367-8370 Success and reasons 8229-8231, 8352-8359 Tenant farmers 8079 Lincolnshire and Norfolk Small Holdings Association ... 7969. 8037-8045, 8082-8169, 8262-8269,8518-8552 Potatoes : Prices 8629-8633 Yield 8197, 8627-8628 Profits 8407-8408, 8646-8648 Rents : Abatements, 1879-1890 8638-8641 Increase 8073-8075, 8381-8389, 8393-8395, 8402-8406, 8409-8410, 8417-8419, 8439- 8442, 8449-8454, 8501-8502, 8634-8642 Small Holdings : Areas in certain counties ... ... 8607-8611 County Councils and ... ... ... 8552-8556 Efficiency of labour 8557-8558 increased Population as result 8085, 8486, 8582, 8673-8678 Productive value 7979-7985, 8083-8084, 8166-8167, 8421-8424, 8464- 8466, 8524-8532, 8653 Size 8481-8485 Subsidising by State ... 8371-8378. 8415- 8416, 8654-8659 ex-Soldiers and Sailors 8371-8380, 8415-8416, 8654-8659 Swaffham Farm, costs of production and details re farm 7064-7066, 7975-7978, 8033 - 8036, 8056-8070, 8112-8157, 8161-8165, X205' x-.'2x. 8252-8257, 8313-8326, 8561- 8562, 8585-8587, 8649-81 ;;,2 Thatching of crop* "... 8101-8103,8121-8124 Transport 8687-8689 Wages 8498 Wheat, yield 8125-8126 Wingland Estate, details 8046, 8171-8173, 8229, 8487-8493, 8601-8604 WREY, CASTKI.I. : 7590-7963, App. III. Apethorpe Farm : Balance sheets 7604-7623, 7671-7677, 7743- 7766,7779-7794 Costs of production 7701-7742, 7824-7829, 7832-7835 Sale of pedigree stock 7614-7623, 7690-7694 Valuations, summaries 7594-7602, 7604, 7695- 7700. 7767-7785, 7795-7813, 7830-7831 Arable land : Conversion of grass land to ... ... 7634-7643 Conversion to grass, danger of ... 7914-7915 Co-partnership 7644-7645 Farming, organisation ... ... ... 7686 Farms, size ... 7624-7628, 7649-7670, 7867-7870 Feeding stuffs, etc., prices 7836-7848 Guaranteed price 7678-7689, 7815r7823, 7855-7866 Labour, wilful deterioration 7603, 7871-7887, 7900-7913, 7916-7940, 7956-7959 Land : Purchase by farmers 7872, 7888-7893, 7914- 7915, 7941-7950 Sales, reasons 7895-7899, 7960-7963 Repairs ". 7945-7950 Wages .* 7.933 Printed by His MAJKHTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE. ARMY AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEE. REPORT :— Formation and Objects; Position of Army Cultivations in January, 1918; Home Forces; Mesopotamia; Grain Cultivation by Native Population; Vegetable Production; Forage Supplies! T7 f n Jodd.er F£rms 5 ,Sepe19 3-1918, Estimate of Amount of Capital required for a Michaelmas SSL «! P * ' M A0''68 (hfS TlIlap>Corn ™d Stock) .„ 1913 and 1918 respectively, Estimate of Farms of 316 Acres, 1914 and 1918, Average Expenditure of 269 Farm Workers' Families, «'ni_ic, i «7 1 y . G t '_' . [Cmd. 76] of Session 1919. Priee (),/. < i ] .',,/.) BOARD OF AGRICULTURE FOR SCOTLAND. Seventh Report, for 1918. Finance,; Establishment; Proceedings relatmg to the Constitution of New Landholders' Holdings and Enlargement of Landholders Hold i,,. Landholders ; Proceedings relating to the Disposal of Vacant Landholders' and Statutory Sma 1 Tenant*1 Holdino* \-r . Mar,ao.pn nt tv,0 1^owi> v I Agricultural Education, Reheard, and Development ; ProcS^in *%^&*%*^%*& Luropean War upon Agncnltural ,,„ .restry ; Administration of Statutes transferred by Sec. 4 (11) 111 'S ' -l»d [ntemgl 'ubfic Works in Congested Districts ; Home Industries. Appendices :-- Total Number of a,,! Total Number of Applicants who have obtained S"fW.^?"^™"??! .Are? °*L*»* .'">(1- Crops (excluding Rotation Grasses and uner rops excung otaton -".thnJ, o'l ' 7«ns T ' t'"/ ' 'I WJth ! "' %°! ; A(;t"al tnCrea8e J11 1918' The Killing Of oUand Oner lyis Lis, -.thn, ol «ns ' t I ' e ng O oUand) Oner, lyis : List, of Orders ,md ,i.lt;on 2K • Regulations • T';;; (-'j"{™1 Agricultural B<3gu,ati „,,;,„ th(; D.trict W^ tiSS ICultUl;al, N a- - ••""> I > nd) Order, 1918 ; Central A Cultural Wages efl (""" howing the Minim.,,,, Rates of Wa-es i , force -t 9l.8 : [mP°rta an ' ExF ^d Timber during 1918 ; Table show n^he Work L ;lrn? 19108 '^ment of Lund A,,, I864and 1899, &c?; 1?u,Zr of Samples of taken in each County in Scotland during 1918. '"I. 185] o : • lit 19. Pri- DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION FOR IRELAND. i.Mi.F.Mii ANNUAL GENERAL R HI-OUT, 1916-17. 1'tirt I. — Administration mif Agriculu.re and Hoards; Funds of the Departmenl : A.lnunistration of the Endowment I'Uls DeVel°^-t A'^ Irish M— ls «* R- Materials; Loan Fund System; Part II.— i '/I,,- DC [tart malt's Operations. Agriculture :— Agricultural Instnu-tion : Agricultural Faculty, Royal College of Science ^' lont,^ ^r1^1^ Competition; Butter-making; I mprSveme, t in the Sana t making; ftorticultu^ and Bee'-keeping ; Prizes for Cottages and Small Fa™ Sub tWvement of llm(,nts and [nvestigation? Laws SkS^S'^ icultnral Pur Forestry. Compulsory Tillage, 1917 [nstruction— Technical and ( i)ay verms Evenim- Schools- Triinin., of i Institutions; Scholarshi •^ «-• I! Shell, and Salmon Fisheries; Kelp; Net-mending ; Piers and Branch. Veterinary Branch. Transit and Markets —Transit of Pro , I?1""1 "57 Ui'"^ Proceedings under the Sal, of Food and Urui Acts \et,on taken by the Department's Staff m SSat Britate for ; ^,pee,I(), ,;„„, fho 'M:ll,et. and Fa.., ( Welgninfof on 19is. I-,; ROYAL COMMISSION AGRICULTURE. MINUTKS OF EVIDENCE (26th August, 1919, to 3rd September, 1919). VOLUME II. Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty. : I -•. nriU