mi A3 #t &srrtet£$e'. ROYAL COMMISSION y. AGRICULTURE. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE (14th October, 1919, to 29th October, 1919). VOLUME IV. Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty. L 0 N I) 0 JS : 1'KiNTicn AND i-cui TSKKD P.V FITS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFK'K. To In- jiuidia-ei! ihrouoh ;iiiv Bookseller or direcllv i'roin H.M. S'l'ATIONERY OFFKT te following addresae IMPKIMM. HOTISE, KI-. \\".r.2. and 28. AJIIM.DON STIIFKT. Txixnoy, S.W.I 37. PETEK STKKKI. MA--. : 1, ST. AMXUW'S CHESCENT, r1 \uniFF; 23. FORTH STUKKT. EDINBURGH; or froiM ]•}. [^NSONBY. LTD., 116. GRAFTON STREF.T. DUBLIN. I'.U'.i. [Cmd. 445.] I'ricv l.v. Iv/. H I PllU.il A HO 11 Mi» 11 mli rui. c»n he pun-lui" Hydrogrraphical Publications of the Admiral' Patent Office Publications Ordnance Survey and Geological Survey Publications irchued :- ournal of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheri. following U ;i I 'I I'uliii i nc In rii BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES. L I, ill. Principal Cliani_'t's in 1!HS ; Sumniai • I. 13] of Session litlit. IVir.. •>,!. V \..\\ I'liiii :il I.:iln.nr : I )i.-:nlv:i; »_ hiration and i ninir Mi1 D !!'!!). P.- li I'KI.I.I ..... \ DI.I-AUTMI SCIAL K: IF PuiNCii-Ai, TiiAHiX(; I'lonjrhiiifj: : H(n>c Plciii: ndf-r 'I'v. S Tifiiltiir:, [''.•inniiiLr. I)r:iin:iim' and Ontj A^iirulliiral Kxi-cntivc Coim:: \]i)-il 1. l»17, to •i 1!U!». Prirc }>/. (! \V.s 'NniTIOH Mi'i.ov \II:N i IN . upland : >ii]ipN of Lalnnir I .nil and I. I Holdii \Val<- : ( '.inclusion. 119. I'ri. /.) Backio mth !).•]! Durham : Hani) •:\ : hai i.inculn : Mid.: nurlaiid and tin h : Flint [ G '' : M'inni..n -, litlH. I'ri. .,/.) v \\' M.I.-. KYprintrd t'l-iuii the ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE (14th October, 1919, to 29th October, 1919). VOLUME IV. Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty. LONDON: PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE. To be purchased through any Bookseller or directly from H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE at the following addresses; IMPERIAL HOUSE, KINGSWAY, LONDON, W.C.2, and 28, ABINGDON STREET, LONDON, S.W.I; 37, PETER STREET, MANCHESTER; 1, ST. ANDREW'S CRESCENT, CARDIFF; 23, FORTH STREET, EDINBURGH; or from E. PONSONBY, LTD.. 116, GRAFTON STREET, DUBLIN. 1919. |Cmd. 445.] Price Is. M. Net, ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE, TERMS OF REFERENCE. "To enquire into the economic prospects of the agricultural industry in Great Britain, with special reference to the adjustment of a balance between the price- - -I agricultural commodities, the costs of production, the remuneration of labour, and hours of employment." MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. • SIR WILLIAM BARCLAY PEAT (Chair, ,<•„». SIR WILLIAM JAMES ASHLEY. MH. F. E. GREEN. DR. C. M. DOUGLAS, C.B. MR. J. M. HENDERSON. MR. G. G. REA, C.B.E. MR. T. HENDERSON. MR. W. ANKER SIMMONS, C.B.E. MR. T. PROSSER JOM> MR. HENRY OVERMAN, O.B.E. MR. E. W. LANGFORD. MR. A. W. ASHBY. Mi:. R. V. LENNARD. MR. A. BATCHELOR. MIC. GEORGK M< llu|.l.> Mi:. H. 8. CAUTLEY. K.C., Ml' Mit. K. H. 1'AHKKU. MR. GEORGE DALLAS. Mi:. R. R. ROBB1N- MR. J. F. DUNCAN Mi: W. H. SMITH M.p MR. W EDWARDS. MR. K 15. WALKKK. LIST OF WITNESSES. 144 October, 1919. 21«< October, 1919. PAGE. PAOE MR. JAMES GARDNER ......... 3 MR. K M NUNNELEY ......... 50 MR. A. H. POTTS ............ 65 28/A Octitlr,: I'.U'.i. 15iA October, 1919. Mi:. T. WILLIAMS- ........... 70 MESSRS. J. ALLISON, JNR, W. D. McNICOL, J. STEWART, G. DAVIDSON and I). 29/A October, 1919. MCLAREN ................ 33 MR. H G. HOWELL, F.C.A. (recalled) .. ss Mi:. A. GODDARD, C.B.E.) , . ... Mi«. K S. LANGFORD MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. FIFTEENTH DAY. TUESDAY, OCTOBER I^TH, 1919. PRESENT. SIR WILLIAM BARCLAY PEAT (Chairman). DK. C. M. DOUGLAS, -C.B. MR. T. HENDERSON. MB. G. G. REA, C.B.E. MB. T. PROSSER JONES. MB. W. ANKER SIMMONS, .C.B.E. MB. E. W. LANGFORD. MR. HENRY OVERMAN, O.B.E. MR. R. V. LENNARD. MB. A. W. ASHBY. MB. GEORGE NICHOLLS. MB. A. BATCHELOR. MB. E. H. PARKER. MR. GEORGE DALLAS. MR. R. R. ROBBINS. MB. J. F. DUNCAN. MB. W. R. SMITH, M.P. MB. W. EDWARDS. MB. R.-B. WALKER. MR. F. E. GREEN. Mr. JAMES GABDNEB, representing the National Farmers' Union (Scotland), called and examined. 12.742. Chairman : You have very kindly put in a (6) Lack of education in agriculture as a science statement of evidence to be given by you. May I take among the rank and file of agriculturists, it as read, for the purposes of our records? — Yes. (7) The absence of any definite State policy for 12.743. You represent the National Farmers' Union agriculture in the future. of Scotland and you give evidence on their behalf ?- 12,747. These are some of the principal causes Yes, on their behalf on general policy. which militate against the proper development of our agriculture, and until they are remedied no great advance can be looked for in home production. 12.744. Tho National Farmers' Union of Scotland 12,74£. The National Farmers' Union of Scotland is an organisation in agriculture of recent origin. naB pressed the Government consistently for years for Started in 1913 in a small way to assist milk pro- the removal of these disabilities and it is gratifying ducers in the West of Scotland, it has now 137 to tne Executive to see that an honest endeavour is branches throughout the country and every county being made by the present Government to remove in Scotland is represented. The membership is about . 8Ome of tlle stumbling blocks. So far, however, tho 14,000 which is more than .50 per cent, of the farmer. Government has failed to make a pronouncement in in Scotland, excluding small holders. ihip favour of Security of Tenure for the efficient agri- is confined to tenant farmers and occupying owm culturist who pays his rent regularly and farms up to who farm their own land. a recOgnised standard. This is unfortunate and re- 12,74.5. All questions affecting the interests of pro- grettable as tboitwimls of good agriculturists have ducers in every department of farming are brought ])een compelled to buy or quit their holdings within before the Executive and dealt with. In every way tjje jagt two yean, owing to tho wholesale selling and possible as far as consistent with equity we assist breaking up of large estates into units — in many and protect the interests of our members. cases straining their credit unwisely to purchase their 12,746. Owing to the fact that the membership is holding rather than leave. confined to those only who are in touch with the 12,749. Cost of Production. — In agriculture the cost practical side of farming the Union is in a special Of producing crops or animals as between one farm mannor enabled to advance reliable facts and figures antj another or more generally between one locality on all questions relating to costs of production, an(j another varies in a greater degree than in per- financial return, remuneration of labour and working j,aps anv other industry in the country, and the re- hours, and the effect of these factors collectively and turns are generally in inverse ratio, that is to say individually on current prices. There are other wnere the difficulties to be overcome are greatest and factors not so direct in their immediate action in tne cogt consequently highest the returns are. gene- prices, which by reason of their deterrent effect on rally gpeaking, smallest. This is why the fixing of a production do -undoubtedly react adversely against fair prico for anything produced on a farm at a flat a lower scale of prices. These are:— average rate is rendered so difficult. (1) Lack of sufficient security of tenure to enable 12,760. The Executive of the Farmers' Union of a tenant to develop his holding to its Scotland have always gone pretty thoroughly into cost fullest capacity by free use of capital and of production since 1915, and it has been interesting enterprise. to gee how, as prices of produce advanced gradually (2) The inefficient and high cost of rural trans- during the war, the cost of production followed closely port. behind. (3) The more or less derelict condition of the 12,751. The only item on our Cost Sheets of Pro- permanent equipment of many farms in duction which did not change so generally from 1915 drainage, housing, and fencing, and the onwards, was the one of rent. All others rapidly in- great difficulty at the present time of get- creased until the present time, when most items are ting these put in a proper state of more than doubled and some are trebled in price, efficiency. 12,752. As to the Financial Returns, these matters (4) Waste of food stuffs due to destruction by are usually of a private nature among members and gitme, and the consequent discouragement rarely discussed; but it must be evident to even the of crop production where such conditions merest tyro in agriculture that with controlled prices olitain. fixed at a flat rate those farms or localities where the f,ack of research into tho diseases of plants cost of production was low and the returns good, the and animals and the science of plant profits were bound to be considerable, whereas those breeding. localities and holdings where the crop returns were (28370-31) Wt. 2000 12'1» H. St. OM A3 i\ \..icii i MI I;K w, my.] MR. JAMK» I. IKI M !.. [CoHt, meagre and the coat high would show in many cases a financial loaa. Ii.7i3. Wage* and //oiiri o/ Latour.— Agricultural wagm in Scotland hare always been higher thnn in the Midland and Southern Counties ol Kngland. Im; the great maj<. - ^ farmer* are agreeme districts work in the field is now stopped at 5.30, in the evening instead of nix o'clock as formerly. 12.755. The Executive of the National Far Union of Scotland are agreed that so far as is humanly possible every concession in the matter of hours and wages that can be granted to their em- ployees should be given consistent with the efficient execution of the work of the farm.* Various altera- tions of working hours and of wages have been ob- tained l>y means of the Voluntary District. Wages Conciliation Committees which were set up in Scot- land before the Minimum Wages Committees started. and have been arrived nt mainly by mutual under- standing and good will between the National Farm- ers' Tnion of Scotland and the Scottish Farm Ser- vants' Union. 12.756. Under present conditions, however, any considerable, reduction is impracticable, as it would involve either systematic overtime or n corresponding increase of staff. This latter would necessarily in- volve nn increase of housing which meantime is im- possible. Extra equipment of nil kinds would be re- quired and the inevitable result would be n still further serious rise in the cost of production. 12.757. I am Chairman of one of the District * cultural Wages Committees •under tbe Corn Produc- tion Ait. ir>17. and T know that the tendency is to continue to demnnd shorter hours nncl hiplier v In mv opinion tbe industry cannot stnnd thos mands if !t is left to struggle on without security of tenure and protection against game, nnd subject to open foreign competition. 12.758. PRICE, DEi-HKi-iATins AM> TI-KII r »v WHISK II... ,|;M. P.MK-P.I. *n.gp Price. Depre- ciation. Upkeep. £ K. d. (a) Honw 16% I> i:. o Lnu residual ( b) Shoeing — 8 sets per value cr. annum at Ids. per set i; s ,, _ (c) Harness — 2 sets AIM (field and road) £25 at 1096 depreciation and upkeep 2 Id n (d) Foeding — IB Ibs. oat" per day=17 ijrs. and 1381b». at.l'K ... i:t 7 n 17 His. bay per Any = 2 tons !"• cwt. at '> jier ton 22 ii n (e) Veterinary attend- . anon — medii stable aocestoric*. brnnhen. combu, ruc». paiN, ko , per horse per annum 2 1" (I • nff againat mam. A working horse on tlie I. inn «ork - out Cost of one horse per working day, 8s. 8d. l>i i i.i i IAI H'N. \MI I'rki i i .1 IMI i i Ml N M:^ "\ I \ I i:^ Cum , P.I IS I'.M'.i. (Say 60 acre* for 1 pair horse*.) i, T ibbayei, Ac. Article. Prioa. lv| 2196 = = 0 K. II '•. Drill grubber ... jtr 2196 — 2196= (1 7 (1 3*. «. 1 n n 8. Turnip sower ... 2)96=4, '"' i — 1* '.'. Horse hoe M 2t96=°t*. n .; n Id. Potato digger ... 2)96=14*.; 2t9to=l»*. 1 8 U £17 4 (I Note. — For 15 acres under this crop in the four- course rotation the cost per acre for depreciation ami upkeep of implements is £1 Hs. 0.1. 12,760. II,,,,. Article.- Price. Hi precia- tion. Upkeep. Total. < •. t. 1. Hay seed sower... £4 Ins 2196 = ;•' - (i 4 r. 2s.3(2. -. Harrow, 1 get ... £4 2196 = 2* II 4 0 3. Jlower 2J96 = 14*. 2 2 n £1 8*. 4. Hay collector ... £4 10s 8#« - • 090 •h turner ... '•. Horse rake 118 2J96 =12*. 1 4 0 (1 IS (1 7. Rick lifter £15 Ii ™ ' -' • (I I.', ii It. 6d. 8. Coir, yarn, forks, £!(> 1596= 1 Id 0 rakes, &c., for £1 I'M. :icre farm. '.'. Waggon Ml B96 SB 5% = ! I n £22». £22«. 11 M (i Note. — For 15 acres under this imp in the I mil- course rotation tin- rust pn ;u-r<- lor ileproi i;ition .t \i..». W» iiitluT lavouicd a court baring a jurisdiction over a very much wider area, perhaps the whole •• 1 or p.-rhaps groups of counties; and wo contemplated that that Arbitration Board would be composed of representatives of the t«o mteu«sU equally with t; \ , j.i. Minted by a judicial chairiunn. \\ . contemplated that these men ought to be whole-time men not engaged in business and not subject to local iiiflurnctw, citho: mendly or otherwise; and that by being at their own work constantly as an Arbitration Hoard when their opinion was asked for — and only in the absence of agreement between the landlord and the tenant would this Arbitration Board ever be called upon to make any decision — wo thought these bodies would be able to do their work much more efficiently by being chosen with a view to being expert in all the matters relating to the decision which would require to be made, and being in the business all the time from day to day they would become so proficient that their decisions would be approximately correct, which you could not expect from a local amateur Court in a County composed of men who were engaged in their own businesses. These are the views which we hold witii regard to the local court, the .un.iteiir local Arbitration Court, as against a much larger Arbi- tration Court, covering a very much wider area. I'J.778. Then I turn to No. 3 of your Conditions. You refer there to the " more or less derelict con- dition of the permanent equipment of many farms." Is that a war condition or a pre-war condition? — It is a pre-war condition principally. 12.779. That is due to what — lack of expenditure by the landlord? — It was due principally to what we may vulgarly term the washout of the period of de- preciation, when tho floods of foreign grain came into this country and put arable farming out. It was principlly due to that, I should think. 12.780. There was a subsequent recuperation. was there not?- There waa. 12.781. Was no attempt then made to bring up farm equipment to anything like a reasonable standard ? I think the thing would have come about naturally, but not quickly enough to satisfy the national need's. It is certainly improving. 12,782-3. Has the condition Keen improved, or has it got worse during the war? — That is rather a difficult question. In some quarters, more especially in England here, you must have had a good deal of equipment set up with regard to buildings. You must have had some of your buildings renovated to be able to rarrv on tillage cultivation. On the other hand, right throughout the country there must have been a gnat dial of work that has been left undone. I s|«-ak from personal experience of my own place. A vast amount of work has been left inc. On the other hand, for the development of tilings there must have been equipment of some kind, so that the one might cancel the, other. I -.'.7- 1 Do you think tiVy would cancel each other? I am not prepared to say that. 12,785. You have no opinion on that? — No, I have no knowledge to go upon. 12.7*0. Then in ' No. 4 you refer to the waste of foodstuffs, due to destruction by name. Have you any suggestion to offer to rcmedy'this? The National Farmers' Union have always taken :i strung position with regard to game. We do not object to the proper development of sport ; hut we tlo object in a farming area to crops being «! l.y game, nnd we hnvo proposed some rather dr: ••dial re, for it. At the same time, where it LjHine country. «••• have no objoinh winged game problem. 12,7!>1. What would you do with them?— You must remember this is a very thorny subj. 12.792. 1 know; that is why I want to get informa- tion on tho subject?— In the'matter of winged game. you have the same thing coming up again. The tenant farmer, the smallholder or the occupying owner must be protected from the ravages of game on his crop. If the nation is to get crops, you must protect them effectively. I do not mean to say absolutely. 12.793. I was wondering whether you had any con- crete proposals which you were prepared to put for- ward on behalf of your Union for dealing with this particular Clause? — We had our land policy drafted about nine months ago. 1 think we hud something with regard to game in that. 12.794. Perhaps you can send it in? — Yes. 12.795. Then in No. 6 of § 12,746 you refer to the lark of education in agriculture aa a science among the rank and file of agriculturists. To whom precisely do you refer as ' ' agriculturists " — farmers and labourers!' -Yes, both. iL'.T'.Mi. Has your Union anything to offer in the way of suggestions by way of policy on that? — We approve of the proposals for education in general, and especially tho vocational training in rural districts; and, generally, we approve of the attempt, which I think is being honestly made on the part of tin- Government, to give our farmers and farm labourers and farm girls a much better knowledge of the technical business of agriculture than they had hitherto. We approve of all the measures which are being taken in that direction. 12,797. Including the Education of Scotland Act? — Yes; and while farmers are going to suffer in some ways from that Act financially and with regard to • ipply of labour, perhaps a greater number of the farmers may see in the future some compensation for the financial expense and loss that they may suffer in getting the education put in force. I-'. 798. Still, I suppose you would be prepared to agree with mo that if you are going to increase the knowledge of agriculture as a science amongst agri- culturists, it must be done through the ordinary machinery of the education of Scotland? — So far as the general education is concerned, I should say that is true; but when you come to vocational training in agriculture, I think the general Education Authority, although they may have the powei i with it and it may he under their c maud, will to Ic-ive it to departments tlr.it are very much i, .il with the working out of the (••clinical difficulties and the piaiti.al work. •••i 11 led education of this kind amongst the rank and file must interfere, to .1. with your supply of labour? — I have M to your last condition, the absence | ill-finite St.ite policy for agriculture in the liiture. I am not ijuite sun-, pi.-i i-dy. what you mean million. Do you want a definite State or. if the State left M.II alone altogether, MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 14 October, MK. JAMES GARDNER. [Continued. would you call that a definite policy?— If it would say so. 12.801. Have your Union any views upon that par- ticular point? Have they contemplated the possibility the State saying to the farmer: "You are the masters of your own business; conduct it as you best like, and let the results be yours, whether they be good or bad "?— They have. ' 12.802. What are your views upon that particular question I'— We are quite content to take it on those terms, and give us fair play. 12.803. On the other hand, the possibility is of the •-tate guaranteeing you certain minimum 'prices for your cereal produce, coupled with what I see you •eter to in the next paragraph, that is. the condition that you farm up to a recognised standard. Have you compared the two policies and formed any decision of your own on that matter?— Will you please repeat the question? 12.804. On the one hand you have the policy of eavmg you entirely alone and attending to your business on your own lines which suit you best, when the results, of course, will be on your own heads • and, on the other hand, you have the policy of guaranteeing prices for cereal products, coupled with tho obligation to farm up to a recognised standard lou might take these two types of policy as ,, presenting present tendencies. Has your Union made up its mmd which it prefers— being left alone, or carrying on under some measure of State control ? So tar as the Union itself is concerned, we have verv definite views with regard to any preferential treat- ment of any other industry outside of agriculture as against agriculture ; and when I say that, we art- prepared to go forward if the Government say wo are to go forward on our own. We. as a Union, are •lime prepared to go forward on our own ; but we are prepared to fight to the death anything that is unfair in the matter of preferential tariffs.-or tariffs onmanii- betnrad fOOcb, or anything of that kind. We must B»T« a fan- field. Again, with regard to labour, we must have a fair fi,.|il. We must not have any statu- tory intorferemv a> to hours, tor install.-,.. If "there is any difficulty between our labour and ourselves ire must settle it amongst ourselves with regard to hours difficulties. \Vc must not have the State interfering with regard to hours. That is another matter in which fair play would come in. If we are going to be put in open competition with the world, we are quite prepared to take up the challenge: but you must leave us a fair field. 12.805. The term " fair field " does not convey mu-li nlightenment to me. What do you mean, exactly. by " fair field ' Do you mean permission to make our own terms with your own employees, or permis- sion to crop a farm as you |;l..;is.- and make your own bargain on the markets?— When I answer your question in one sense that we want to farm as we please, I do not mean to put forward the idea that we want to farm in a hurtful manner to the State or say to use our farm for a rabbit warren, or any- thing of that kind ; but we want to have liberty to map out our own line of farming and alter it without interference if we are put on our own. 12.806. If you are allowed to do that and all State mitral is removed, you are quite willing to go ahead with your industry?— We are. 12.807. Would you prefer that to a system of guarantees such as you have at present?— So far as the farmers of Scotland are concerned, we take up the position it is not a matter for us of guarantees or no guarantees, but it is entirely a matter for the- community. 12.808. Surely your views are a matter of some importance, and we ihoold like to get them. Broad I v [Peaking, whirl, policy do you prefer? Which do yoii think would be best for the industry? In the past ire i;ive been put largely on our own. to .sink or swim W« did not sink. We kept to the surface; at least a number ot at We are prepared to do the same thine again. We in the Union have never considered this, •ion which you are putting to me- but if you want my answer a.s an individual, I think here in the land ol Great Britain we have an asset of the nation a mine of gold or not of gold I..H of wealth ami in my opinion, it would be very bad policy not to make the most; of that asset. 12,609. But opinions might differ, you will agree, as to what " making the most of it " means. I should like to get your idea of what you mean by making the most of the land of Great Britain?— I am prepared to give you that. As far as I am concerned personally, 1 think that we must not, as a nation, allow agriculture to go back to its former position ; that is to say, it is too great an asset for every man and woman in Britain for it ever to bo allowed to wangle along to success or comparative failure. It is too urgent a matter for each man and woman in the British Isles to allow it to drift along under the control of men more or less able and worthy, and men who will trim the ship to keep themselves right. I think that policy is not good. 12.810. Then what do you propose? What is the policy you prefer?— You have mentioned guarantees yourself. That is one method. There are other things mentioned in my precis, I think, such as the various matters of research education, a better measure of security of tenure, better transport, and other things of that kind. I think these" all ought to be contemplated by anyone who has the future of agriculture in this country in view. 12.811. I do not think you will find many people differ from you with regard to most of these things. I suppose you are aware there is a considerable difference of opinion with regard to the policy of guaranteed prices. If you will confine your attention to that for a minute. I would be glad if you will tell me whether your Union, or you yourself indi- vidually, wish the guaranteed price policy to con- tinue, or you wish to be allowed to .make the best or worst yourselves of your own industry? — You understand I can only answer for myself on this? 12.812. I would like to have your own individual answer? — Speaking for myself, I am certain that I would not wish to have to turn round about to the position that we were in many years ago. While we .survived, it was with a struggle; and I do not think that any body of men, who are trying to do the best as far as ordinary conditions go, should be allowed, in a case of this kind when they are working a national asset especially, to be left to struggle along unaided. Guarantees should be put along with other things. It is only one of the measures that we con- templated— only one among others. 