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 /<(i II it,, it r.U>.
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 < I'ntfitt.
1913.
£ s. d.
1st year-wheat ..
3«dyt»ar- mangolds
3rd year-barley 130
4th year- hay seeds
1919.
£ •. d.
1 7 3
9 16 0
6 19 6
13 15 6
Average profit per acre
4)13 0 1 4)34 17 3
£300 £644
(This eonelvdrs the evidrnrr-in*hirf.)
7979 Dr Douglas: I am only going to ask certain
Kenorai questions. I will leave tho question of the
cost of operations, and so on, to those who arc raor.
familiar with your district. You are a stronu
believer in the productive value of small holdings, a
you not!" — 1 am.
7980. You consider the production per man c
small holding higher than is th.- rnso on n large hold-
ing—Certainly.
7981. Do you think the labour is superior?--! do.
Shall I particularise?
7982. By all means?— On one of these estates that
1 am Chairman of, where we have 1,000 acres of
Crown land, that was previously occupied by one
farmer who employed ten regular labourers; he had
ten cottages and a small amount of casual labour.
We now have 39 families getting a good living off
that estate in addition to some of the land which \-
let in allotments to those living around the district.
7983. Yes, but my question wax, and I think yon
answered it in the" ami-mat ive, whether you thought
that the labour per man was more productrro on small
holdings than on large holdings?— I do, because they
work longer and they work harder.
7984. So that the cost of production so far as labour
is concerned would be greater on large holdings than
on small ones? — Quite.
7985. You think labour is more efficient on the
small holdings?— I do.
7986. Will you please tell us exactly how these
statements are arrived at in the second and third
sub-paragraphs of your paragraph 4. You say: In
reckoning the profits it must of course be remembered
that each small holder is charging for his own labour
at current rates, and this applies to the wife and
other members of the family? — Yes.
7987. Does that mean that an account was kept at
the time and all the labour charged at these rates
_ I sat down with this man and be told me that he
had kept the cost of his own labour, and these were
the charges which he also made when ho assisted his
neighbours.
7988. He kept these accounts at the time?— He did.
7989. Have you got the figures of the rate charged
for labour?— The rate charged in 1913 was 3s. a day
for himself.
7990. For how long a day?— 1 could not say that.
7991. It is an important point, is it not!- This was
in 1913 and I could not say.
7992. Do you know what it was in 1919? In 19111
the charge was 7s. a day.
7999. Have you any record of the length of that 7s.
day? — I think' I am fight in saying it was from 7 a.m.
to 5 p.m. with an hour and a half for meal times.
7994. That is 8J hours? — Yes, and no half holida-v mi
Saturday there — not at present. Then the wife's
wages were 2s. a day in 191.1 and in 1919 5s. a day.
7996. The day bemg of similar length ?— Yes.
7996. Bo that that works out for a man about lOd.
an hour? — Yea, it is upon that basis that these figures
are computed.
7997. And for woman about 7d.?— Yes.
7998. When overtime was worked no special charge
was made?— No.
7999. To go down to the next paragraph, potatoes.
th- charge for farmyard manure is for 13 loads out of
the ynrd. £3, that is 6s. a load in 1019?— Yes.
8000. Is that the normal price at the present
moment? — I put it to them, and they thought that
WM a fair price, and that is exactly the same price an
th«' small holder thought it was valued at in Norfolk.
I saw him next day without telling him what the
Lincolnshire man had said, and he put the same value
pn it — fa. a load.
8001. Do you think that Ls the actual value of it
either 111 relation to uurcha- • 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 !
066
o in 6
Interest on Machinery at 2/2 per acre
Cost of Prodnction
£ i. d.
Coat per ton 0 12 7
acre 14 13 6
0 13 0
£88 1 11
TABLK 1 (g).
Swede* after Carrot failure, 9a. Ir. 22j».
1917-18
Dec 31
3
4/6
2
2/9
|1
«/-
£ i. d.
450
Jan 1
4
1 .'.
2
2/9
1)
6.
496
1 •'.
1
7/9
4
«/-
1 11 3
I .'.
1
2/9
4
«/-
1 11 3
Apr 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 Sȣ 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