12.813. But it is an essential part of your policy, •do you think?— It is essential only if the country wants arable agriculture; it is not essential other- wise. 12.814. To bring the matter to a head, would you •care to be put back in the position of 1913? — I would not mind. 13.815. Without guarantees?— I would not mind if you put me back in the same position as 1913. \\'«- were rather improving. For seven years before that we were gradually improving. I will admit that I was making a little profit before 1914, and I would quite readily on my own part accept it if you make the conditions altogether the same as the 1914 conditions. 12.816. Of course, as you are aware, it is quite im- possible to make the conditions the same. For ex- ample, with regard to the prices of your crops, are they likely to go back to those of 1913? — You have experts who differ on that point. Men who are siipiwised to know differ as widely as the poles. 12.817. I was not aware of it. I thought the •experts were of the same opinion except one, who is on the side that prices will remain pretty high for -f nif considerable time? — I do not think any man is in the ]>osition to say what the prices will be two •or three years hence. . 12.818. No; but it is a pretty safe prophecy to say that prices will be considerably higher than in 1918, for instance? — Considerably higher than in 1913, yes. 12.819. As far as that factor goes, the new position iiow would be better than that of 1913, if you are •going back to that? — Much worse. 12.820. So far as that factor is concerned? — No, because your costs have risen so tremendously. Unless A t AI. CtiMMIsMiiS "N Al.KU I 1. 1 I I;!.. W. I '.'I'.' MM. JAMKS you ntiik. i:\.ileiit all rouiitl could not put u- IM, k to I'.'l.l unleM you take all thr nili. l-.^-l. Has your cost ill production increased in !nng like tin- *«in« rulhi to llir prices of your prod l'.'.-±.'. So that vi. ui rate ol profit is nut higher tliiiii it wm in 1913." — In the sunn- i.>: • )>• i-haps a littlo b<: 13,888. Then that is to suy your position. • \.n on pre*«nt prices, lui- improved slightly? — Yes. 19,824. Suppose the control of prices was removed, 11 not think there is ihe jxissiliiljtY. and a .-ix •:_; possibility, of tin- pi. -it ic, ti still lurthei improving? — I could not iinsw«T, nor do I think any man would be safe in answering, that question, because nil tin- figures which have been put foruard liy experts a- to what prices will probably be in a year ha\< made utterly ridiculous in the event iL'.-l-'.V Hut in what direction ?— The upward direction. 12,826. That i~ my point; that is to say, there is not much ground for fear in any of the figures which have been put forward yet, is there'- That is pre- i isely my fear, that the tendeix y has been up hitherto, and that when the natural reaction comes it is the same in everything, and 1 have never seen j; fail 12,8l'7. What is that:-— The swing of the pendulum. You can compare it in thousands of other ways; according to the action and reaction, the flow and the ebb; it is bound to come. 12,8%. 1 do not know if thew im :apht.i s will carry us particularly- •far:' — You have to have them in view. 12.829. Quite; but you are bound to admit that things have altered radically since 1913 as far as world production is concerned? — They may alter again. 12.830. They may; but they show no signs of it, as you agree, and, on your own showing, your position is slightly better than it was in 1913. even with present costs of production? — Yes, but at present we are coming nearer the elimination margin. 12.831. Possibly. There is only one more point I «i*h t.i ask you. and tint i.s in paragraph 12.7.Vi. par. of your rvidciic. -in-chief. You say here that voluntary District Wages Committee* wore ,s.-i up in BootUnd before the Minimum Wages Committees started, and 1 »ee you i|iiite pay a compliment to those cninmi. You think they have dune useful work?- W-. ll'.-:<2. Do you think this is a method of negotia- tion between farmers and their employees that might be extended to any extent?—! think it should he extended right away. 12.833. You have found mutual understanding and goodwill have existed between the two bodies in these matters ?- •! 12.834. Of course there have been differences of opinion? — There always are. 1 -J.-.H.V Hut they have been able to get over themP —That is so. lL'>:t'i. I//. Prottei Junes: You are a practical farmer yourself, I take it? — Yes. 12.837. What acreage do you till?— 500 a ploughable land; about 540 is on the Ordnance map. 12.838. You say here that you represent over 50 percent, of the tanners in Scotland ? 12.839. You tell us that the smallholder i.s not in- cluded in that figure. I, h. • :- No. 12.840. Is there any reason for excluding him ! he not allowed to i-omo in?- Y.-s. he is: but hitherto he has preferred his own Association, of which there M or two in S'-otland. We have a number of men who might be described as, approximately, small- bolden, Imt we have a lew of the real smal'lh<,l lv!.Ml. Looking at § 12,746, No. 2, you rein to the inefficiency and high cost of rural irans l' ."ir I'nioii <-vor thought out. the ndvan: disadvantages of road trans|*,i compared «ith light railways- \\ , have LMM n the matter some eonsiderat ion. We have not thought |H>int BJ .on.-ieto i-ei ' -m Ilielida t ions ; lint wo ha\ e ~-.| it time ami again and agreed ui»m the nf.-,| there was t •< in tin- iiaii-p,,it a in CJniit liritain. rj.>l'J. Tin ti t-omiiig to tin1 hours ol employment, .lo they compare with the rest of einployinent in other indiistiies in your liH-ality? In the locality that 1 come Irom, that is the industrial area of the Clyde, the hours of industrial work a than those in agi i. ultuo. 12,843. You refer in your /.M.M to tin- dung. reducing tin- hours on the limn? Yes. 12,tMI. Seeing thai the hours in other inilu- arc shorter, are the men likely to )«• . outeiit \\ith lon-er lioiiis <,n the lai -iii r I- it not nalinal ilia should try and reduce their hours? It is natural; but you must take that statement in my I'l-i'iis as referring to the .•i.inlilion> I di M>I ilx^l ; that is to say, the men have got an advamc so far as the hours are <-omi'ined within the last six monilr on Saturday afternoon, a half-holiday, and also a half-hour earlier in unyoking at night. When 'I say there must he no further intcrfcicncc. 1 am re- ferring to the' men having achieved that advame. or improvement, in conditions with regard to hours. 12,845. But still, you will agree they are consider- ably behind the other industries in their hours and wages? — They are behind them. ]•_', •*!<>. And is it not likely that the ii-ndeucy will be to leave the farm work and take up with some- thing else? — I do not think so, on the whole. 12,817. What I want to find out is this: whether you are likely to suffer from the want of farm labour owing to conditions in other industries being better? — I do not think so. 12.848. In connection with the cost of horse labour, I think you tell us that the cost of horso labour is .C95 10s. Od. Doee that mean the cost for the whole of the ye*.r or for the 220 days? — Do you refer to " B," the shoeing? 12.849. I am taking the cost altogether Th..-e coste under " Depreciation " and " upkeep " are costs for the 365 days. 12.850. Mi'. L«ntjj I should say. 12.851. I want to make that quite clear. They are not benefiting the agricultural industry in soiling their farms? --No. I should like to qualify that la>t answer of mine to a certain extent. If a landlord, i of mortgages on his estate, decides to :-• II ; than hold on, and allows the property to IM' iHiught by a man who can develop it and put capital into it, he is certainly doing the industry goad by •clearing out. 1'J.K.VJ. What class of man is buying the farms in •Scotland? Principally tenant tanners 12.y improving the buildings, such as a landowner used to do in the old days; but- it ; tenant farmer buying in order to noore the farm to himself, rather than turn out:- fern, lather than MUM OUt. 1'J.s.M. You state that one of the Lteou that have not increase-! in the cost of production in Scotland i- tin- rent ? That i.s so. !•_'.- ii, ,t rents Ux'ti iiicrca-ed much in •seothtnd then': Noi t.i a very great extent. Where the leas,- !i;,ve run out. they have heen inci-oat-ed her. and there legitimately. I'J.-.V.. Hut tl nun- in Scotland is TOTJ largely leasehold, is it OOl P \ el '• Iftl 57. 'I'll' reforo \oiir .-\stein is an improv«'m«-nt on the system in Kngland. wh«-re lease, are either hurt or there are nolle at all- 1 thin! J68. And yet. with an advantage o\i i Kngland in >i4ilding of the farms, you still make a strong point of the want of gr. «ity than MINUTES OF KVIDEXCE. U Octubei; 1U19.] MK. JAMES GAKH.NEK. [Continued. that which you have under the leasehold system:'—! do. 12,809. You would agree with me then that if you have a grievance in r-voilnnd. English fanners liave a much greater grievance:" — That is tor the English farmers themselves to say. 12,800. That really folluwo, does it not:' You .say that iu ."Scotland, even with your long lease.-. as the end of tho leases come to within the last three 01 four year-, I think you said there was a tendency on the part of the farmer to let down his farm. I took that to mean that he put less manure upon it than ho has been accustomed to do, and he crops it in sueh a way -is 10 extract the manurial value from the land and leave it in a poorer state than he would regard it right to farm it if he was continuing:1 — Precisely. I do not mean to say that all the farmers do that, but the temptation is to do that. 12.861. Let me put it in this way. Those who do not do it lose in consequence, if they have to leave the farm ? — Yes ; if they have to leave the farm they lose. 12.862. Would you agree with me that the present system of compensating farmers for unexhausted manures is inadequate? — Yes, inadequate. 12,86:!. Therefore the farmer who is generous enough to do full justice to the land by continuing to farm it to the end of the lease in the same way as he did in the earlier part of the lease is doing an in- justice to himself? 12.VM\. - : Tin « it ness replied before that that was the case, but that landlords took into con- sideration that tact and voluntarily made arrange- ments with their tenants, but he doubted whether the in w race of landlords would do so. 1'JXit. Mi. L'liu,/,,,,! ; In stating that the land- lords voluntarily enter into an arrangement with the farmer, do you mean by way of giving him compensa- tion that is not provided for in the Act? — In the past, \">'i refer to? 12,864A. Yes:1- No. I merely referred to his tenure be uas not removed from the farm. I :>.->;.".. I Inn he did not suffer if the lease waa n'liewi d I hat was your point. If he remains, he •iot suffer by leaving an amount of fertility in tin' farm that he would not leave if lie were •„ out:- That is so. If the landlord does not demand a higher rent at tin- end of his term and he remains on his farm, ho does not lose. 12.866. What happen! to the man who goes out, and who has maintained the land in a high condition? I'nder the Agricultural Holdings Act with regard -••otland, and I believe also with regard to Kngland. there was a well meant endeavour to give the. tenant his own when he left, but it has failed in that respect. It is admitted both by the landlords and tenant-, and b\ everyone who has to do with the administration of the Agricultural Holdings Act. and it has be«>me practically a dead letter. Neither farmers nor landlords care to try to get their rights under the administration of the Act. 12.867. Then the tendeii'-y is to lift from the farm tho fertility that the farmer has put into it before he gives up the farm? — The tendency is in that direction. 12.868. That is not in the interests of the State, is it?—It is bad. 12.869. And, from the national Standpoint, the method of valuing- the compensation given needs to be revised? — Yes. 12.870. With regard to game, I thought your . Mr. Thomas Henderson were somewhat vague. Would you agree with me that the only 'isfactory to the farmer, and which you would be likely to agree to, would be for the farmer 'be right to kill any kind of game upon bis ! .MI- 'Mint i.s |,art of our policy. 12.871. I did not understand you to say so? — That, is the demand that our Union has made from ' . ivei •nineiit in our |H)licy at the last election. I2.*72. Would your I'nioii favour sii|i|x>rting a Bill in the House of Commons. I mean bringing i H|IOII agricultural representatives in il' House of Common*, which would secure to tho ':i, farmer the same right to kill winged game now has t-> kill ground game? Our Union asked for that for two successive years in succession, and they have never gone back from it. 12,873. Then that is your view to-day? — That is the Union's view. I had better read the paragraph referring to game laws which we have drawn. up nine months ago: "Game Laws. — Occupiers of agricul- tural holdings should be empowered by law to destroy any form of game on the holdings which do damage to crops or pastures thereon. The present powers with regard to the destruction of deer and ground game should be made permanent." That is part of our policy as a Union. 1-.S74. To have equal right to destroy any game that may be found on the farmer's holding? — That are destroying the crops on the holding. That is part of the Union's policy. 12.87.3. There is no distinction between the crops as to destroying. If he were pasturing, it would be the grass destroyed in, the same manner as the cereals were destroyed? — You have to be careful there. There are many parts of Scotland where the land is poor and rocky, and where the legitimate develop- ment of sport could not be objected to, and is not objected to by us so long as the interests of the occupying owner or tenant are protected legiti- mately. As I said before, we do not object to the legitimate development of sport in those districts. 12,876. Then is it the desire of the farmer to ex- clude himself from taking his fair share in that kind of sport? — So far as Scottish farmers are concerned, not many of them share in the sport. There are a number, but the greater number in the arable districts are not sportsmen in the sense that your Englishmen farmers are. I- ^77. I have met a good many Scotsmen, and I have always found them real good sportsmen. I want to put this quite clear. You do not want to reserve a sporting • right to the landlord that you do not wish to accrue to yourselves as tenant farmers? — On our agricultural holdings where we do grow crops, or pasture sheep and cattle, wo do not want our legitimate rights and our financial remuneration to be interfered with or jeopardised by the undue development of sport. 12,878. I was hoping you would be somewhat clearer -on that point, and join the National Fanners' Union of England in asking for an equal right to kill all kinds of game that the farmer has upon his own holding? — You did not put it quite that way at first. You did not put the question so pointedly. I think we, ap a Union, have gone further even than your English Union in the matter of game. I may say in the matter of getting the present emergency clauses under "D" into operation, our Union took the leading part, and we made ourselves very obnoxious in many dire, lions on this question of game; but I do not dissociate myself from the view of our Union with regard to game. But we want to be very careful, while protecting the tenant in every possible way from the disastrous effects of Kame, that the legitimate development of sport in those parts of Scotland where it may be legitimately developed will not be interfered with by us. We hold the opinion that if our crops and interests are pro- tected sufficiently, we do not want to interfere. 12,^79. Probably the thing is somewhat different in Scotland from what it is in England. You do not' suggest that the landlord should have a right to develop sport upon farms he lets to tenant farmers and therefrom receives a rent, and in the case of game develop it to the detriment of the tenant farmer's interest? — Certainly not. We do not want that. I'J.KttO. In answer to Mr. Henderson you said you wanted to go back, or you would be willing to go back, to the 1913 conditions. Did you mean to imply that you wanted free conditions, freedom of contract between yourselves and your men with regard to wages and hours? — Yes. 12.881. Do you think you are ever likely to get to that position? — It is possible. 12.882. I see you make a strong point in the last paragraph but one of your precis where you say : Under present conditions, however, any consider- able reduction is impracticable." That is speaking of the reduction of hours. What hours are vour men 10 ROT II • "MM N iOKK ! I IT UK. 14 Uttofer, Mu. JAME* GAI:I>M.I: im Scotland working now? Are they 60, the MIUO as in England:- -Kim hour* throughout the year it the avcrago. It it 60 hours from stable to stable. 12.883. But the wuiie boun operate with regard to the general labourer as the horseman? — \\nli tins difference, that the hnrM-iuan has stable hours in addition to the hours that the ordinary labourer work*. 18.884. Then the stableman «..ik- .n tu.ilU i..i more than 60 houraP— Yes. 12,886. Then you hare an advantage over England in that respect? — I understand we hare. 12.886. That is why I could not understand. !>.• I understand that you are quite prepared to agree to some reduction, from those present hours, because you use the words " any considerable "? — You might nak that question again, please P 13.887. Is your Union prepared for any reduction at all, and would they willingly agree to any reduction at nil with regard to the hours of labour in Scotland ? — Under the 50 hours ? ll'.-yg. Yes?— I think not. 12,889. Then why do not you say go, because you give an entirely erroneous impression when you say, " I'ndor present conditions, however, any consider- able reduction is impracticable." Would it not be tan, r l-o .-ay " any .eduction "I Any further rvduc- tiou. I should like to say this, that if hours are to be interfered with in any manner by the Govern- ment, we do not want to have that at all. If there i-i to be any alteration in the hours in the way of any further reduction, it must be a matter of free bargaining on the Conciliation Committee between the i:»-ii anil the masters themselves. There must be no interference by the Government. li'.-iH). I put it to you that the reduction in hours \ crv iiuieli more serious matter to the tanner than the wages question? — Very much more serious in agriculture. 12.891. In other words, if you had to submit to .1 rather higher wage, you would rather submit to that than Ui a reduction in the present lt..uis.- Yes. 12.892. Do you agree with me that it is impossible to industrialise farm hours? — Absolutely. 12.893. Mr. Pross. I •!;« >1 you to admit ilia the workers in agricultuie wen behind other indus- tries both as regards. hours and wages. Do vou admit it? -No. 12.894. Do you agree with me that, taking intv consideration inclement weather when farm labourers cannot work, their hours are more favourable than in any other industry? — I should not like to mane a pronouncement of that kind as to whether they ore more favourable or less favourable. What r do know is that, on the whole, the agricultural worker or farmer in Scotland will compare, on the average, c;uit« well with the average industrial worker. 12.895. I suppose you have to pay them in Scot- land if they present themselves for work, whether it is wet or dry? — Yes, we do. 12.896. There is no lost time? — There is no lost time. 12.897. In most other industries where the weather • liters into the question at all, if they present thcin- MelveN i>r not. if they cannot work they loss the time. but in agriculture they get paid: That i> .subject to an exception in the cnso of women workers on none fariiLs and in connection with casual woi only work outside when it is ilry. and in main parts of Scotland wo do not pay them foi wealli'-r , Inn they are mostly tin- wives nnd daughtcr- of n. en employed on the farms. 12.898. But under the Corn Production man presents himself on the farm for work you are booad to pay him, and in KngUunl we •!•< I • !• know whether you do or not in - our men whole time, except Homo of the casual men who come from towns. 12. c of course, that in the build- ing trade, and other tr • men are frequently ihtii -.ns*«|tien. wrt or i of thinv 12.UUU. And they lose the time I uteee iuc\ can put nine upou the liiue-aheet which they have, actually worked, they do not, got paid lor it.- lliat is BO. 12,iH)l. In that respect the farm labourer, although apparently r»xviving lefc» per hour for lii.s work, get* liis p.cv regularly, wet or dry, frost or sunshine, and hus wages will compart) favourably with men in many oilier industries who uro shut out in inclement neat he r I' — That is SO. 12,1X12. With regard to pre-war farming, so far a* 1 understand, you in Scotland would be prepared to go back to those free condition*:-— Quite prepared. li'.i.HKJ. Hut it you are tied in some respects, you then oak that your commodities shall be sold ut such a price iu> will admit ol your having a Ian and legiti- mate profit?— Certainly. H. In other words, it your labour is paid by a statutory wage and a statutory week, inasmuch ., that enters largely into the costing product 101. ask for some protection with regard to your p; —Yes. 12,905. Mr. Ltnnuid: In your evidence-in-, luel you speak of agricultural education. Do you think the need is for more training in agricultural science, or tor more demonstration of the effect of appl\ing scientific principles to agriculture I- — Both. 12,900. Putting it concretely, do you want better agricultural colleges, or more and better demonstra- tion farms?— In Scotland 1 think we have thnv agricultural colleges and a demonstration farm. These agiicultural colleges are doing work which i on Id not be excelled ; but it has not permeated down to the rank and file of agriculture, unless in a general way through the Press. There is certainly a very- great need for lectures and demonstrations in the actual application ol the -cii in e. There is a very great field in Scotland for that. 12,907. You appreciate, do you, the difference be- tween a college farm which may demonstrate am successful enterprises and at the same time on adjoin' ing plots be exhibiting experiments which, however necessary they may be to the work of agricultural research, may not themselves be financially succc I suggest to you that perhaps there is a greater need for farms which would simply demonstrate the com- mercial possibilities of the achieved certainties of •4-iciMV which would bo .strictly commercial ;- Perhaps on a small scale. A proposal such a* you suggest on a large scale would not, I think, he economical. I think when an experiment is Miffi- ciently demonstrated to be successful and economic on a college farm, the average farmer in Scotland has not a very great deal of difficulty in potting it put into practice; and. if I understand your question right, K farm such as you suggest would be a com- mercially run farm but would take into account the latest experiment* and their results -those that were most successful — to prove as it were to tho farming oommnnitv that this thing could l>e done, nnd done -fully and at n profit, and you would lia\< t farms running in different parts of the country proving this proposition. Is that your sug- 'ii ? 12.0OS. Yen? So far as tin avenge farmer in M.erned. T think if y your experiment at the college farm, and more especially if vou prove it in different parts .if Ibe- country, you would not require those other demonstration farms IOVP the thing commercially. They would ;:et it within one or two or tin. if then- i- aiiy money in it. *> on do not think a conjunction of sii. fill experiment*, with -.Mly ..\|>ciimcnts which ma\ not pay their way, sometimes has the effect of frightening the farmer from adopting practices which really have proved their value to agriculture I your suggestion would take into account a new development in auric-lilt lire, such a-, say. the Crowing ,,f I tv.Kit which would work in agriculture alonu with industrial enterprise. 1 admit the growing of Wtroot for migar in this country, which Ims IM-.-H •:. -rilly untiicvl and the growing of potatoes for •In- manufacture of farina and things like that which would verv "inch increase the growing of cerenls in MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 11 14 October, HU9.] MR. JAMES GARDNER. [Continued. Scotland, whatever it might do in England, I agree with the running of a farm as a commercial proposi- tion after it had been established to the satisfaction of the Government in conjunction with manufac- turers' plant to take it up and show that the farmers could get their products stabilised and also show the industrial community what a valuable asset this business might be, i agree with you up to the hilt in that case that the commercial venture ought to be made. 12.910. Would it not be necessary to have such demonstration farms in various parts of the country:' — Yes, I think it would be a wise thing, so long as it was economic. So long as you made it pay, there would be no limit to where you. can go. 12.911. I felt very great sympathy with what you said just now about security of tenure; but I would like to know your opinion about two "points which seemed to me difficulties. In the first place, do you think that a public body like a Land Court can be trusted to be sufficiently stern to Inefficient farmers, and will such a Court have the courage to evict inefficient farmers? — Such a Court as the English Chambers of Agriculture sketched out in their reso- lution which they sent to the Government might have a difficulty; that is to say, local representatives of the landlords and the farmers and a County Court Judge might have some little difficulty, from senti- mental and other reasons, in ejecting a man. You might have difficulties of that kind ; but you woukl not have difficulties of that kind with a Court with a jurisdiction over a larger area. They would be subject to no influences of that kind. There would be no difficulty whatever; and I consider it is a very necessary part of a scheme of that kind that the inefficient farmer, for whatever reason, should generally be laid aside. 12.912. My second difficulty is this. Is there not a danger that security <>( tenure might tend to stereo- type the size of holdings? Suppose, for example, the development of machinery made a much larger farm than is usual at present, the most economic unit of production in agriculture, would not security of tenure make it more difficult to move from a system of small farms to a system of large farms? — I do not see any difficulty myself in that regard. In the better cropping areas I think you must look for the develop- ment of machinery, farming on that more intensive system; but there are many parts of the country. especially in Scotland, where that class of farming can never obtain, and I do not think there is much danger of tliero being difficulty by removing from a .small holding to a larger holding in the scheme. I ;.m satisfied there is none, and that is one of the things you do want in agriculture. You want the smallholder, you want the farm of ordinary size, and vmi want the larger farm. You want steps right up. 12.913. But do you not also require that there should be great facility, either in combining small farms or splitting up large farms according to developments in agricultural practice, or the requirements of changed market conditions?— If your suggestion means, do I agree that large farms in certain cases ought to be taken for breaking up into smaller farms and the process vine versa on the other side, I cer- tainly agree. .All these things would have to be a matter of public policy and public utility. If it uerc found in certain distrVts that the .smaller pro- position might be very succiasful, then there should be a breaking up of the farms that were suitable. On the other hand, if it wore found that by putting •lam nuinlwr of holdings together it w:i> a. VITV niiifh better economic proposition, then I agree that that .should be done. 12,911. I ;i in not wanting to surest that a move- "ither In tin- one direction or the other, is at the '""merit desirable; but mipposiiifr change.-, took place which made, alteration in the size of farms a good thing, would th" measure of security of tenure which you arc advocating hamper the facility with which the el '(Jit be earned out?— It ought not; "abb- MM-inity of tenure to the, tenant would never imply absolute -«-urity ,,)' t. i ..... that when there arc ,) public utility lie could not be moved from that place He would 'bo subject to the decision of the Arbitration Board, or any other body that 'might be constituted for the pur- pose. He would have to remove and get compen- sated under an amended Agricultural Holdings Act, or the present Agricultural Holdings Act until it is amended. He would have to get hie compensation and remove. 12,915. An important thing in your view is that the Arbitration Court, which would deal with thefte questions, should have a large district and be com- posed of experts, and not be subject to local interests of sentiment, and so on? — I am very strongly of that opinion. 12,91t>. With regard to game, do you agree with me that compensation for damage done, however generous, is no real remedy for the trouble? — Yes, 1 do agree to that. 12.917. Compensation might save the farmer from financial loss, but it would not make good the loss of foodstuffs to the nation? — That is the point. 12.918. You said just now that you wanted a fair field and, I think you implied, no favour; and you illustrated what you meant by a fair field by speaking of the removal of State interference from agrioul- turaL labour in the matter of hours? — Yes. 12.919. I should follow what you say if the State did not interfere with hours of employment in indus- tries other than agriculture; but when the State regulates the hours and the length of the standard day in other industries, it would be giving agricul- ture rather more than a fair field, would it not, and oven a considerable measure of favour if the State left hours in agriculture quite unregulated? — As compared with these other industries, but as com- pared with fair play it would not. My answer to your question is, that if the State interferes with the regulation of the hours of industrial concerns in this country, it may continue for some time; but unless you can get other competing nations to agree to the same number of hours, they have an unfair advantage over you. 12.920. So that your policy of getting a fair field would involve the removal of the regulation of hours in industries other than agriculture? — Yes. 12.921. Mr. Langford just now raised the question of work during inclement weather. Would you favour an arrangement similar to that which obtains in some quarries in England, that is to say, an arrangement under which the men are sent home and paid half wages for the time when the weather is too bad for work?- -I think the present custom, in Scotland at least, has been the result of long years of experience, and I would be very sorry to see that system substituted by any other by which the male worker, that is the regular worker, was not guaran- teed his wage for the whole time, because we have so much broken weather that the worker would be at a very considerable disadvantage. 12.922. It would be a considerable disadvantage to him if, his wages remaining what they are, he was only paid half wages instead of whole wages in the bad weather. But if you can afford to pay him tho whole wages for bad weather and good weather, you could presumably afford to pay a higher wage for the time when he was at work if you only had to pay half wages while he was away? — That is perfectly true. Theo- retically you are quite correct ; but in working it out in practice, it would be a nuisance in agriculture because farmers would not at the present time, and would not probably in future, care very much to be timekeepers and bookkeepers. Both the men and tho masters prefer simple, direct and clear arrangements that they could understand, without having to sit down and consider them and make out the time at the end of the week, and all that sort of thing. 12,92.3. May 1 tell you what is really in my mind? What I have noticed in bad weather is, that the men who are kept on the farm just dawdle about inside a barn watching the weather, and that that dawdling about tends to affect the work done, even when the weather is all right, and if there were a more definite distinction between the time of work and the time when the men are turned off because of the weather, it might tend to promote more efficiency generally?, I cannot say that I agree with you. The men are cer- tainly not working as hard when the weather is wet, but sometimes there is plenty of work inside and other 14 Mi: JAMES GAI mini. time* the inside work run* »hort , but you will admit 11 i> nut tin- mini » faulv, »iul. t:. i think ho oufcht lu bt> |.uid un on-rheud wago, aud take the rough »itl> UK- -mouth. I tlnnk you ->i»n ll>-it thu lack of Mxurity of u-nuro leads to lew t. Wing employed in agriculture, and »o to leaser pro- ducttou '{— Yen. lU.y-'J. What is tho sort of average capital mm em- ployed, pi-r acre, in Scotland: It varies according t<. tho'stylo o! funning which you aro working. I: may at the present time from eomcwhere about il-*> up to £35. 12.926. Uo you consider that farms in Scotland arc now under-capitalised owing to the want of •eonrity ..I tonuie: lii. capital is there. As I admitted to Mr. Henderson, the farmers have been doing quite w«U since the war started; but whether they arc in- vesting the capital in the land as they ought to do in another question. 12.927. The capital is there. Is that owing to the increase in prices since 1914?— Yes, there has a certain amount of prosperity in agriculture in land since 1914. 12.928. The values have risen, and there is more capital in the farms?- I am allowing for that. and above that inflation of capital, there has been some extra capital which has come into the business ; but whether it is being invested in the farming industry or not is another question. Those who have bought their farms are of course investing it in their busi 13.929. I gathered that you were in favour of th. system of landlord and tenant, provided you get the p'roper security of tenure?- N 12.930. You "are of opinion that the cooperation .-II the landlord and the tenant is good : that is. the landlord finding the land and tin- tenant finding the farming capital?— Yes, the farming capital: and the landlord finding the permanent equipment. 12.931. You aro not an advocate of farmers own- ing their own land? — I am not. 12.932. You talked of a ladder. In the case of an occupying owner of, say, 100 acres, if he wants to take 200 acres, there is great difficulty, is there not?— Yes. 12.933. It is in the interest of the .small man to i i-n t. say. 100 acres, and if he does well on that to be able t<. take 200 acres?— Yes. 12,931. Whereas if he were an owner he would be tied up with his ownership and perhaps would have to remain a farmer of 100 acres all his life? — Yes. 13.935. There would be no ladder?— That is so. 12.936. I think I gathered, too, that you « •• the shorter hours a much more adverse factor than the rate of remuneration ?— Up to a limit, yes. 12.937. l)o I understand from your evidence-in- chief that the Voluntary District Wages Co ..... littee had no difficulty in settling rates of wages? — None. 13,936. It worked very well?— It worked very well. 12.939. And therefore, as far as Scotland is con- d, yon would like to continue that system, and not have, I think you call it. the Minimum Wages Committee?— Y«s. 19.940. Do you think the Union- are strong enough to make their own bargain for labour? They do. 12.941. Without the interference of that < mittce?— Yes. 12,9tl>. You talk aUiiit one of the dlfficultlM heing irick It. I understood, in answer to a ijin-s- l.< nnard asked yon. you Raid th:.' required mor-- research than could he carried agricultural colleges or experimental farms. Do you think the (iovernnicnt ought to undertake re search nay. in such things as the fixation of nr I think in every dire.- •i. both in industry and agriculture. . important thing, which is now .!••••. mpli-ht-l in Germany, and should be in Kngland. in your opinion'- Yes. I2.!MJ. With regard to the (pic*tion <.! into plant- and a>< nld you Irn-t, that to the .•r would you think it a good plan for (tovi-rniiieiit to employ the scientific department.- lie 1 imornitiwi? Art* you asking mo if the (armors nhould carry out these research stations and • thorn themselves, or work in conjunction with thu t;.. i eminent - I 'J. !'!•"•. I had in mind that tin- (.overnment could help the scientific Depai im.-nls ,.l ih.- I imcrs.iuw to ..mi on researches into the diseases ol animals and the impiovriiient ol MX -.Is. \\oiild you ho ill lavoui ..I the (;o\crnmeilt helping the s< -ientilic departments !i that dil. 1 lllldel take the inx. Mllo Mich tllili' ious abortion, and the Agrieiiltui . mcnt into the iiiiproveiiient of seeds. That is the sort of thing you are advocating Yes. •17. 1 want to ask you one or two ijiies; ahoiit gain.- I > • - ian hy dc we have had ]>i m our members in various districts in the last three years which ha\.- been before the Board of Agriculture in th. and pii' In-fore the (;<>\ernmcnt pi Mr. Monro's appointment, and since then, of course, the amendments to the (ianie Laws wen- panly of oiu ud the putting i P our erid We have had evid. \Vc have a body of evidence of that kind. li'.iUS. Is it damage done by rabbits?— In a great nunilier of cases the rabbit was the «rors1 otl. . I •-'.!> 19. Damage done by partridges? — Not to the same extent. 12,950. Any at all?— I have not seen many com- plaints in from farmers with regard to partridges, if any. 12.851. What al.oiit pheasants?— We have had some complaints from certain parts of the country from farmers with regard to pheasants and the rearing of pliea-ants: and an excessive amount of game of that kind near cropping areas is very bad for the produc- tion of arable crops. 12.952. An excessive number of pheasants? — Yes. 12.953. Not pheasants in moderation. You say excessive numbers? — Yes. ll'.!».>4. Are you aware that the Board of Agriculture during this "year has been investigating which birds are useful and which aro not, and has come to the conclusion that the pheasant is a most useful hirdr I do not know thai I am of the same opinion; but. from experiments, they say so?- ' I'J.'.'-Vi. With regard to education. you complain of the lack of it in agriculture. Do yon me.!' education of the tanner himself, or would you extend that education to the laboiirei r To both. I'J. !'"»;. I see you say in your evidence-in-chief that rent has not in' r.-ased since the \ t in a few cases. Were the rents in Scotland before the war economic:- Yes, more or less. I 'J !!.",;. They had n from the l«7!i pel —Yes. 1 »".'.")>». C'an you tell me what expenditure pei you consider will bo necessar re the land in md to its pre-war fertility: There again it is very difficult, bocau.-e it may vary : o much on dil: farms and different departments of farming. Y'ou have, first of all, tho cleaning of the land and the keeping of the ditches an.' r1 of thing in oid.-r. and then you have th. in lertii the soil, which is a matt.-r where the money increases at u very much greater rate. They must, necessarily, \aiy very much in different parts of the country, but it must be considerable. l'J.!'.Mi. li th, have been making • Icrable profits during the war owing to high pri-es, a good deal of that will have to go back into tlu> land to restore i pre-war fertility? — Those of the farmers who expect to remain on their farms will expend their money and get their farms back into an cllii ieiit state I have no doubt. 12,960. Have Scotch farmers come to any (onclusion at all as to the nature of the guarantee which would v them and inilinc them to keep the land under the plough and employ more lab">i. >i-. we have ih:it pretty generally; and while it in not a matter for U r at all to ask for a guarantor, hut it is a matter entirely for th. munity, if the community desires more land under arable culture, wo havo quite free and Rpocifir views MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 13 14 October, 1919.] MR. JAMES GARDNER. [Continued. aa to what sort of guarantee should be given — not the actual figure, but the principle. 12,9(jl. What is the principle? — The principle which we discussed, and which the majority of us are agreed upon, is a modified guarantee coming up to rather under if anything the costs of production over a fairly long period, leaving the farmer free play of the market above that. We look upon it from the point of view of some of our occupying members. We have a very large number of them, and they complain of the want of declaration of policy on the part of the Government. They say if the Government say there i* to be a guarantee, that there is to be no slump such as happened before, and they would guarantee a modified guarantee under the costs of production, end they want arable farming, we are prepared to put up buildings, to drain the land, and generally provide the permanent equipment of horses, harness, ploughs, carts, wagons, and such like. These members of ours do feel, and feel very keenly, the want of a declaration by the Government as to what line they are going to take. 12.962. Then if the guarantee is to extend over a fairly long period it must, of necessity, be a sliding guarantee, if it is to cover the costs of production which will vary from year to year? — It must neces- sarily be on a eliding scale principle up or down, be- cause it is not possible for any man alive to tell what the price might be in a year or two. It may be too big, or it may be too little; and, therefore, there must be some adjusting process by which it will be kept as a safeguard. 12.963. It must slide in accordance with the costs of production from year to year. That is your opinion? — That is the principle. 12.964. I think I understood you to say that farmers were satisfied with their position in, I forget whether you said 1913 or 1914?— I said that I was, in answer to Mr. Henderson. 12,96.5. They were making a fair profit? — I was. 12.966. The agricultural wage was somewhat in- creasing, thnuph not sufficiently. I mean wages were going up with the better times?— Yes, they were. 12.967. There was a sort of equilibrium established in 1913-14. If the same condition could be produced by some sliding guarantee now, farmers would be satisfied? — Yes, I take it they would. 12.968. What I have in my mind is this. Suppos- ing the chief costs of production in 1914 were ascer- '1 I do not mean the jost per acre but the cost of Labour, the cost of seed, and the cost of manure, etc. — and corresponding prices were now available, there would then be a certain percentage increase on every cost comparing 1914 and the present time. The prices of wheat, barley and oats for 1914 are known, and if those prices were raised by the percentage in- crease in the chief farming costs now, the resulting figures would give the sums to be guaranteed. Would that guarantee satisfy the farmers? I am afraid it is difficult to follow? — I can follow you quite clearly. I think probably the principle which you outline is as far as you will probably get. Speaking personally, I cannot see a fairer method than the one you have outlined, to apply generally over the country. 12.969. That kind of guarantee would, in your opinion, meet the case? — Yes. 12,9M.'N "S .M.UIfl I.'ITKK. 14 MK. JAMBS GAKHNKR would not do that. 1 would take it somewhere about the middle; and while admitting quite frankly that it does not at all suit the man with tin- low piodii- lion and the high cost per unit, if you are going i» i> munerate that man. then you art* going to set up a v»ry impossible projxwition for the community in tl.e t»vent of price* coming back. 12.979. May I suggest to you, if you take a medium figure, that mint of necessity give an advantage to the man occupying land which gives the higher yields, and would then make it impossible for the man with the poorer land and tin- loner yields to continue farm- ing, and, therefore, it is no solution of the difficulty: — In connection with your question there is quite a vast area of land in tin- country which, under any system of guarantee, or at least with any reasonable system of guarantee, could be kept economically in cultivation. There is a very large area of land, more particularly in England, I think, and in Scotland also, that could not be kept under arable cultivation. On the other hand, if you fix the average that you have just now under the Compulsory Orders, you would be then remunerating and making it possible fnr the man who is farming to continue, while the man who has been forced to break up his land goes out, if that answers your question. 12.980. Does not that mean that the State has got to determine a particular kind of land upon which it run be considered advantageous to grow corn, or to farm under arable conditions? — Yes; if there is a guarantee of that kind given, the line would require to be drawn, but I think you will find that the Govern- ment, or the Executive Committees, do not require to draw the line. The economic situation will settle it. 12.981. Yes; but in fixing the standard for a guarantee, they must have something in their mind in guiding them as to what is a reasonable standard of cost, and, therefore, it seems to me they cannot «.-«cape considering that question as to what class of land is to be taken as a standard? — One cannot tell at the moment what developments, under research and under the other advantages I have outlined, there will be, and what effect those might have in the future on land which might, at present, be considered wholly uneconomic. I can imagine any statutory body, or body in authority for limiting or drawing the line with regard to cultivation, requiring to be extremely careful in making any pronouncement as to what land should be cultivated and what land should not. 12.982. Yes ; but in considering the question of the guarantee and having regard to the great variation of the productivity of different soils, is not that bound to be a question of difficulty that must arise? If you are going to guarantee the lower yielding soils, then you are going to give an enormous premium to the higher yielding soils:1 — I said if you guarantee the middle class of land, the lower class of land passes out, and you are able to keep the men who have the middle class of land sufficiently remunerated to curry on, and the lower land you referred to with the- high cost per unit passes out. Undoubtedly the man who is farming the better proposition has an advantage over the man who is farming the secondary class of land; but he will pay for it in rent and other things. 12,963. Would yon agree that all this shows that the question of guarantees is a very difficult one, and does not solve this question as to the future of agri- culture?— I admit it is a most intensely difficult ques- tion, and it does not perhaps solve itself just exactly as we would like; but if you take the disadvantages off this imperfect solution and compare them with the disadvantages of no guarantee, the other side is also no use. I think anyone who is acquainted with (lie whole circumstances would say they would prefer to take the disadvantage* of the imperfect solution such as it is. 12,984. Would you agree it would be a better policy to help the industry by improved transport, by scien- tific research, and things of that deseriptio'n. and then let it work out its own policy rather than have a system of guarantees? — I would'; but. on the other hand, yon have to consider the fact that building equipment, cottage*, stables, building, drain* ami ditches are all more or less derelict, even in good cropping country. You have to consider tho effect oi the present values with u -.ml to all theeo things. They are more than doubled. The present pi draining land is almost the price of tin- « hole oi the land itself in certain part* of Scotland, and fairly good second-class hind. How are you going to induce an\ man who is an occupying owner, or a land OH nci . merely on the promise in the future <>l an improvement, in transport and oil these other things in the dim and distant future, or encourage him to put hi- money into buildings, cottages and drain* which, if the land were turned down to pasture, might not h>> required:- I have gone into this question, and I nas agaiii-t guarantee* until a .-horl time ago ; hut the longer 1 have studied the question, the more 1 II.IMI com*- to the conclusion tliat if this country, for insurance or any other reason, wants a larger acreage under the plough, a modified guarantoe such as I am advocating to-day is one of the best .soluiion.s. In fact, if you leave it out, you will probably liave more permanent pasture than you had in 1!>IH-I 1 in another two years' time, or when prices begin to come down. 12.985. Is Home of thus difficulty, such as the had Htuto of the ditches and the absence of proper drain- age, the result of impossibility to do the work during the post five years? — During the past 40 years. 12.986. It is not part of war conditions? — No; the i i rains and the buildings, cottages and all kinds of general equipment of on arable farm are matters of long standing. As I mentioned in the earlier part of my examination, it is part of tho great slide, or wash- out, during the very depressing period of the 'seven- ties and the 'eighties. I remember the time very well. I came through it, hut thousand* of I armors went to the wall ; ami it was not much of a proposition to the landlords who remained for them to go on spending money on drains and keeping up buildings and per- manent equipment. 12.987. A lot of this work would be considered land- lords' obligations and not farmer*' obligations, would it not? — Undoubtedly. 12.988. Do you suggest then, that the landlords have not been able to do this work? — In many cases I understand they have been quite unable to do it; and in most cases unless a man bad a hobby for im- proving his land, there was not any reason why he should do it. The whole of liritish agriculture has been in a congested, stagnant condition — no life in it. 12.989. I do not see any particular reason why a man should purposely allow his own property (<> depreciate? — Not if it was being turned dow'n to grass. If he could get a quite decent rent for it in grass, and the buildings and equipment for arable cultivation were gradually crumbling, he was prac- tically suffiering no loss. His taxation was less. In this country the taxation is on improvements, so that he had less to pay in taxation. Ho could perhaps let it as a sporting or game proposition. He. had a tenant who was thoroughly satisfied and was making money in his way; but his arable equipment, his per- manent equipment in drains, buildings and cottages, had gone down. We, as f armors, cannot, farm unless we get the permanent equipment. There are di.^ in Scotland that have not been drained for 10 < r SO years. 12.990. But if this land goes down to gross to the extent that some farmers seem to think is possible. would not that recreate the same problem in another form? I mean, if we get the bulk of the land, or any amount of it, going down to grass ami agriculture taking a turn in one particular direction, that is. pa -tu re. would it not create another problem which will |K> just as bad as the prvsent problem? What hiit problem? 12.091. Tbat »e are. producing loo much of one par- ticular thing in agriculture. 1 mean if you are. grazing for tin at. there is a possibility of meat in, portation just as of corn importation? — I do not think you will rentrire any guarantee for meat. The meat stocks of the world are down, and you ran increase the cereal production of the world in two or three years from being a very meagre proposition to being the full production of the world. That will be so in throe or four years at the outside if the MINUTES OK EVIDENCE. 15 14 October, 1019.] MR. JAMES GARDNER. [Continued. inducements are sufficient; whereas it will take 10 or 12 years to get up the cattle stocks of th« world. 12.992. You do not think there is the same diffi- culty likely to arise by the over-production of meat by too much land being put down to grass;1 — Hy no means. 12.993. We have been told that meat production does not pay? — That is probably true at the moment. 1 have heard the same statement from practical farmers myself whom I had no reason to disbelieve. 1 myself am not a meat producer, but we have a system of control at present. 1 merely say to you that the meat production of the world will take 10 or 15 years to get normal to meet the needs. There is very little danger from the farmer's or landlord's point of view in allowing the land to tumble down to grass. 12.994. It seems to me that every branch of agri- culture when we take each separately shows a loss, but somehow or other in the aggregate there is a little profit or return on it. It is a little difficult to under- stand how these things work out ? — I disagree entirely, because all my farming friends tell me we could make a profit on grass, and I admit here to-day that we have made a profit during tho war. I admitted that we. made a profit before the war, and 1 have admitted that I have made rather a. better profit during the war than I made before the war ; but one has to take into consideration the fact that that profit has to be divided by two, or whatever factor it is which shows the difference in the value of money. 12.995. Have you any experience in milk produc- tion?— None whatever. 12.996. Have your body considered the question of milk production? — Yes; they have, in connection with the whole of the subject. 12.997. Have they any suggestions to make with regard to that whereby the conditions might be improved ? — 1 have heard one or two men asking about cheese as being a stand-by. It is undoubtedly the case that in Scotland we have improved the case for the milk producer by co-operative creameries; that is, buildings worked on co-operative principles by the farmers themselves, where they fan send their pro- ducts to and have the milk cooled. It is not sent on to the city until it is cold. It will keep for a very much longer time then ; and during an over-plus production time such as in the months of June, July and August, instead of flooding out the market ami having a lot of milk emptied down drains and that kind of thing, that which cannot be taken up by the population is made into other products — butter and cheese— and it has remedied the situation to a very great extent in the West of Scotland, where I come from. It has improved the conditions of the dairy business all round. 12.998. The co-operation in the making of cheese? — The co-operative method of dealing with milk and its by-products. 12.999. I suppose the improvement of the trans- port would considerably help milk production, would it not, it being a perishable article I'— Tremendously. 13.000. In regard to these figures you show us of the cost of a horse, I notice you take only 220 days on which a horse can work. Do you mean actually on the farm, or for all purposes connected with the farm? — For all purposes connected with the farm. 13.001. Do you suggest that on the average there are 93 days or over 13 weeks in the year out of the working days of the year on which you cannot find any use for a horse? — Yes. You asked on the farm, but I should have qualified that by saying about the farm. Wo have often to have the horses doing what we call unproductive work. We have to find a job for the man and the horse; but a great deal of it is entirely unproductive work. 13.002. Could you give us some idea of what you mean? — You will find in rainy wet weather for per- haps two or three weeks there is nothing to be done, and you send tho man away with a single horse per- haps'to try and mend the roads. He gets away to a town or village to see if he can got any cinders or to make up the roads. Then perhaps we have a lot of composts, lime and weed-, mixed together, v/hirh we |>roli!ililv rart out. There is a lot of work of that kind. 13.003. That would be useful work, would it notP— - The road work 'certainly is useful work. As I have told you, I believe in transport right into the field. It is indirectly productive work, but directly it is not productive work. But over and above that, we can make up our 220 days almost without it. 13.004. So that there would be other work done by the horses beyond these 2'20 days? — Not very much. You have 52 Sundays. 13.005. That means 313 working days? — Then we have 30 days oil for holidays. There are 26 days in half-days on Saturday afternoons, and in our district we have two holidays, the hire day and the summer holiday; that is 30 days. 13.006. In making this calculation, do you take your Saturday half-holidays as a half-day only? You do not count Saturday a day for a working day? — -We count it a half-day. There are 26 whole days or 52 half-days. 13.007. I could not understand how you could get 93 days out of 313 working days that you could not find work for your horses? — It is almost literally true in our climate, where it, is so wet. 13.008. Mr. Walker: You said that drainage and other matters were landlord's work, but you suggested, I think, that a guarantee would enable this work to be done. Would I be right in inferring that in your opinion a guarantee would tend to raise rents? — And rightly tend to raise rents. 13.009. It would raise rents? — I have no doubt of it whatever. 13.010. In reply to Mr. Parker, following up the point which is somewhat material, how much do you think it would cost per acre to restore the land to its pre-war fertility? — That is something like giving a guess at what the price might be a year or two hence, or trying to find the average cost of potatoes in Groat Britain, Scotland, or anywhere else. It must be largely based on an assumption, it varies so very greatly in different conditions; but I could very well imagine that it might take for ditching and cleaning of the land alone £4 to £5 an acre, and then you would probably have a decrease in fertility over and above. It might amount to a very large sum, and it might be a trifle. I do not know that it is quite a -fair question to ask what is the average rate for a thing like that. 13.011. But placed in the position as it at present exists, you think £4 to £5 the acre? — I was taking a whole average. 13.012. Taking your own farm, for example?— Yes ; I do think about £5 ; at least £5. 13.013. In your precis you mention seven different items. There is one I would like to have your views on, and that is co-operation. What are your views on co-operation? — My views on co-operation are that for the smallholders and small farmers co-operation is a necessity to get the most out of it. Wo find that with the larger farmers at present, they can get practicallv as good terms from the manufacturers, in fact better terms, than the Co-operative Societies can give their members. We do not put that forward as an argu- ment against co-operation. 13.014. But for the smaller clasa of fanner, do you think co-operation both in buying and selling would bo a good thing? I will put it in that way? — It is essential to the success of small farmers. 13.015. On the question of hours, you have admitted that hours have been reduced? — Yes. 13.016. I think you will admit that there has been an increased production? — Do you mean in my farm or in Scotland? 13.017. Speaking generally; but in view of your own statement that hours have been reduced, I would be quite prepared to take your own locality? — I could not answer for the locality, but I could answer for my own farm. 13.018. Will you do so? — We have not been able to do as much as we did. say, in 1914, or 1915 even. 13.019. Taking the country as a whole, hours have been reduced generally, there is no question; and on the other hand, taking production generally, you would admit that there has been an increased pro- duction?— I certainly cannot admit it in regard to my own place; and with regard to agriculture I do not seo how that argument can apply to it at all until it; ROTAI. roMMI>M"S <>\ AGRICULTURE. 14 Oeloktr, 1919.] MK. JAMIK GAHUNBK. you got your development of agricultural machinery ami your other factor* ooming in. 13.020. So that tho I'nino Minister, who reieniK •lated that the only industry that showed an increased production was agriculture, was not quite accurate according to your itatenient - Nut if you Height the You havo to take into consideration tin- fact that although quite a large number of our m. n went away, there wan a very great influx of outside labour into agriculture and it very much greater area broken up. If you take it on the overhead average, then I Kay your production wa» greatly increased. ( ndoubu-d'ly that is the case. But if you weight the evidence, it does not bear out your suggestion. 13.021. Dr. Douglas: You have told us that the equipment of farm* in Scotland generally is very inefficient if—I think that in the majority of case* the permanent equipment is more or less inefficient. 13.022. That is not a new state of matters I think. although it has been aggravated by war conditions- —That is so. 13.023. Do you think that is due to the fact that in cost of such improvements did not really secure an adequate rate of interest — that it was not a good investment? — Primarily — in the main. \e*. 13.024. You told us, and on very good grounds, that greater security of tenure is desirable— that is to say, greater security as regards the expenditure made by farmers in the cultivation of their land? — Yes. 13.025. How far has your Union considered whether this state of matters could be met by amendments of the Agricultural Holdings Act? — We have discussed that very frequently, and I may say we have arrived at the conclusion that both of these Acts were well- meant and honest endeavours to give the tenant what vou say is his due, but we are of opinion that by not including security of tenure is the real reason why these Agricultural Holdings Acts have become in- effective— in that they have failed to secure the tenant in his holding. 13.096. There is a clause designed for that purpose, is there notP — Yes. 13.097. Bht it does not have ite effect ? It has not had the effect it was intended to have. 13.098. Are there any other defects also in these Acts that make them inadequate — for example, the cost of arbitration is very excessive, i- it not? The cost of arbitration is one deterrent against the farmers or the landlords exercising their rights. 13.029. Generally speaking the Acts do require amendment? — They do in two particular respects. Referring to your previous question the main objec- tion in the view of our members to the Act is that it does not compensate the farmer who does really put his brain* and capital into the land. It does not compensate him in anything like an adequate measure for continuous good farming over a period of years — what wo understand in Scotland by cumulative fer- tility. 13.030. So that whether there is security of tenure or not the Agricultural Holdings Acts would need amendment? — Decidedly. 13.031. You do not consider that adequate security can be given by any amendment of these Acts? — Wo have discussed that, and that is our view. Until you incorporate security of tenure any Act that you may paw will nevnr become effective in its operation. It .TV fine point, anil if the. Chairman would allow • go into it a little it is tin- turning point of the whole question of tin- Agricultural Holdings A l:t".'i2. l'li,iii.ni him to get all his return it would have a great effect. There is no reason why he should want any i but in practice in the working out of the Agricultural Holding* Act in the pant it has been found that the Act doen not give tho really good tenant anything approar-hing to what in really hi*. 13.O33. ]>r. l>e binding on both the parties when they differ, as an arbiter's decision would be? — Yes. 13.062. That is to say the tenant would be bound in law to enter upon a lease even if he thought the rent fixed by the Court too high? — Yes. most certainly.* 13.063. Have you heard it stated by owners of land and those who represent them that the effect of legis- lation of that kind would be to make them unwilling to incur any expenditure on the maintenance of the farms? — I have heard that view put forward. 13.061. Do you think it is sincerely put forward? — I think it is — mistakenly, but sincerely. 13.065. That is their view of what their course of action would be? — Yes. 1. '1,066. That would be rather a serious matter, would it not? — Yes, if it were correct. 13,067. Quite so, but I presume that those concerned in the matter are the best judges as to what they " The witness states that, at the hearing ho under- stood the question to be: "Would the tenant be bound to no on with h:s lease, suppose he thought the rent too high?' As the question was actually put, however, anrl a it i. Mi out in the text, his answer is : Vo." 26370 would do in certain circumstances? — They are entitled to their opinion. 13.068. You think that is a course of action which they really contemplate — that they are sincere in say- ing that that is what they would do? — I believe they are sincere. 13.069. Apart from their disposition what would their position be? Did you observe the. result of the sale of the smallholdings created on, I think, Lord Elibank's estate in Haddingtonshire last year? — No, I cannot say that I have. 13.070. Will you take it from me that in some cases the purchase price was less than 10 years' purchase of the rents? — Yes, I will take it from you. 13.071. The usual value at that time of land in that district — good farming land properly equipped — would be anything from 20 to 25 years' purchase, would it not? — I should say anything from about 18 to 25 years' purchase. 13.072. So that in that particular instance the capital value of the subjects had undergone a serious reduction through their being held on this system? — By being wrongly assessed under the system. 13.073. The purchasers were buying in the open market at what they thought the subjects were worth ? — It was an open market, was it? 13.074. Yes? — I misunderstood you altogether. I thought you were referring to a Court, the Board of Agriculture having bought this land arbitrarily. 13.075. No, the proprietor, not desiring to continue holding that property, sold it in the open market, and the accruing "price was something under 10 years' purchase. That was the reduction in value which was brought about. I am not putting it for- ward as a final argument, but there it was. Now I want to take you to this other point : I am sure you are aware that a very large proportion of the land in Scotland is heavily bonded and mortgaged? — Yes. 13,070. If it were all reduced in value by the intro- duction of a different system to that extent it would be very difficult to retain these mortgages, would it not? — It would be impossible. 13.077. Therefore, apart from what they might desire to do, landowners would be really incapable if this change were made of spending any money at all on improvements unless they had other sources of in- come?— They are practically incapable, I think, under the mortgage system of spending much money on im- provements at present. 13.078. Unless they have other sources of income? —Yes. 13.079. That would be very much aggravated, would it not? — Undoubtedly. 13.080. Would that not bring about of necessity a great increase in the sales of land? — It might do if there were plenty of purchasers. 13.081. There have been plenty of purchasers so far? — Yes, principally among tenant farmers, but I suggest if they had security of tenure under a Court, on the condition that they farmed up to a recognised standard, there would be no desire on the part of the farmers to buy. 13.082. But others, of course, might wish to do so? — Certainlv. 13.083. I do not wish to pursue that further. I take it generally that a great many of the details in this scheme, even the figures to be dealt with and so on, and the general consequences of it other than to the occupying farmer, have not been very fully con- sidered by your body? — They have been very fairly considered. 13.084. You have told us of a number of points that have not been considered? — Yes. 13.085. Some of them fairly important points?— Yes, I admit that. 13.086. Now I come to the question of game. I want to ask you whether you do not really think that something much broader than you propose is neces- sary. You spoke of the necessity for fencing deer forests. I entirely agree, and I think everyone agrees, it is quite a wrong thing that preserved game should be allowed to stray and destroy the crops of 18 ROYAL COMMISSION ON AORICULTURK. 14 , mi.] MR. JAMU GAUUNKK. ICoittinuni. • a very wide neighbourhood. But ia there mot more than that in itP Is it not generally agreed that a good deal of land which might be profitably uaed for other stock U used for deer to the exclusion of other stock:'— There is that fact. 13,067. Do you think Uiat needs to be dealt with? — We hare that in our policy. 13.088. You did not put that forward. Then with regard to the treatment of game generally, I think you said in answer to a member of the Commission that, except in the wide neighbourhood of the deer forests, the worst offender against food production was the rabbit ?— That is so. 13.089. The rabbit has been unprotected from the farmer for about 33 years, has it not? — About that period, I think. 13.090. So that so far as the history of that ques- tion can guide us, the mere permission to the farmer to kill and destroy game is not always an adequate safeguard even to him. It has not been BO in the case of the rabbit, has it? — It may hare been an adequate safeguard to him, but it has not been per- haps an adequate safeguard to his neighbour. 13.091. At all events you will agree it has not been an adequate safeguard to whatever right the community may have as regards food production? — That is so. 13.092. The national interest is not served?— No. 13.093. There are also, I think you are probably aware, cases in which tenant farmers commute that right for a compensation of some kind? — Yes. 13.094. It is a mistaken practice no doubt, but it does happen occasionally? — It does happen. 13.095. Your other rase was the case, I think, of the very excessive .ha nil rearing of pheasants? — Yes. 13.096. Would it be possible for the neighbouring farmers to protect themselves adequately by merely killing the pheasants on their crops against a neigh- bour who had large covers and reared pheasants there if he did not feed them sufficiently to keep his pheasants at home? Would that protect their crops adequately? — Certainly it would devolve upon them- selves, but whether the crops would be thoroughly protected or not from the national point of view is not quite so certain. 13.097. Ever the farmer would not be able to pro- tect them sufficiently. It would be rather difficult to kill all the game that came on his crops? — I may give you an example of that. I was speaking to a gentleman on that subject last night. lie has a farm on the edge of a hilly country where grouse are very plentiful. His objection is that the grouse never come to his quarter at all, because he has permission to shoot them, but go to his neighbours who cannot •hoot them. 13.098. So that it would not be a very adequate safeguard, would it? — Not from that point of view. 13.099. Would it not be really a better safeguard to make it a matter of public administration under the Agricultural County Committees to prevent people from rearing an excessive quantity of game on their ground? — It might be if the constitution of your County Committees were properly representative of the national interest and fairly representative of the other interests. 13.100. Is that not broadly the case now?— Yes, broadly it is the case. 13.101. Has it been reported to you whether the damage from pheasants has been greater or less during the period of the war than it was previously? — Wo hare not been much troubled with the evidence lately of damage from pheasants; it has been mostly from grouse; but there is no doubt at all that it exists. Shooting during the course of the war, when so many of our owners and sportsmen have been engaged in deadly warfare, has not been pursued rery much. 13,103. Mr general information is that there has been a good d«al more trouble 'luring the war than there previously had been, in spite of the fart that there was no hand rearing going on? — You must remember, a* regard* this question of gam.-, that I hare no game at all on my farm and I am not acquainted with the question from the practical point • I riew at all. 13.103. I thought as Chairman you would know what kind of complaints had been brought before your Union? — Yes, we have complaint* coming in at pivtiy regular intervals. 13.104. Now I want to take you to another point. You speak of education. You are familiar, no doubt, with the work of the West of Scotland College? — I am more or less familiar with it. 13.105. I suppose you agree that, GO far as the education of farmers ia concerned, the best work is that which ia done by the County Extension Lec- turers?— So far as the 'farmers are concerned. 13.106. That is to say, they get access to the farmer who cannot himself go to college? — Yea, in a sense that is so, but whether ho gets the proper (scientific foumlatinn for his work is open to question by thai- method as compared with the method of going to the college direct. 13.107. Yes, but the number who can go to college is extremely small, is it not— it is an expensive matter?— That is so. 13.108. Are you familiar with any of the demon- stration areas in which demonstrations are given <>f a whole rotation ami the expense of manuring, and the varieties of seeds, and so on? — More or leas. 13.109. Do you regard that as a valuable method of instruction? — Very. 13.110. With respect to the work of the County Lecturers and also to the demonstration areas I think you know it is the practice of the colleges to give whatever kind of teaching and demonstration is appro- priate to the local character of the industry? — Th-vt IS. SO. 13.111. That is to say, it would be useless to have a great apparatus for teaching dairying in East Lothian where there is none, and so on? — Precisely. 13.112. You ngreo that that is the proper course to pursue — that naturally whatever teaching is given should be teaching in the industry as it is practised locally?— Yes. 13.113. If you ore dealing with a grass pastoral county, even if there were an opinion that it ought to be cultivated to a greater extent, it would still not be possible for the college to interest people engaged in t4l» ordinary farming of that locality in problems of cultivation and cropping, would it? — Undoubtedly, that is so. 13.114. The people would say, " Teach us what v.e are really doing "? — Yes. 13.115. My point is this: Although education, as you have said, is of the utmost importance it would not do much to change the character of the industry in a particular locality? — To alter the system of fanning in a locality which had long practised that system would require very clear demonstration. 13.116. Speaking generally, the people of a locality would say they wanted to be taught to improve the method of farming that they were at tho moment engaged in? — Yes, that is the likeliest avenue of progress. 13.117. So that really education would not bo :i determining element in converting land from gratis to arable cultivation. In a grass county tin- nlm-.L- tion and demonstrations would be on pastoral suli- jecte? — That is so; but these people rrcul about the experiments that are carried on in othor parts of the country, and I think teaching would fail if the teacher in the pastoral county win-re the land might also be suitable for arable cultivation under a new set of conditions failed to call attention to th;it fact — if ho left out of sight the possible development of arable cultivation in that district. 13.118. I think you will agrex- it would bo very difficult to begin to interest the people in one locality in lectures really intended to improve th« work of those who are engaged in a different t'orm of the industry. People would not come to the lectures in point of fact, would they, to the same extent? They would want to hear about the tilings they were them- selres doing, would they not!'- They would go to hear that lecturer on their own business, but if they took note of the experiments that were going on in other part* of the country, it would certainly have a ten- dency to keep their minds open as to an alternative method of farming. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 19 14 October, 1919.] MR. JAMES GARDNER. [Continued. 13.119. Yes, it would have that tendency, but I suggest to you it would not be a very strong factor in bringing about a change in the system of agriculture carried on in the locality? — You are referring to the system of sending lecturers on a special kind of agriculture ? 13.120. I mean from the point of view of converting a pastoral district to arable cultivation. Education would not play a very large part in that, because it is directed necessarily to the thing the people are them- selves doing? — That is so. 13.121. You say quite accurately that farmers in Scotland are quite prepared to be let alone if they are let alone altogether? — Yes. 13.122. So far as their interests are concerned? — Yes. 13.123. Do you think it is likely that they will be let alone? — It is possible. 13.124. I mean, for example, do you think, as a probability to be reckoned upon, that the policy of fixing a minimum wage in agriculture will be de- parted from? — I am rather afraid that it will not. 13.125. Even if it were, that policy for the moment has not had really any operative effect in Scotland, has it? — None. 13.126. Wages are standing and have stood all through at a very much higher level than anyone has proposed as a minimum? — That is so. 13.127. So far the industry has been able almost easily to bear the increase of wages? — Yes. 13.128. The same conditions, apart from State in- terference altogether, will tend to fix agricultural wages as have been fixing them up to now, will they not? — You might repeat that question. 13.129. The wages of agriculture will always, by competition, be kept in some relation to the wages of industry generally? — Yes, by open competition. 13.130. Do you not think that that will be even more the case than it has been hitherto — that farm servants have learnt to look at the wages paid in other occupations? They have been brought during the war into contact with men engaged in other occu- pations, and do you not think they will have more regard in the future to what is going on in other industries than they have had in the past? — Un- doubtedly. 13.131. So that you cannot really contemplate a fall in agricultural wages unless a similar fall were to obtain in industry generally? — That is so. unless per- haps in places far away from the industrial areas. 13.132. Yes, but even so the tendency will be to level things up a good deal, will it not? — That is so. 13.133. If prices were to fall sharply as you antici- pate, or at all events as some of your members antici- pate, in the next few years it will be impossible to pay these wages and keep cultivation going, will it not? If the price of your produce fell, you would no longer be able to employ labour profitably at its present wages? — We might" not be able to get the wages adjusted to a sufficiently low level to carry on, but we could adapt our farming to doing with very much less labour. 13.134. That is to say you could employ less labour and produce less food?— YPS. 13.135. That would not be equally possible in all cases?— No. 13.136. There would be some cases where it would be almost impossible to follow any svsfem of farming except arable cultivation? — There is some land that would never be used for anything but arable cul- tivation. 13.137. But the tendency to decrease arable culti- vation would be very strong? — Yes. 13.138. Have you anything to say as a general conclusion with regard to the kind of guarantee or the amount of guarantee which would be necessary to deter the present tendency towards reducing arable cultivation? I know that you and other members of your Union have presented certain cost sheets. Have you any suggestion to make as a Union within what regions of price the guarantee would need to be? The only way we have considered it is the way I outlined this morning — the prinicple, not the sum. 13.139. You have not thought of any figure which would opply in the present circumstances? — There has been little discussion about that, but it certainly 1 26370 looks as if we ought to be guaranteed a price for the year in front of us at something approaching the prices under present conditions. The whole guarantee question as far as we are concerned would be the principle of a modified guarantee over a long term of years. 13.140. You do not think it would be of much value unless it were to be recognised as a more or less per- manent policy ? — That is so. 13.141. You express no opinion as to what the scale of guarantee would require to be for the next year except that it would be somewhere in the region of present prices? — We have come to no definite find- ing upon that point, although opinions have been expressed freely. Probably it will be found that the prospects for the next year are quite sufficient from that point of view. 13.142. I suppose in everything you have said about guarantees and prices generally you are assuming that the fixing of maximum prices will shortly dis- appear ?- — Undoubtedly. 13.143. You would rather, I suppose, have the open market pure and simple without guarantees than have guarantees with fixed and controlled prices? — Will you repeat that question? 13.144. Let me put it perhaps more clearly : If the Government were to say, "You cannot Lave it both ways: you can have the world marketer you can have a guarantee accompanied by maximum prices, but you cannot have a guarantee without being subject to control," which course do you think farmers would consider best from the National point of view? — I take it your suggestion is a guarantee which provided against any loss and included interest on capital and perhaps a small profit? — If we had that sort of guarantee we could not for a moment withstand tho demand of the Government or the community to take the commodity at the guaranteed price. 13.145. You spoke of a guarantee on a somewhat different basis this morning. You spoke of a guarantee to' cover the bare cost of production? — Not to cover it, but to go up to the bare cost of production. 13.146. Not to exceed the bare cost of production? — Exactly. 13.147. Rather than that you would prefer to have a free market? — Precisely. 13.148. Just ono question about the suggestion of co-operation which arose out of your cross-examina- tion by Mr. Smith. I think there may be some mis- conception, which I would not like to see. You spoke of the oo-oper.itive dairies in the west of Scotland. The impression left on my mind was rather that these co-operatives dairies were regarded more as cheese factories than as centres for the disposal of liquid milk. You agree, do you not, that the co-operative dairies are chiefly sellers of milk? — Yes, chiefly as sellers of milk and as dealing with the milk question as a whole. 13.149. In the absence of co-operation there was a great deal of waste in Glasgow — large quantities of milk were thrown away in the summer? — Yes. 13.150. These creameries get rid of that waste of milk by using up on the spot any surplus there happens to be? — Yes, that is so — they stabilise the whole industry. 13.151. It is simply a systematic form of the old method of individual dairy farmers using cheese mak- ing as a means of stabilising the milk price? — That is so. Of course, you have the question of the sterilisa- tion of milk, which makes it possible to send milk on much further journeys now. 13.152. Yes. At, the present time even without co- operation, do you think there is really much loss of milk through deficiency of transport? I do not know whether you are informed on that question ? — I am not in the milk trade, as you know. I have merely what you might call academio opinions about tho matter. 13.153. I rather understood you to assent to the suggestion that the lack of transport facilities caused a great wnsto of milk? — I should not put it in that way. I should say that the lack of sufficient trans- port facilities helps to keep down the production of milk. B 2 1(1 ROYAL COMMISSION ON AUK1CULTURE. MR. JAMES QABDNEB. [Continued. 13, I'll. You inrnn that a great nmnv farms could be brouglit within roach of i)i«> market fur lii|iiierati\c ownership of Kuril's iintl build- ings and so on a good deal of consideration for some years. \Yi» had a trading scheme of our \>\\ n in operation. l>ut -\c found that it Has t.«i cumbrous and there were too many obstacles in the way of carrying it out by a body such a* our own. \\"e recognise, of course, that if the tiling were done on a large scale— 1 suppose you are referring to milk particularly :- 13,lo6. No. I am referring to general farm produce Mich us bringing manures and cakes and so on from the station to the farm, and so on, and delivering grain from tin- farm to the station. It might not pay one man to own a lorry of his own for that purpose, but if the- lorry were owned co-operatively it would pay the farming community, would it not I" There is a good deal of that being done in Scotland at present. 1 thought yon were referring to some- thing on a much larger scale, such ns depots collect- ing the produce from a large area and grading it and then dispatching it by rail. That is rather a matter for the big Farmers' Associations — the setting up of rural centres for the collection of local produce. It is rather a large ta.sk for small Farmers' Organisations at present, so far as I can judge. 13,157. Failing such organisation, do you think that the system I have suggested of three or four farmers on-operating and buying a tractor, for example, and using it between them would be of use — or that a branch of the. Farmers' t'nion should take it up and r.-<-..mmend it to their members? — That is being done to-day in Scotland in my own district. 1.U58. And successfully ?— Yes, successfully. 13.15!). In No. 5 of your precis you refer to the lack of research into the diseases of plants and animals and the sciem f plant breeding. How do you sug- gest that should be done — by private enterprise or by Government grants I" — By a combination, I should say, of course. If \oii leave it entirely to private enter- prise you cannot expect consistently good results over a number of years, because your whole foundation is too uncertain. The Government ought, through the Hoard of Agriculture, to take a directing hand in a matter of that kind on behalf of the whole of agri- culture. As you are perhaps aware, wo have the set- ting up of a plant breeding station in view and wo have collected about £18,000 from private subscribers for that purpose. The Cm eminent are giving a pound for every pound collected privately. !mt the direction of that station will have to be left largely to the Board along with representatives of the ordin- ary organisations, so that the tanner* may take a lh<. interest in it. If it is left entirely to the Government the farmers will lose contact at any rate that is the view we have in Scotland. I M.I 60. It is likely to be a useful undertaking:- — Mt*rt undoubtedly. 1. 'J.I 61. Is much IxMiig thine in Scotland with regard to diseases of animals:' Sheep, for example, partn-u larly Buffer from one or two tliwaws that are hard to diagnose apparently;* — Then' is a certain amount of good work being done at the (Ilasgow Yotcrinary College. There is a technical i Xpert engaged there Dr. (laugcr. We feel, in the Farmers' Organisations. that a very much wider effort undertaking the deal- ing with tjit* diseases of all sorts of anim.: lutoly neccnsary. not only of sheep, but of all animals. There ban been a prttposal lately put forward by the Highland 8 'id the Scottish Chainlx-r. and the organisation I represent, to work with the Government in the direction of getting n central institute for all th«M» things, or a eeiitial direction to take up the whoJo matter comprehensively. I admit it is diffi- iidt. Init yon must nut lose the idea of having the thing carried out thoroughly. I understand that in 61,000,000 M rliug have In < n •land alone by di" 13.1 "ir opinion, is thai important df..-|.,pniMit? — Exceedingly important. 13,163. In answer to Mr. Henderson, and one.' or 11 said that the Scottish farmer would be willing t<> In- li-lt alone if he was left alone alto- gether in the- future without any guaranty- and with- out any Wages Board or Orders of any soi l.'J.ltil. That was on the assumption that the tarmer would be free to carry tin exactly as he liked. I lake it?— Practically that." Of course, we would n inand. for example, that we should run our farms on which would he entirely against the national i nt create. l.'MiM. I do not mean bad farming, but MI bn the farm is properly run. you mean, tin imlr should be left to farm in the way he think- simply tor his own personal interest' a.s apart from the interest of the State? — YOB. l.'i.li*;. The tanners' view licing that if the State says he must grow more corn he considers that a guarantee 1(, necessary? — ^ 13.167. So that the growing of cereals would be for (lie benefit of the State in that case?— Yes. We hold rerj strongly that it is a matter entirely for the community themselves, while admitting that' we Mould l.o very sorry to see agriculture left to sink swim :ui formerly. But as factors between the com- munity and the landlords we xiy we are prepai tackle the problem as before if you give us fair play. 13.168. Therefore, in fact, the guarantee i.s lor the. protection of the community and not for the | tion of the f armer ?— Tha t is our view. It is i community to say. l.'J.l'ii). There is just tine |mint I should like to clear up about the wages and the methtxl of employment with regard to what Mr. I.angford asked you. It may not be quite understood that in Knglaiid until tho order of the. Wages Hoard came into operation men were only paid when they were employed il they came on a wet morning they might lie '.-cut eiwnv. You In Scotland have the same system as we have in Northumberland, namely, an upstanding wa. Yes 13.170. The men arc engaged from year's end to year's end, and you have to pay them MI t or I that is so. 13.171. That principle always existed. e\eii In-fore the Wages Boards? — Yes. 18,173. So that that really put the workers in the V.r'h in a better position than the l«lx>urcrs further south?- Ye .. I .should say so. l:J.17.'J. Mr. Smith asked you some (jiiestions about the difficulty of equalising the results of a guarantee or at l«ist tin- getting of a guarantee which Mould be fair to one class of farmers without being unfair to another? — Yes. IH. 171. Hid not that condition :i!wa\s prevail in the days of freedom from control and of open markets:' --Yes, but when you had freedom from «>n I Mil you could adapt your system of farming to your land in any way you caret! to. whereas nov\ von are going to lx> supervised or overlooked in your farming !•> a certain extent. 13,17."i. Farm* which are more primarily adapted io certwl growing will grow cereals, and farms which are not MI much adapted to it. but which under the stress of the last few years have had to grow con:. will re\crt to a more mixed s\stem of farming, and ren-als will not In- the pi-iiiiarv some. ntion. but in conjunction with sti-ek growing and fe, clmn lhe\ can still IM- maide a profitable adjunct to the farm a- a whole. MI that in that way you can m-ire or b s, equalise mattei-r Yes. MI long as you have the land under the plough, and have the equipment there, alth'iugh it may In- that the land is not actually growing cereals at the- time. 1H.1 • is my point. >'•• that n-allv \'imii">;>' : Yon gave an answer to l'i Douglas just now which f do not think you quite meant. I want to clear it up. He a-ked \ on whether you preferred nn open market to a low guarantor-, and your answer was. if I remember MlNtJTES OF EVIDENCE. 14 October, 1919.] MR. JAMES GARDNER. [Continued. rightly, " Precisely," I rather understood from the evidence you have been giving that what you advo- cated was a low guarantee with an open market? — Yes, that is exactly what I have been advocating here to-day — a modified guarantee, or, if you like to call it so, a low guarantee with an open market. 13,178. That is what. I understood you to say, but the answer you gave to Dr. Douglas rather contra- dicted that. I mention it in order to make it plain. I have l>een following your evidence carefully, and I quite understood that what you had in your mind was a i>olicy which would prevent a repetition of the terrible times that English and Scottish agriculture went through between the year 1880 and the end of the century? — Yes. 13,17*\. Hi-, llviiyliis: That question of mine was addressed to the question which he would think best if both together were unobtainable- if they were , j alternatives. 13,17'.*. Mr. .-1 niter Simmons: You stated earlier in the day that you have :i personal experience of those bad times in the 'eighties and the 'nineties? — Yea. 13.180. You would agree that the real cause of those bad times was the impossibility of farming in England and Scotland being conducted on economic lines so as to compete with colonial farming under the conditions on which they were able to farm in their countries? — Yes, combined with tremendously cheap freights. 13.181. With regard to trnns|x>rt, what you want to prevent in the future is the system that obtained then, when you could get wheat brought from New York to London at a less rate than you could get it brought from Liverpool to London ? — Ya«. 1 -'1.182. From a national point of view, can you imagine anything that is calculated, or could be cal- culated, to operate more against the individual in the shape of the landlord, the tenant, the labourer, and tin- State than such a system as prevailed during the \i-ars of the 'eighties 'and the 'nineties?— I could imagine nothing more disastrous to all four parties \\ them have but others have not the ghost of an idea. Some of those connected with agriculture are well acquainted with the struggle farmers had and others have no idea at all. 13.184. When you mention, as you do in your fireris, the more or less derelict condition of the equip- ment of farms and drainage, and so on, you are dis- tiiutly of opinion that that state of things was caused almost entirely through the impossibility of landlords beinjj able to expend the money upon their estates which in better times they would be able to.do?- *i • 13.185. In other words, land-owning in the 'eighties and the- 'nineties was unprofitable to the largest pos- sible extent? — Yes. I agree with that. 13.186. Would you say that 1^ per cent, would be a fair estimate of the return into their pockets that the majority of landlords got on the value of their estates in those years? — That is the general belief. In Scot- land I have heard it said that the landlord gets prac- tically nothing on his land at all, but probably 5 per cent, or more on the buildings — that the buildings and the general equipment were giving a small return, but that the landlord was getting practically nothing for the land at all. Of course that does not follow in every i 13.187. Does your memory go further back to the more prosperous times of the early 'seventies ?— Yes, I remember that. 13,1**. So do I. Was it not better for the indivi- dual all round— both for the landlord, the tenant, and the labourer — when the price of wheat was, as it -ay, in the years 1870 to 1874, round about 60s. a quarter? Was not village life better from every point of view, except perhaps that the labourers were not living under the conditions that we would allow to-d;iy. f am not suggesting for a moment that wo Ibonld go back to the conditions under which the labourers lived in those days, but from the point of view of the employment of labour and from the point 26370 of view of successful farming, and of getting the best out of the land, would you not say that the period from 1870 to 1875 was a much more favourable state of tilings for the country generally than that which pre- vailed, say, from 1890 to 1895?— Yes, I should cer- tainly say so, with the qualification that you put in on behalf of the labour — that the conditions were not quite so good then as what they are possibly to-day, from the point of view of general comfort. 13.189. Therefore what you would advocate would prevent a similar state of things recurring as occurred in those years? — I do say that most strongly. 13.190. Can you suggest any other way of securing a profitable price for cereals than by some system of a guarantee? — I think it is the only system, so far as cereals are concerned, that can be suggested, in my opinion, unless it may be by the increased use of machinery and the other matters which have been referred to to-day ; they all have a cumulative effect. 13.191. On the question of the security of tenure, you say that your system in Scotland has been a system of leases? — Yes. 13.192. You also go on to say that that system has not been altogether successful, and you intimate that you want some improvement of the leasehold system? — Yes. 13.193. It occurs to me that the suggestions you make practically involve perpetual leases subject to the decisions of a Land Court? — Yes, that is so. 13.194. Do you really think that would be a better system than freedom of contract as between landlord and tenant? — I do. 13.195. Are you aware that, generally speaking, in England farmers have preferred, up to now at any rate— I am speaking from my own experience more particularly — yearly tenancies to leases? — Yes. I have heard it said that farmers did prefer yearly tenancies, and I believe that they must have pre- ferred them or there would not have been such a very large extension of yearly tenancies. 13.196. Does it not occur to you that a yearly tenancy carries with it a certain amount of security of tenure, for the reason that a landlord naturally wishes to let his land, and would be unlikeV to dis- turb a good or even a moderately good tenant? What would ho gain by it?— It all depends upon the exigencies of circumstances. At the present time there is the tremendous selling of land. That is one case. There are other cases : a man may die. One can contemplate several factors which might come in to alter that. In my view it is entirely an unbusinesslike method of going to work. 13.197. If the Agricultural Holdings Act were so remodelled as to give an outgoing tenant a fair return for the unexhausted improvements he left behind, would not that meet the case? — I really do not think it would. 13.198. Do you remember the position of the lease- holders when that avalanche of bad times which commenced in 1879 occurred? — I remember that time in Scotland, but I was not taking much interest in regard to your local matters in England at that period. 13.199. If landlords had not met their tenants at that time those tenants who held under the high rents which were arranged for in the early 'seventies would have been absolutely ruined? — I remember distinctly what you are referring to. The landlords at that time did give rebates on the rents for years. 13.200. And in a great number of cases they tore up the leases? — Yes. 13.201. With regard to the game . question, you would agree that the present Ground Game Act is very little security, so far as the tenant is concerned, against ravages by game? — That is so. 13.202. You would agree that the chief delinquent so far as damage is concerned is the rabbit? — Yes. 13.203. Do you not think that the case would be met to a very large extent if tenants were .allowed an absolutely free hand with regard to the destruction of rabbits? — It would undoubtedly help, but it would not perhaps from every point of view be absolutely efficient, as I have answered before. From the far- mer's point of view it might be quite all right, but from his neighbour's point of view it might not. B 3 U ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 14 , 1919.] MK. 13,*M. You mean the (porting fanner might encourage rabbit* to the detriment of bis neighbour!1 — That u what 1 mean. 13,'JUo. Compare the industry of agriculture with other iinlustrifs from tin- working man's point of view, would you say that tlu- industry of agriculture is as strenuous as the labour connected with factory work, for instance:' — No, not if you judge it aa a whole. The work in many reepecU is undoubtedly hard at times, but if you take it the whole year round it is healthy work in the open air. 13,906. From the health point of view there is no comparison? — No comparison. 13.207. Mr. Overman: I want to ask you one or two personal questions about your own business which are not dealt with in your //recij. If you object to answer tln-m please aay so. You say you are a tenant farmer?— Yes. 13.208. Farming 640 acres of land?— Yes 13.209. What class of land is it? — It is fairly good land. It is not the best class of land in Scotland such as the best class of land in the Lothians or Forfarshire. It is fairly good mixed land. 13.210. Have you farmed it for many years? — About 10 years on my own behalf, and before that time my father farmed it for about 40 years. 13.211. You have had no trouble as regards security of tenure? — None whatever. 13.212. Do you mind telling us what was your rent in 1913?— About £1,200— rather over. 13.213. Is it the same to-day?— Yes, the same to- day. 13.214. You have hod a good landlord ?— Yes, I have a good landlord. 13.215. What was your labour bill on that 500 acres of land in 1913? — In 1911 I remember my labour bill was £1,130. 13,210. What was it in 1918 P— Over £3,000. 13.217. 200 per cent, more?— Practically. 13.218. I suppose cereals form the greater portion of your crop? — Yes, cereals and potatoes and hay. 13.219. What would be the average quantity of wheat you have grown in the last 8 years? — From 100 to 110 acres. 13.220. How many quarters per acre of wheat have you had on the average for the 8 years P — About 4J to 6 quarter* an acre. 13.221. Oats?— Gate rather more— 6£ qrs. 13.222. Do you grow any barley? — No barley. 13.223. You think if you get the guaranteed price of about the same amount as it stands at to-day you can carry on and get a living? — Yes, try to. 13.224. Mr. Batche.hr: On the subject of guaran- tees, is it your suggestion that the guarantees should be on the full amounts per aero that they are in the Corn Production Act, which is four times each acre of wheat and five times for each acre of oats — that there should be the full quantity without any deduction ? — I agree it should be on exactly the same basic. 13.225. Would not that have the effect of helping the farmers who produce small yields of corn? — Un- doubtedly. 13.226. 80 that in that way you would get over pai t. of the difficulty suggested by Mr. Smith in regard to the smaller farmer being wiped out? — Yes. l.'i.l"J7. On the question of wages I would liko it clearly mentioned : Is it almost the usual case in Scotland that the ploughmen are engaged either for • •ntlis or for 12 month*? — The universal custom ii either a six or a 12 months' period. 13.228. So that wet weather or dry weather IIA» nothing whatever to do with the payment?— Nothing 13.229. Therefore it would bo impossible in prac- • ither to pay a man less during bad wtsither or more during good weather?— That is so. It is im- possible in practice, or very difficult. 13.230. What is your principal objection to yearly tenancies?- I think I have made that pretty clear to th«- (Vimmiftsion already. My objection to the yearly tonnnrv. n* I think I stated here, was that if you intended to lay out your money on the farm to try and put Home body into the farm, you have this sword of Damocles, a* it were, hanging over your head. As on example, I might mention that I know a gentleman who took a farm in Kn^land, bought his horses and his implements and everything to get going, and the kuuie w!!> crop are!' Ceiierally speaking, they were, better. 13.243. In a similar manner, the cost« of production of the 1918 crop would be less than tho cost of pro- duction of tho 1919 crop? — Considerably loss. 13.244. You are tin- Chairman of tho District Agri- cultural Wages Committee? — Yes. 13.245. You arc the neutral Chairman?— Supposed to be neutral. 13.246. Selected by the farmers and employees as a neutral Chairman? — Yes. 13.247. Notwithstanding that, you are a> President •of the Farmers' National Union of Scotland? — Yes. 13.248. Both sides are satisfied to have you as their •Chairman? — Apparently. 13.249. Mr. Ashby : Following up some questions asked you by Dr. Douglas and Mr. Batchelor on edu- cation and change in farm practice, is it not true that the market conditions change occasionally in relation to tho possibility of various types of land? — From an agricultural point of view? 13.250. Yes:- -The values change? MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 23 14 October, 1919,] MR. JAMES GARDNER. [Continued. 13.251. The market conditions change. For in- stance, you might possibly have a larger increase in the price of wheat than in the price of other agricul- tural produce, or in the general price of cereals, or you might possibly have a fairly big increase in the price of dairy produce, and not the same increase in the price of other produce? — Yes, that obtains in farming, certainly. 13.252. Where you have a system of farming de- voted to the production of one of those commodities, it is not always possible for the farmer to change his practice, because he has not the necessary knowledge. Is that not sometimes so? — It is not convenient or possible for him to change his practice, even supposing he finds it not paying at the moment. 13.253. That was not quite what I meant Sup- posing it were fairly evident that some change in the system of farming would be profitable, it is not always practicable for the farmer to make that change, be- cause of his own limited knowledge and experience? — Yes, and also because of the lay-out of the farm and the lay-out of his own implements, and his own capital on his plant. It is very inconvenient, and generally would result at first in a very heavy outlay of money to change from one system to another, and bv the time he had changed round perhaps he would find that he had put his money on the wrong horse and that he might have done as well if he had remained as he was. Is that your question? 13.254. Still if a change is made it is absolutely essential that the farmer should have a possibility of extending his knowledge or gaining fresh knowledge. May I take it it is your view that the educational facilities should provide him with those possibilities? — Undoubtedly. 13.255. In answer to Mr. Henderson this morning as to No. 6 of the items of your precis, you said you were of opinion that there should be more vocational education for farmers and farm workers. At what age do you suggest vocational education should start? — Under the new Education Act in Scotland at least I understand that in the long run the boys and pirls have to continue under the education authority until they are 18. I should suggest that about 16 might be a suitable age for beginning their vocational tiaining. That is only my opinion, of course. 13.256. You would agree that it would be a good thing to extend the number of farm scnools, apart from agricultural colleges, available for, say. farmers' (ions and farm workers of about 18 years of age, and after they had had some previous amount of voca- tional education? — The whole question of education requires very careful consideration ; there are so many directions which look quite good at the first glance in which education seems to be a benefit that it would be quite easy to go in for a costly increase •n education over different districts without the thing having been sufficiently considered, and it might not have a beneficial effect. Whatever is done must be done after mature consideration. With regard to the point you mention with regard to boys and girls nnd farmers' sons and daughters who are on the farms and in touch with the practical side of farm- ing, I think the greatest benefit they would derive is from correct theory by means of lectures, and I f-hould like to see in some localities in a central place a thoroughly equipped demonstration centre to let them see anything they may not have been practically acquainted with before — to let them see practically how it is done and what the result is. But I would not duplicate these demonstration stations ; I would riot have too many of them. What the boys and girls in the country who are acquainted with practical farming require more is the theory; they have a cer- tain amount of practical knowledge, and they will acquire the rest from reading accounts of the demon- stration farms and from occasional visits to them, i-lthough the demonstration farms may be a good dis- tance away ; but, as I say, I would not duplicate the demonstration farms, because it is a costly business and I do not think that the effect in the end would '1 uto justify it. 13,257. I quite agree; but is your opinion at all general amongst the farmers of Scotland that what 20370 is required is rather an explanation of the processes and theory, so to speak, rather than demonstrations of practice? — I should not like to answer for the general body of farmers in Scotland, but, speaking for myself — and I can only speak for myself — I think the greater number of boys and girls in the rural dis- tricts are acquainted more or less with the practical side, and it is the theoretical side that they do want. 13,253. Have you thought anything about a system such as a system of short courses for farmers' sons and daughters for teaching them the purely theoretical side? — Yes, to a certain extent I think that system is in practice in Scotland already. We have short courses of lectures and we have the longer courses — the more thorough courses at the colleges. 13.259. You realise, of course, that a big scheme of improvements of agricultural education might cost the taxpayer a considerable Bum of money? — Yes, but he might get it repaid later on. 13.260. Supposing there were a question of raising two considerable sums of money, one for a system, of giving technical advice and the other for the purpose of paying a guarantee, which do you think the tax- payer would get the best value out of? — That is a very difficult question to answer, the factors which. come in to determine that are so uncertain. It is an exceedingly hard question to answer. 13.261. Following the estimate of the cost of horse work you have down here a number of implements, and you say the depreciation and upkeep of the implements for 15 acres of land averages 23s. an acre. Following that you have some special equipments for the hay crop and the oat, barley and wheat crop? — Yes. 13.262. Is this the general sort of equipment on farms in Scotland? Would it be as high as this on say, 50 acres? — I should say, if you take a farm like my own or a larger farm than 50 acres, say 200 or 300 or 400, for every 15 acres you would not require these implements. 13.263. You would not require three mowers for 45 acres? — That is my point. I only show here the actual price of the implements, and the implements that would be required on a 60-acre holding on the assumption that you are on a four-course rotation. 13.264. The acreage to which these implements apply is considerably extended when you increase the size of the farm?- — Undoubtedly. 18.265. Mr. Dallas: You stated this morning that what the farmers wanted was a fair field with no Government interference? — Yes. 18.266. That was with special reference to hours and labour and other things, provided there were no guarantees? — I said they would be prepared to accept that. 13.267. Yes, and then you went on to say that, so far as hours and wages were concerned, you would be in favour of some voluntary joint board or com- mittee being set up to decide these matters as be- tween the employer and the workman? — Yes, 13.268. I was wondering how you would deal with the employers who were not, say, in the Farmers' Union. Your Union represents .about 50 per cent, of the employers in Scotland. How would you get these employers to conform to whatever agreement might be arrived at by the others? — That is just the point. Our Conciliation Committees merely issue re- commendations. Both sides meet and agree, and the Conciliation Committee issues a joint recommendation from both sides, and although in the first six months' period they may not all) come into line, yet later on they will do so. You will probably find that by the second term they have all come into line. Our ex- perience is that the man who wild not come in and who is irreconciliable in the first instance eventually does come in, and also that the farm servant who will not accept the terms comes into line also at a later period. That has been my experience in connection with the Conciliation Committees. 13.269. I only suggest that you have no power to enforce your recommendation on any person who is not a party to it? — No, there is no direct power to enforce. 13.270. Would you be in favour of what some people have suggested, that once employers and workers have B 4 I'l ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 14 OHobtr, 1919.] Mi:. JAMES GARDNER. [Cont'nnifil. cone to an agreement in order to bring thot- ploreri and worker* who are outside into conformity nii't make it fair for all concerned, tliat that :i. should be registered and should bflOOOM lovally binding upon all parties in the industry:- That rstum of yourti involves that, in agriculture, if that on had to !H> administered i.xcr a \ cry wide area it would mean that in tliat ar.-a ih.- money equivalent, and the conditions niul other things. would !>• pretty equal over tliat district. 1M.271. No. not necessarily at all. On-e a voluntary •11. -lit has IM-CII arrived at hetwi-cii the employ, - u ml the workers- --mid there may he employers or workers who aro not parties to it — would you be in i.i\onr <>l registering that agn^mcnl. s;iy. with the Ministry of LaUtur or with the Hoard of Agriculture and then make it locally binding upon all coin , -\ n, d you would not make anything legally binding in the first place that had not ' d by the organised b >dy of employers and workers for the district :• If the district were properly represented. If then1 were three or four departments of farming in that district aa we have in Scotland within a 50 miles' radius, and if the different departments of funning were properly represented on that. Commit!, e 1 MM- nothing against vour proposal; but if you leave out the representation of any of the departments— say in our own district- if you left out Upper I*anarkshire your decision which might biiit the (ilctsgow area if applied to Upper Lanarkshire might entail very great hardship and i-i- >• \-trsA; the decision arrived at in their district might entail great hardship in n district like ours. It would be a matter requiring very careful coiiKidcration and you would have proper rcpn-sciitation of all the departments before you could make it compulsory. l.'t.'27'J. Of course you would only be registering what was a voluntary agreement:' -1 nin quite aware of that. The recommendation leaves it open to the other men to adjust any differences \vhi--h ipight arise. 13.27.'l t. Supposing you as a good employer — which it is very evident you are because of the fact that you have been chosen by the workers as well as the employers to be the independent Chairman — were to agree with the Scottish Faun Servants' Union and a few more employers like you to a certain rate of wages and to a certain number of hours a week, it would be unfair to you if a number of other em- ployers who are not in the Union for «ome reason did not honour that particular agreement and you had no power to make them pay the agreed rate of wages. You would be at an unfair advantage in the com- petitive market in these circumstances, would you not?-- Undoubtedly for a short period we would be. but as a mutter of practice and experience we do find that they all fall into line later on. l:j,27o". Maybe that is because Scotsmen are better at keeping agreements than Englishmen? — I do not know as to that. 1.V276. At any rate we have to use the law in England very much to get them to keep to their agreement - iimen. I may tell you, are very averse to compulsion ; that is in the Scotchman; he will hardly be compelled. 1:VJ77. Hi' doc* not like to be compelled himself, but he like, to cnmpel other people? — He does. 1.V278. I was surprised this morning to hear you say you had had no difficulty with regard to the scarcity of labour in your locality- \<.t in my locality. 1M.27!». Is it nut the fact that for many years back a large number of men come over from "id ns agricultural workers competing with the •Iimen in Lanarkshire and the Weet of Scotland ••. not in regular skilled work ; they only do casual work. 13.380. They come over us byremen or something like that, but they gradually work tl • in, do they not'- There are a few who do that, but they are • very small minority. l.V.'-l. Still they are there?— Yes, in a few cases. l:V •„'"„' li«. • thnt not mean -hat if these men net employment they are only able to net employment hv n of the fact tb.it the Scotchman has gone into i.l.i-i:'.« and taken up work as a carpenter, or what- ever it may be, or has com. to the Clyde into the shipyard or into ionic of the other various wor) factories in the \\ • ~-. oiland r The Irishman can c.o dirci 1 into these other employments :,s well as into agriculture, and I would not like to say it is because the regular agriciilturul labourer has none into other employment in (ilasgow and elsewhere that the Irish- man is able to come ill. l:i. -*.'). \Vhat I me. in is if there were plenty ..i Scotsmen on the jobs tin-, ihaps would not get a chance at all unless it is the DIM that an Irishman worker than a Scot-man' Sonic <>l these Irishmen are rather n"od workers, but they are lather Ilk.' the Si otch pi-ople in the sens.- that tlic\ do not take compulsion readily either. l.'t, '-"-I. In replv to Mr. Overman you sanl that yoili wanes bill had gone up from tl.UNI to fM.lKMI'r "> , - l.'l,2S.">. Would you mind telling us how many people wen- employed in 1911 by yon and how many were employed in 191*, and what was the pcrccntane he tween boys and women as between the two par I I have l>een going into that from my own books, and 1 find that the numbers for the two year practically on all fours. 1 find thnt practically all through there has l>een no difference in numbers or in the make up of the staff. There have usually been Three to four boys and a certain number of men. together with a certain number of our old i. women, and then we depend upon outside , labour for the rest — both male and female. It has been practically the same since I'.MI. l.'i. •_'*<;. Seeinn that your stati is practically the s.uiie you would say there has been no depreciation ill the labour:- When I say the same staff 1 mean numerically. Some of our younevt men had to n° but they were replaced. 13,287. We have sometimes had complaints here that labour is not as efficient as it was. That is not the opinion of everybody; some people hold i|iiite the converse view? — Yes. l.VJ'W. What is your experience:- My experience is that at the present time and for the last two years we have not been net tint1: the s;mie output as we did. say. in 1915. That is what I find from actual results. There is a reasonable explanation of that, namely, that the best of our men were drawn for the Army and we have been left with an inferior class of men and have to do with a certain amount of substituted labour, which accounts for it. l.'t.-^l. I was not (piite clear with regard to one of your answers in reply to Mr. Walker this morning. 'Sou stated that there was not the same production in agriculture in spite of what the Prime Minister has said on that subject. I do not know how you have been affected in your district or in Scotland t.-'iierally, but in Knnland there is no doubt about the fait that there have been less people cmployd in agriculture during the past few years than then- were prior to the war? — \. lit. '_'!'(!. Yet ill spiic •>! that there has heen a larger production of all kinds in agricultural produce. \Yotild that not show that so far from labour havinn been less eflieient it must have improved in efficiency?' — If you had the number of your workers right and the number of your acres rinbt it would certainly prove that. That is what I meant when I said to Mr. Walker that if you hove the evidence properly weighed out you will find that is not the case. I only spoke from my own experience. That is why 1 had it so strongly in my mind that the evidence could not have been properly weighed out. IM.L'IM. There is no doubt about the fact that number of people have been employed, and there is no doubt iihoiit the increase in produce. That means that there must have lieen a larger percent. produce per head than before !' Yes. The reason why I say there has l>oen less production on my own farm in because of the fact that I have none through pi. the same work as I did before. The farm is all under crop, and in tin- same proportions. Tin. employees are the. name in number and they are the sai l:i- of worker. In addition to that 1 formerly used to take all my stuff to Glasgow, four miles away, and cart all my manure hack. Kor the lust three year. I have been putting on SO per cent, of the crop at MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 25 U October, 1919.] MR. JAMES GARDNER. [Continued. the railway station. If we had to cart the crop to Glasgow I do not know where we would have been. Of course, I adroit the reason for it is the difference in the men. The younger and the stronger men have been away, but I hope, and I feel pretty certain, that we will have a return to normal conditions again. I am quite sure we will get back into our stride again. I do not say it is altogether owing to the younger men having gone, because there may be faults due to the organisation of farms generally, but in my own case it was carried on practically as before, and 1 was nearly always on the place myself. 13.292. With reference -to the question of a guarantee, in reply to one of the Commissioners you snid you were in favour of a guaranteed price on the basis of a sliding scale?— Yes. 13.293. How would you work that out? — You have put a very difficult proposition in front of me now. I have not thought that out, and I would prefer to leave that to the members of the Commission and uth.-r experts appointed by the Government. I think it is quite within the bounds of possibility to work out a sliding scale approximately on right lines. 13.294. I asked you the question because we have been asked to do something like that, and I do not quite follow what you propose to base it upon. What is the kind of standard you are going to slide up and down by? — I have not got quite to the length of iniKidering it in detail. I can only see in front of me a few facts and what the price just now is. The price is almost certain to be ridiculous either ono way or the other in a year or two's time. It is not possible to fix a permanent price. 13.295. That is one of the difficulties, but the farmer I understand wants to be secured ; he wants to be able to look ahead for some years. That is what farmers generally are driving at, is it not? — Yea. 13.296. This question of guarantees as you know would become a big political question and would bo subject to contending political parties. Some people in the State would be in favour of guarantees and sonic would be against them. Do you know if that would tend rather to leave farmers in a state of real uncertainty, not knowing exactly where they were or where they would be? — I admit your point that no Cuvei nnicnt can l>e bound by its predecessor to any- thing of that kind, but my hope, and I think it is the hope of all those people who have considered the question — not those who have formed their opinions without examining the whole thing — my hope is that those people who have considered the question will see that it is one of the best ways out of the tremendous sation which »t present is taking effect in the agricultural industry. 1H.2!I7. 1 want to be quite sure that Scotchmen are taking that point of view because they are reputed ai any rate to be independent in their outlook and independent in their own minds. That being .«o, 1 do not understand why it is that Scotchmen want what '•lir .lames Caird at the Board of Agriculture some yeara ago termed " a crutch to lean upon." Do you not think it would be far hotter even in the interests of the country if the farmers were left nbsolutely alone to farm their land in the best way they could? — You touch a Scotchman on a tender spot when you begin to talk of the idea existing \\ itli regard to his independence. I certainly have that IVoling myself, and I may toll you that until I studied this question some months ago I was quite against the idea of a guarantee at first, but after considering the matter I came to the conclusion that it was a matter for the community. Agricultural land is a national of which the community ought to make the most, nnd any criticism with regard to the guarantee would equally apply to r<\soarch and transport and anything. " Why not leave it alone and allow it to sink or swim and if there is sufficient virility in the industry it will surmount all these difficulties." That is a v.-ry plausible argument, but I do not think that it is :>lto«other quite sound. This guarantee business is going to be a guarantee under the cost of production, nnd will simply mean a sort of safeguard to the land- lord, who after nil is going to put: his monoy out, and the farmer is going to put his money out, and it will safeguard them from a slump which would mean a very serious thing in these times. If you are not going to have all the elements which make for the success of agriculture it will be a bad thing. My idea is that if you were to make a combined effort with all the elements including this guarantee we shall be able to do what other countries have been able to do, get out of the present state of stagnation. British agriculture is a by-word and a hissing to the foreigner, and I say emphatically it is not the fault of the English or the Scottish farmer ; it is the fault of the conditions under which he farms. 1 think, therefore, that we ought to make the con- certed effort which I have been mentioning this morning. I do not refer to the guarantee alone, l.ut to concerted action all along the line, including a guarantee ; the guarantee is only one of several remedies. 13.298. Do you think it is right that the taxpayer of the country should pay out millions of pounds to the employers in agriculture if there happened to come along a depression, say, in prices. After all, that is what the guarantee means; otherwise it means nothing at all, and it is useless asking for it? — Un- doubtedly, but you have to come down to hard facts, and I think when you do that it could be proved that the State, taking it over a period of years, would be in funds at the end of, say, 10 or 15 years. At the end of that period I think it will be found that the State, so far from having suffered any loss, would be actually in funds by having paid out these millions or whatever the amount might be in guarantees, because of the intensive system of farming which they had inaugurated by the expenditure of that money. It may have to be spent, or it may not, but whether it is spent or whether it is not, if as the result yon get a real live intensive system of agriculture such its has been in existence in other countries, the State will be well repaid for tho expenditure of those millions— more or less. I admit your point and I admit the difficulty of it. I think everyone must admit that if prices fell and tho public" began to realise that millions for two or three years were being paid away because of the guarantee, the Government would have a very difficult task to main- tain the guarantee; but in spite of that fact I yay that if you take it over a number of years I am certain it could be proved that the community would be in funds in the end. I am certain it would be going in for a good investment by the expenditure of those millions. I admit that is the weak side of the case for a guarantee, but examining it from all points of view my opinion is that a modified guaran- tee along with the other things I have mentioned will resuscitate the farming industry. 13.299. In your own locality you have witnessed on several occasions very severe depressions in the Khiptnrilding industry, have you not? — Yea. 13.300. You will admit that agriculture is not the only industry in the country that has been subject to periods of depressions or very bad times?— Yes, I admit that. 13.301. Do you think that the farmers of Scotland would be prepared to allow themselves to he taxed for the purpose of subsidising, say, shipbuilding ;uul steel works, for the production of steel ?— Probably they havo already been subsidised for many of those industries indirectly. 13.302. That is not an answer to my question. You •-.re asking the community to subscribe to the upkeep and the support of agriculture? — Yes. 13.303. If that is done, the other large industries of the country may turn round and say, " You are sup- porting the agricultural industry; why not subsidise us, and I ask you whether the farmers of Scotland are prepared to agree to subsidise industry all round ? —It might be the case in the future that one of your R-am industrial lines, such as shipbuilding, might come upon very bad times, and if it could be proved as con- clusively as regards shipbuilding that the industry could be made successful and could be carried on by the expenditure of a sum of money over a short time- mind you, I know I am opening up a very awkward argument— it may be found expedient to do so • but you cannot place shipbuilding and these other in- dustries on exactly the same footing as agriculture Your shipbuilding industry could go down and still 26 ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. MR. JAMES GA&DMEB L( '•iiiliiiiitil. the country could carry on. But if agriculture went down »nd the land went to grass or three-fourths of it went to gra», if an emergency MI. -li as a great war were to occur again the country would he in a bad way, and if you wan* to make the roost ,,f kgneoltan I think you mu»t judge it rather .lilierently from what you would do an industrial enterprise su. thiphu'ilding. In otli.T words, eliminate the badlord Iroin \our mind for the moment and eliminate the farmer also, and take it that the whole agrKultiii.il aswt belongs to the nation. What would you do in that rase!' Would you allow it all to go down to grass i1 Say that the whole of tho land of the country belonged to the nation, do you say it would be a good thing to allow it to go down to grass? I say no. I say that tho thing to do is to do what other count ru- have done hy every fair means in your power, put the industry on a live basis. 18,304. This is what I am not satisfied about. You in* the impression, as one or two other witnesses we have had before us have also done, that the fanners of this country or the great bulk of them arc just waiting for a 'signal to let the Trhoia of the land of the country go down to grass unless they get guarantees. Is that so?— No, that is not quite the case. They may have given you that impression, but don't you believe them. There is always a certain quantity of land in this country — the land which M r. Sm'ith and other members of the Commission have referred to — which gives a very good return. That class of land will not go down under almost any cir- cumstancee, but what you are after is the secondary land which exists in many parts of the country. That land is really not being made the most of from the national point of view, and it has been a by-word and a hissing to the citizens of every country which are better managed in the matter of farming. 13,905. You are very modest. I do not think that farmers like you are a by-word or a hissing to the * citizens of any country:'- I do not say that the British farmer is to blame, but I do maintain that the conditions under which lie has had to wage the fight have not been fair enough to give him a chance to win out. I do say that we are as good men as the Germans or the Danes, or the Belgians or the Dutch. I only ask you to give us the same chance. 13.306. We are asked to give guarantees, but the guarantees we have been asked for up to this moment are in respect »:f certain cereals? — Yes. 13.307. I am not quite clear about it. You stated in reply to one of the Commissioners that it would not necessarily follow on the giving of the guarantee that the land should be laid down to cereals — that it would not be necessary for farmers to grow cereals, and that they might not grow cereals? — The object of having it under the plough, whether it was under cereals or not, would be to nave it ready for cereals if cereals were wanted. 13,306. If it is not going down to cereals, where is the utility of the guarantee so far as cereals are concerned? — Because you have your cottages and your stables and your drains all in good condition and the land in proper condition for arable cultivation, And having had the land under a long rotation you are ready for the cereal* when they are wanted. Though the land may not be for the moment growing <«-real». it could be turned down to cereals at a year's notice, and you could have the whole of it growing cereals when it was necessary. 13,309. Do you not think that in some cases if prices keep up and if there is a profit to be made on cereals the farmers will be " after it," in your own wonU- Therefore, if price* keep up farmers will keep on growing cereals, guarantee or no guarantee, will they not? — I do not think ao, because in many parts • if the country there will not be the necessary equip- ment. Our farm*, as I have explained to the ( '•mi- ni imion — even our b»«t arable lands — an- more or ]fm derelict at the present day. I use the word adriiMxlly. During the war there lias been very littlo done in the way of drainage. The farm buildings •re rather better and the cottage* are not very bad ; but Mr. Duncan hero will tell you that they are bad enough, probably. But you want the State to en- courage the landlord and the farmer to spend his cm thiw things. Many farmers have made mistake*. I l the kind, but they have certainly done more than anybody else to inaugurate British agriculture, and if you are going to get these men to advance money for the purpose of arable tillage, you must give them some assurance that they will not be swept com- pletely olf tho map a.s they were lie fore when bad times came. On the other hand, assuming the land belonged to the State, and you wanted the thing put i u an efficient basis-, ymi would have tend ten times more money than you will do by the method that is advocated here to-day. 13.310. It seems to me that the whole thing re- itself into a vicious circle, and that if we arc going to subsidise agriculture we will be immediately asked to subsidise chemicals and all the industries allied to agriculture — what are termed key industries — and that we shall be landed in for a general circle of subsidising all the industries of tho country? — I should say it is an arguable proposition, and it is quite right that every point of view should be put forward. I must admit that your point of view is one that will prevail in cities. I am «ell aware, and I resent very much .what us often said about the farmers from the urban side. Every decent fanner resents the remarks that are made, and I know if this guarantee is given that we are open to the charge that we are being subsidised. But I maintain here and now that in that case we are not being sub- sidised, and that it is the community which is going to be subsidised. That is a statement which does not seem to bear its face value, but in my own mind I am certain it is the community that will sub- sidise themselves in this case. 13.311. The thing at the back of your mind seems to be that the guarantee is necessary by way of pre- paration for some war which may break out at any time? — Not quite. I would rather put it as a pre- paration for peace. If you take the progress of agriculture in Germany, and consider what the State was able to do in that country for the agricultural industry and the consequent development of intensive farming that thereby took place and the amount of money circulating in urban areas- resulting from the manufacture of agricultural produce into sugar, motor-spirit, farina, etc., .uid the use made of the by-products in other industries, you will find that the thing paid for itself many times over. The Germans were making the most of Iheir national asset: the land. We have not done no in this country, but this guarantee I maintain is part of the scheme which will have to be adopted if we are to get going on the same lines. 13.312. The guarantees that we have already had under the Corn Production Act. have never been of any use to the farmer, have they 'r No, undoubtedly they 'have not, because we have had the war prices prevailing, but as I said this morning, the pendulum has swung round, and I tell you frankly sitting here that if I were a landlord I should be very chary to-day of advancing a pound on the likelihood of the present inflated prices continuing. I .'1,313. There are not many tenant farmers who have such a tender regard for landlords as you have? — I speak of landlords as I find them. I have met some good landlords and tenants, and 1 have met some bad landlords and tenants, and while I admit there has been a certain proportion of landlords who have done farming a great deal of harm that does not in- validate the good work which has been done by the greater jiroj«>rtion of them. l:i.:tl». I am not challenging that, but- I do not agree entirely with what \ou say about the Scottish landlords. If it. were only a question of keeping the land under the plough so that on the outbreak of war we would be able t:> grow our own food that would -other matter, but do you not think that if we l'ivc a subsidy to agriculture we shall be immediately askeil t i subsidise shipping and maybe shipbuilding U well in order to have a large reserve of shipping which would be also vitally necessary- in the case of war in the interests of the nation?— You will have to expend a great deal more money in shipping if you MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 14 October, 1919.] MR. JAMES GARDNER. [Continued. do not adopt this policy, not necessarily on guaran- tees, but the combined policy of all these things to get our home agriculture going if you have to defend this country in case of invasion or for other reasons. You would have to spend more money in bringing food to this country from abroad than you would have to do on this policy. 13.315. I am not dealing with that. What I am putting to you is that if farmers, and employers in agriculture, ask for subsides and are successful in obtaining them and getting millions of the rate- payers' money, I can see other industries coming along with the same argument asking for subsidies and wanting millions of the ratepayers' money as well. My point is that if we start upon this system of subsidising agriculture I fear that in the end the farmer will not be any better off, because he will have to pay out in subsidies to other industries as much as he gets in in respect of his own? — Yes, pro- bably that might be so. It is well to look at it from all sides. The point of view you are putting now has been put often and often. 13.316. Yes, and it will be put again, and it will be put in your own district, and strongly too? — Yes, if other industries can show as good a case for being subsidised as agriculture can show to-day, then sub- sidise them. 13.317. And if they cannot put up a better case and better arguments then do not subsidise them at all? 13.318. Mr. Duncan: I think you said that prior to the outbreak of war you had had several years during which the industry was carrying on and leaving a margin to the farmer? — Yes. 13.319. If there had been no outbreak of war would there have been any claim put forward by the Scot- tish farmers for a guarantee? — I do not expect there would. 13.320. They would have been quite content to carry on in the position they were then in? — I am quite sure they would. 13.321. Their equipment at that time was only a matter of four or five years worse than it is now? — Yes. 13.322. The landlords then were not in. a very much worse position than they are to-day? — They WITC probably not in as good a position an they now are. 13.323. It was perhaps quite as difficult to get equipment out of the landlord in those days as it is to-day? — With the exception of prices being so high to-day. 13.324. Yes, there is the difference in the cost at the present time, but it was quite impossible to get the landlords to face it in those days? — That is so. 13.325. What have been the circumstances created by the war which have had the effect of disturbing Scottish farmers and giving them less confidence in their industry to-day than they had, say, in the early part of 1914? — As far as regards the farmer himself, the disturbing factor to him, speaking for myself, is the increased cost of production following so closely behind the high prices, and then, ai I have already said, when the swing of the pendulum comes we will get it in the neck, to use a vulgar term. That is what we feel in our bones. That is what the Scottish farmer feels. We are not asking for guarantees. It is for the community to say. \Vo wish more arable farms," and if they insist upon that then we ask for a guarantee. 13.326. Docs the Scottish farmer feel it quite so < li'arly in his brains as he does in his bones? — I do not know that he does. . 13.327. You say in your statement that coats have followed prices? — Yes. 13.328. The farmer, therefore, has had the ad- vantage during the war period of prices? — Un- doubtedly. 13.329. Therefore, as he stands at the present time, ho is in a more favourable position than he was pre- war?— Yes, if you cut him off just now. 13.330. Can you give Us any facts or figures to show why tho, Scottish farmer should have such a fear of the prices of cereals collapsing, and collapsing so much more rapidly than costs? — Experts have differed so widely in their prophecies as to what is going to happen during the next two or three years that I think it would be somewhat invidious on my part if I were to go into that question. But I must honestly confess 1 do feel myself that, as regards this matter, after the next two years I am a pessimist. 13.331 . Can you refer us to tho experts you have in mind so that we might be able just to collate theii different estimates? — I think it was probably your Board of Agriculture representative here, Sir Daniel Hall, and then you had the pronouncement of our friend Sir James Wilson, who informed me last November that wheat during last September and this month would be as low as 40s. a quarter. 13.332. Do you attach any great value to a false prophet of that description ? — Sir James Wilson is a man who was Secretary for Agriculture under the Government of India for 26 years, and he is surely a man whose opinions are entitled to some respect. He has studied the figures, and while a great many people laugh at Sir James Wilson for the view he has expressed, I am not one of those who laugh at him .because the situation looks rosy just now. The world situation just now with regard to the production of cereals can change very quickly, especially when you have a development of shipping such as we have seen in the United States and when other war shipping is released, and it is quite possible that within a shorter period than some people think Sir James Wilson's prophecy will come true. Un doubtedly freights will be high and wages will be high, and I do not think there will be the same quantity of virgin land in other countries that there was before, but I know what a slump market means. I have been through it too often, and I know that very often a panic arises when it should not arise. I know I was selling oats much under the guaranteed minimum last year. That was general in my district at that time. We were selling at 10s. under the guarantee price, because we thought there was going to be a big fall. Anyone who has been engaged in agriculture and in selling on the market can tell you how quickly a panic spreads, and if you have a big development of shipping and motor power in farming and you have large stretches of land abroad which cost very little money, I do not see how with free imports of food into this country our position is going to be a safe one, and I will back up Sir James Wilson to that extent. 13.333. Do you think an expert who gives a quite decided opinion that the price of wheat only a few months ahead is going to be 40s. a quarter, whereas the actual price, if it had not been for the control in this country, would probably have oeen nearly lOQs. a quarter, is quite a safe expert to take as to what is going to happen two or three years ahead? — I do not take his view or his expert knowledge so much as I depend upon my own opinion. 13.334. Do you think that your opinion that there is going to be a big break in prices is held widely by the farmers in Scotland? — I think there is a large body of opinion in Scotland thinking with me. There is, of course, quite a large number of farmers who take the opposite view. 13.335. So that they are not all of opinion that prices are going to break? — Certainly not. 13.336. Does that apply to all crops or merely to the wheat crop — that they are fearing foreign com- petition?— A general reduction in the price of all commodities produced on the farm, with the excep- tion of meat, of course; but the price of meat even will come down relatively. 13.337. What is "the position so far as milk is con- cerned?— I think as the price of other things cheapen and money becomes more valuable and commodities more plentiful that the cost of producing milk will come down also. 13.338. The cost of production will come down? — The cost of production will come down and you will have a general fall in prices. 13.339. If other commodities cheapen have you not also to look forward to a cost of production which will affect the cost of the production of cereals? — Undoubtedly, but that is just the difficult point. 13.340. You are not sufficiently confident. You think that tho price of cereals will break much more rapidly than tho cost of their production? — I am quite certain of it. With regard to our joiners' bills, our implements. ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 14 , 1919.] MR. JAMIM GABDNEK. [Continued. our shoeing bilU, our liuincw, bill*, and all tin- w» have to buy, I think tli.-y will i. H...IM at a high very much longer than th* high price ..I Un- HClllal (ollllllodltX We ll.lVe tO M'll. l;l.:UI. Your view is that there IN going l<> b« * big break in the. price of cereals, although the cost ul production and Uie pri«*> ol wmmoditiM limner haa to l.uy remain high, and th.it that will jeopardise the laimerr — That u my x icw . l.t.;U- D..CS that apply equally to oats a* to w! I think it will apply pretty generally all round. l:t..'il.'i. ll you li.m- a fairly considerable reduction in tl.< .lilt*, would that not jit-vcii your • •• j. i. -In. 11. .11 ..| wh-.ii A reduction in the price of Ki ,'UJ Yes, li..u would mean a considei ah!. duction in the cost of the keep of your hoi- Ye«, undoubtedly. Ki.HI.'i. \\ hat farm crops should the guarantee apply to? — It t..ere is to lie a ^nar-inus" .it all. I think it ought to apply to u heats and to outs at least. Hi. Leaving Knghind out of account lor the moment, what ellcci would a. guarantee on wheat o-inl oat* have on tin- general iarming sy.sU.-m in Scotland:1 It w..uld incline to keep the land under the plough. on a long-course rotation 1 admit, hut still it woulit keep the land under the plough, and not allow it to . entirely to grass. 13,347. You do not suggest a guarantee on ]>otai With regard to this subject 1 hold views myself which I do not know that 1 hare any right to put forward. 1 have views with regard to what tho Minent have already dono in reference to the sugar beet, and it might also lie applied to potatoes no far as tho costings department is concerned. In the course of a few years, if '.here should hapj>en to be joint stock companies set up to purclia.se- the beet root and the potatoes at prices slightly over the cost of production to the average purchaser, you might get a very large industry sot up in that way. Whether you call that a guarantee or a subsidy I do not know, but I would put that as part of the general livening-iip process. l:t.:tlv Chairman : You are not suggesting a guarantee for potatoes at the moment? — No. l.'{.;u:'. Nor tor beet? — No, not at the moment. l.'J.ttVl. You are merely suggesting that it may be the desire of the Government or the desire of Parlia- ment to Assist that new industry, or those two new industries, to which you have referred. You are not asking, as representative of the Scottish Kurmer-' l'n ion. for any guarantee in respect of those two things.> — CV-rtainly not. 13,351. 3/r. Duncan. I think you will agree that the potato crop is a very considerable crop in Scottish farming?— Yes. I.'<.:i52. Perhaps a more important crop than the wheat crop? — In Scotland, yes, in the course of the arable rotations. 13,353. If there is going to be special AMatano* given to wheat and not potatoes, do you think tho farming s\st<-m in Scotland generally is going to«be benefited by that!' Do you think even with the stimulus of a subsidy it ought to be diverted more to wheat cultivation or to maintaining the mixed farming which at present obtains!-1- If you have it on wheat. or oatii you can grow oats after your potatoes. I.'{.:V>1. If your ]X)tat<> crop is going to he left to the market without any guarantee at all would yon !»• nl.l«- to maintain the' same area under potatoes? — We certainly could not do that. We should then have to turn our attention, of <-ourso, to turnips. 1.'J..'IV>. I want to put this (|Ucstion to you just on the general |x»licy M> far as Scotland is concerned: do you think it would be better to stimulate wheat production in Scotland with tho wheat guarantee — f-ecaune I suppose you will agroo that the oat guaran- tee u simply complementary to the wheat guarantee? — Y«. IM.3C6. It u not the purpose of the State to grow more oaU, but simply because if you give a wheat guarantee you have to give an oat guarantee to land. That i* the position, is it not? — To give a •op to Scotland, as it w • .ll". .lust the inual i;»i(/ ;ml lu the natural coiitsc which was found profitable ami useful in the development of the land prior to the war or that it ought to lie diverted into wheat cultiva- tion f I'l-obably if we bad the conditions the same now as «e had in I'.H.'t with our ci.sts well in hand, assuming there was a reMOBSUo profit, we might go on in Scotland without any guarantees whatever, hut I think you will have a larger proportion of land laid down to grass in litl'll and IH'.M than you had iii I'.H.'t and I'.MI unless you have some so: guarantee owing to the fact thai your costs a- heavy and that the price of your produce is likell to come down. I.'J.3">9. Have you seen any indication of any largo return of grass in that way!- I ha\e some indication of it here in the Board of Agriculture figures which liear out what I have IH-CII urging. In 191!) the per- manent grass in Scotland not for hay was 1,199,000 acres. In 1918 it was 1 . I'.S.OIK), so that tin-re was a considerable increase in t)i- of permanent pasture in one year between 1!HS and 1919. IH, 360. Do you consider that the war cultivation will be kept up even with guarantees:' That is open to doubt. 1 think that on the whole guarantees would have a tendency to keep up the arable cultivation. 1 know that Scotchmen to-day are saying they will not expend money on their buildings and on further permanent improvements unless they see some assur- ance in front of them. 13,361. Do you think it is economically desirable to up the war cultivation that we had in Scotland r Is there not a considerable proportion of land which under war conditions we put under the plough which economically would be better under grass? — I think I have already admitted that the land in Scotland from which the poorer returns were jiot might go down. 13.302. Kven with a system of guarantees it ought to go down? — Quite, but we have not exhausted 1 1m- possibility of the land yet. In Scotland itself \oii find there is a more intensive system of cultivation than prevails in other parts. That is brought about by more modern methods of maturing cattle and -.. on — putting them through quickly— and by the general intensification and speeding up of the system. My whole argument is to intensify agriculture. It you do that you will probably find that there is a lot of land which is considered to-day to be not worth cultivating for arable, but which is probably worth cultivating for arable when you get the proper con- ditions. 13,363. Do you think tho guarantee is absolutely essential to bring that land into cultivation? — Along with other things advocated in my jn' l.'l.:«;i. Would the other things, together with the guarantee have the effect of bringing that land into cultivation? — If you take the- Scottish farm to-da\ as laid out for arable cultivation, and supposing the tenant had security of tenure and all these other things, would he lay out his money in the 1. the situation which exists just now? My answer is that it is very doubtful: I think not. l.'J.. '«',:.. My doubt is whether he would lay out tin- money oven with a guarantee? — He might' not. 13,366. So that ex en then it is pretty much a risk it \<>u d<> nut suggest a method of - •ompelling him t:i lay his land out. Tho guarantee xvould have no u|M>n him:- That is so unions you make tho price sufficiently high to compensate him. Hut that is not the way xve contemplate jt that, you are going to make it so high that it xvill compensate him for the price at which he has produced it MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 14 October, 1919.] MR. JAMES GARDNER. [Continued. 13.367. I think you laid a good deal of stress in your evidence upon the effect of the equipment of the farm on production. If yo'u are going to have the equipment brought into a condition which will give y:m the maximum production that will necessarily moan that there must be an increase in the return to the landlord ? — Undoubtedly. 13.368. An increase proportionately greater than he was getting in the year 1914 when the returns were not sufficient to enable him to put up that equipment? — That would naturally follow. 13.369. How much of the guarantee would be left to the farmer in that case? — I am not much of a statis- tician. I think your argument is quite good, but it is a bit extended out, is it not ? 13.370. The reason why landlords were not putting money into tbeir estates in Scotland was that a financial return was not sufficient — according to your own statement? If a landlord could get 5 per cent, on his outlay on the land he considered that he was doing fairly well?— I do not say he considered he was doing well. 13.371. He carried on at that? — He carried on. 13.372. If you are going to get him to sink money in the equipment of land then the amount of return he is going to get must lie considerably greater than he had before the war, and with the high costs of equipment and so on it means that the rents must be very considerably increased before it would be worth the while of the landlord to put his money into the equipment of the land? — It might mean that, hut I prefer to view it as a whole. Take the occupy- ing owner — the question as between the occupying owner and the tenant as a whole. 13,37.'!. What proportion of the farms in Scotland are held by occupying owners? — Not a very large pro- portion, but it is becoming more enormous day by day. The men I meet are mostly occupying owners, and the question seems to present itself to them with great force, and they are not prepared to go on with further arable equipment unless there is a clear declaration of policy. 13,374. I think you stated in reply to a Commis- sioner that the Scottish farmer did not want to heroine an occupying owner — that he prefers to be a tenant? — If he can get security of tenure. 13.37:). If then- is security of tenure the occupying owner class will not tend to increase greatly? — No, it will not. 13.37t>. So that if we carry out the policy of the Farmers' Union including the subsidy we may look forward to a great increase in the number of tenant farmers?- > • I.'!. .'(77. So that if the landowner is going to equip the land he must Kot a larger rent? — He must neces- sarily get a larger rent. I3.37H. Have you discounted at all from the result- ing confidence the guarantee will give to the farmer the amount of tin- increase of rent such a policy will bring about? I think tin- intention of the guarantee is to assure the landlord that his money will not be .swept away altogether and not so much that he will get an increased rent. The idea is that his outlay a ml his money may not be wasted. I3,37!t. It the guarantee is going to bring about the necessary equipment of the farms it is not merely a question of the land owners' money being swept away ; it is a question of the money being found from the tenant? — It must he found from the land. 13.3*0. The landowner must find it from the tenant, and. therefore, that means a very much increased rent?— Yes. I3.3H1. Do you think that the farmers in Scotland are contemplating a very much increased rent? — I think they would auree to a certain amount of in- e if the owners will provide efficient buildings, and the drainage is made thoroughly efficient. Speak- ing for myself, 1 would agree to an increase of rent under those conditions, and I think it would be only fair that the rents should be increased if that is done. l.3..'iM2. A good many of tho estates in Scotland are hr.ndcd, and if this policy is carried out, and the tenant, thereby is placed in a position in which he wast give aa increase rent, what guarantee can you give to the community that the increased return to the landlord will be spent in the equipment of the/ estate? — Of course you have County Executive Com- mittees and I understand they will have the owner as well as the farmer in mind with regard to the question of the equipment of the estate. 13.383. Let us just take one of the items which have hitherto been a common part of the equipment of estates in Scotland — the housing of the workers. I think it is on public record in the report of a Commission that the Housing Acts have not been carried out so far as the estates in Scotland are con- cerned?— You mean the present Housing Act? 13.384. No, I am referring to the Housing Acts prior to the passing of the rec/ent Act, and I suggest to you that the whole course of the Housing ^cts from 1892 onwards have never been carried out so far as the estates in Scotland are concerned. The reason given has been that the landlords have not been able to do it I'—Yes. 13.385. Have you any evidence to show that the reason why the estates are bonded has been because of the agricultural position, and not because the rents have been drawn from the estates and spent other- wise?— I think I understand the drift of your ques- tion. Undoubtedly many landlords who bought estates bought them probably at the agricultural value, but there are many men who have bought larg» estates in the last 60 years at much more than the agricultural value. In addition to the purely agri- cultural value there is sporting and amenity value, and considering it from a purely agricultural point of view it may l>e said that those men paid not an economic price tor their land. I think that answers your question. 13.386. Is it within your knowledge that many of the estates are bonded and that the money the owners got from the bonding of their estates was not used for the equipment of the estate but was spent in other ways? Chairman : Do you think the witness can know that of his own knowledge? Mr. T)iinrnn : I do not think anyone living in Scot- land can be without knowledge of it. Clniii nnin : I do not know that the witness can nv.swer of his own knowledge whether a landlord wh,> has lx>r rowed money on his estate in Scotland has spent that money in riotous living or in any other way. I am afraid the witness could not give useful evidence on that point?- My answer to Mr. Duncan's question would be this : I suggest that the County Agricultural Executive Committees will take into their purview in the future not only the duties of the tenant, but also the duties the landowner will have to perform in regard to his land. 13.387. Mr. Duncan: If the landlord does not spend his money on equipping his estate, what power will there be to see that the estate is properly equipped? — We have not got that length yet seemingly, but I have no doubt if w<> do come to an obstruction or a stono v all of that kind we will have to get over it or round it or through it. 13.388. I think you stated that there ought not to be any .statutory interference with the working hours of Scottish farms. May I put it to you in this way; if the State decides to limit the working day for work- men in this country what reason would the employers in agriculture give why they should be more favour- ably treated than employers in other industries? — There is more than one reason. Probably the main reason is the seasonal character of the agricultural industry; you have so much broken time because of frost or wet weather or drought. That is why I prefer to have an overhead wage for the worker right throughout the year independent of weather. 13.389. If the State decides that the hours of labour are to be limited and leaves the application of the principle of the limitation of hours to the employers and the workmen in tho industry, would that meet your objection so far as seasonal and weather condi- tions are concerned? — I am sorry I did not quite catch that. 13.390. If the State decides to legislate on the prin- ciple that the working week is to be limited to a certain number of hours, and leaves it to the em- ployers and workmen in the industry to work out so ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 14 Octabrr, 1919.] MB. JAMES UARDNKR. [Continued. the trttcm by which the principle is to be applied to the particular industry, would that meet the objwtion of tho employers in ngrii nlture, — that in to •*y> R'vo them tlie flexibility «lmli would enable them tn c«'i li'iiger working hours at certain p- of the year and the power to decide what n of overtime is to be allowed in the industry • S.. long M the master* and the men can decide these in through the Conciliation Committees themselves, I think it would be most unwise of the Government to interfere and lay down any set number of working hours in agriculture. But your question, of course, goes further. You say if a stated number of hours per week is laid down or a stated number of Lours per year is laid down, the employers and the em- ployee*, being at liberty, arrange among themselves for shorter or longer periods of leisure. If that is left to them individually to settle, my answer to the question would be this: if the State did lay down a limitation of hours within those two periods,- they might not be sufficient, having regard to the exigencies of agriculture. In a general industrial policy, tho laying down of hours and wages for the general industry of the country, it must be recog- nised that agriculture occupies a peculiar position from the fact that there is so much stock rearing and earing-for to be taken into account. Your pro- position certainly does leave a way out, but my fear is. speaking for the farmers, that there would not bo within the limits of those periods a sufficient time to enable the men to take proper charge of the stock and to look after the stock. That is my fear, and I say that any statutory interference with the hours of labour in agriculture is, in my opinion, a very dangerous policy, because you have the question of tho whole of the stock of the country hanging upon it. 13.391. If we are to take it that the view of the employers in agriculture is that the workmen in their employment are to be less favourably treated by the State than workers in other employments, do you think it likely that agriculture will be able to obtain the best class of workmen in competition with other industries? — If you say they are less favourably treated they would not get the best class of workers, but my suggestion for getting over that difficulty is for the Government to consider agriculture separately on its merits, bearing in view the peculiar difficulties relating to agriculture. They require to consider the agricultural industry on its merits apart from other industries altogether. 13.392. I suppose you will agree that for the last 30 years in Scotland* there has been a steady drifting of agricultural workers from the rural areas into other industries? — Yes, that has always obtained more or leas. 13.393. And that tho principal difficulty is not merely because of tho number of workmen who leave agri- culture, but because the more enterprising and more virile of the workers tend to leave moro rapidly than the secondary workers? — That is perhaps too sweeping a statement in my estimation as regards Scotland. There is a certain amount of truth in it that the best, probably, and more enterprising of our young men have gone to our Colonies and Dependencies and into situations in the towns. I am well aware of that fact, but it has obtained always, and there is a very fair class of men remaining. 13.394. I should be the last one to suggest that there is not a fair class of man remaining, but I think you will agree the difficulty is to keep the workmen in agriculture in competition with other industries?- — I should admit broadly that the agricultural worker — a* I have said many a time — must be treated as well, taking him over the average of the year, as the industrial worker, or you will not have as good a claw of worker. 13,306. Would you also agree that the difficulty has beon greatest in those departments of agriculture where the hours have been longest — for instance, in the dairy trade. It is more difficult to get workers on dairy farms, and to get the proper amount of labour for dairy farms, than it is in tho ca arable farms? — Undoubtedly. 13,396. Anything which places the workman in a less favourable position, particularly if it were done by statutory enactment, would be likely to react un- favourably on the wh»lt< industry? — I think everyone is aware that agriculture cannot be treated on in- dustrial workers' line*. 1 think evcrxniie in the industry, workers and employers alike, are quite well aware of the special reasons why agriculture must be considered as a separate question from the matter of Mrict hours of labour. Tho conditions must be taken as a whole, including hours and other matters. 13,397. I do not think I suggested that they should be treated on the same terms as other industries, but that tho industry should be left free to work out its own arrangements? — Yes; but you see within cer- tain limits. 13,3!>S. I think you stated that your wages bill in 1911 was £1,100, and in 1918 £3,000?— Roughly, £1,133 in 1911, and about £3,000 in 1918. 13.399. Was there practically the same staff?— Practically the same staff. 13.400. Is not that increase rather more than the increase in the rate of wages in your district during that time? — I believe it is, because, to explain that matter, part of the rise was accountable in the last two years, 1917 and 1918, to the extraordinarily bad season in the latter part of the season, but especially in the harvest and potato lifting season in 1918. 13.401. You had more actual labour employed? — I had more money spent in casual labour. 13.402. But the increase in the rate of wages has not been proportionately so high ? — Not quite so high as my figures seem to indicate, but a certain amount of it goes to the extraordinarily bad conditions we had in the fall of the year in 1918. 13.403. There is one point I want to clear up. I think you said, in reply to a question which Mr. Walker put to you, that your experience was that you had not had an increase in production per unit of labour employed in re-ent years? — No. 13.404. But I think you will agree that, taking Scotland generally, tho number of workers employed during the war pretty steadily decreased. Taking Scotland as a whole, was not the recruiting from agriulture greater than the recruiting to agriculture either from the younger workers or outside workers? — I have not the figures. 13.405. I put it to you that there uas a considerable decrease in the number of workers employed : would you be prepared to accept that statement? — I would be prepared to accept that statement from you. 13.406. And that you had an increase in production as a whole. You had more land under the plough, and you had more work actually being done on Scottish farms, whether it was tho same quality or not, which resulted in a greater production in the mass from the farms? — I am rather afraid that a great deal of that increased production came from land that was broken out of grass. You see in our ordinary cropping rotation before, that off the roots and potatoes meant a very groat deal, whereas you started right off your grass with more fertility in it. A good deal of that production you sjx-ak of would come from tho fertility contained in the soil. 13.407. But it did mean that the smaller staff of workers was actually getting through more work than during the war period? — I certainly should never agree to that statement, because I know in my own case they were working very well before the war. Tho workers were always doing a good day's work In-fore the war, and they certainly worked no harder. I can only speak for my own place, that they worked as well as they could, but certainly not harder. 13.408. Your experience does not tally with the general experience in the country, and I am going to suggest to you that the reason is that prior to tho war you had your farm staff so organised that you getting pretty well the maximum output from them; and that what has taken place during tho war \i-.f been through the shortage of labour and tho IN put mi Hi" farmers for increased production. and tin-re has been a better organisation of the labour supply available. The farmers had been making iii'ire'usc of it. taking Scotland generally? — It may be the case. I.'MOO. To put it briefly, on a number of farms in ml the best use waa not made of the- labour. and there was a good deal of slack time which ought MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 31 U October, 1919.] MR. JAMES GAKDNEK. [Continued. not to have occurred. There was faulty organisation on the part of a certain proportion of the farmers in getting the best use of their labour? — Pre-war? 13.410. Pre-war; and during the war the pressure did speed them up to make better use of their labour!' — I should not agree to the statement that the Scottish farmers were not getting the best out of their labour pre-war. 13.411. I am not suggesting that they were speeding up their men in a wrong way. As a matter of fact, I think you would agree that it is very often the worst organiser of labour who gets least out of his men and works them in a fashion that produces most friction ? — Undoubtedly. 13.412. And that there is a possibility, even without increasing the labour supply, of getting more output by better organisation of the labour supply:' — Un- doubtedly. 13.413. Just a question now about the Wages Com- mittee. You have had experience both of the Statu- tory Wages Committee and of the voluntary method that we had in operation before the Corn Production Act was passed. From your experience as an em- ployer and as Chairman of the Committee, do you think that the method of the Wages Committee with a statutory minimum rate in Scotland has been of any advantage to the industry or to the workmen ? — None at all, so far. 13.414. If I put it that the cost for a year of these Committees works out to about £6,000, do you think that is a justifiable expenditure of public money? — It might come to be of use in future when wages are falling and there is a plentiful supply of labour. 13.415. I put it to you, taking your own district, the minimum rate fixed was probably about 12s. a week below the market rate at the present time. Do you think there is much defence in a system which guarantees a workman 12s. lees than he can get in the open market:1 — I am bound to say that up till now the workmen on the Minimum Wages Com- mittee have not taken very much interest in it, or been very much alarmed by any decision it might come to. They have been very well aware that the wages they could get were above the minimum wage, and they did not bother their heads much about it. 13.416. And that, so far as the workmen in Scotland are concerned, they are quite prepared to stand on their own feet without any guarantee from the State ao far as their conditions are concerned? — Absolutely. 13.417. Mr. EtlucarJi: I am exceedingly interested in your evidence, but I am not quite sure that my mind is running in the same direction as yours with regard to guaranteed prices, and I have been sitting here throughout the Commission. I do not find that you in your precis or in your programme on this paper put very great weight on guaranteed prices. You say here: " In the event of the Government adopting a policy of import duties on manufactured articles and free imports of foodstuffs, there should be a guarantee by the State of prices." That is, you seem to suggest in your programme that the guarantee is a condition upon protection being adopted in the country? — That is so. 13.418. In the event of protection of other indus- tries not being adopted, do you still adhere to the policy of guaranteed prices? — I still maintain that if the community desires arable farming, the guarantee is one effective method for preventing arable land from going back to grass*. 13.419. Do you think that the guarantee of itself will be sufficient to prevent the land getting into grass?-— It would have that effect. Much of it would go into grass. The poorer land would go down to grass, as probably it may deserve to go, in the mean- time. A great deal of land that would go down to grass would bo kept under the plough. 13.420. Yes ; but you yourself said that the kind of guarantee you would require would be one below the cost of production? — Yes. 13.421. And yet you see at the present moment we have maximum prices much above that, and still you have land in Scotland, and it is the same in Wales, where I come from, going back to grass. How do you think that a guarantee below the cost of production will prevent the land going to grass when we find the maximum prices at present prevailing failing to keep the land from going back to grass? — It might help some of the better class of land is my answer. It may be that the land giving the smallest return will go back to grass. 13.422. You said yourself just now that the best land would be cultivated in any case? — In any case. 13.423. Then what effect would the guarantee have? — On that land it would not have any effect, but it would have an effect on the secondary land. 13.424. If the guarantee will fail to keep the poor land and if the good land in cultivation will be culti- vated in any case, it is simply the medium land from which you expect to find any results at all? — There is a tremendous lot of that land. 13.425. You speak continuously about the com- munity and the Government. Do you think it is wise from a farmer's point of view with the present temper of the community, for the farmers to approach the State and say : ' ' We will not carry on our business unless we get a guarantee"? — But we do not say that at all. 13.426. But you admit yourself that the farmers are doing well ; and we must admit that at the present moment the rents are rising, and you admit yourself that the guarantee will tend to raise rents? —Yes. 13.427. In view of those facts, do you really think the community will be convinced that the policy of guaranteed prices is a sound one for the nation? — I do not see any unsoundness about it. 13.428. You spoke also with regard to the stagnant state of agriculture in this country due to the condi- tions. I should like to have a full explanation of the conditions you refer to which are the cause of the stagnation of the agricultural industry in this country, as compared with the prosperity of agri- culture in other countries which you mentioned? — First of all, you have your tremendous influx of foreign grown cereals, and the cheap freight was part of the cause of that. Then you had your system of tenure, which is not good, and then you had the lack of any interest in agriculture as shown by the whole of the community, and it was allowed gradually to peter out and gradually become derelict. One of these causes, the flooding of the country with foreign merchandise, was quite sufficient to do the whole thing of itself without any of the other con- ditions; but if you had these different reforms which are proposed in my precis working, you would have several factors all tending towards the resuscitating of agriculture. I say the guarantee without those other things would be purely an ineffective remedy, but along with the others it would be an effective one. 13.429. So you think the guarantee by itself is not sufficient in order to develop the industry on proper lines in the future? — By no means. It would prac- tically be of no use whatever without other matters. It is only one of several means. 13.430. You spoke just now about occupying owners and the effect of the guaranteed price and so forth on them. Are you aware, in regard to that point, that we in this country are in a peculiar position as compared with any other country in the world?— am aware that the occupying ownership in Great Britain is about 12 per cent, as against 88 per cent., say, of tenant farmers, and the other way about with regard to some Continental countries. I am aware of that fact from Professor Middleton's account of Ger- man agriculture, as we all are. 13.431. And you appreciate that such protection to agriculture as the guarantee of prices and so forth will have an entirely different effect under our con- ditions as compared 'with what they were getting in Germany under their conditions? — An entirely dif- ferent effect. 13.432. I mean on the man operating the land? — si ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 14 October, MR. JAMES GARDNEIL nued. There ar.' two men in thin country operating. In (.1, Miian-, under the tenure »y»tcm there u prac- tically nil.-, but tin' eld 1 1 would bo the same on the two as it would bo on the one. The effect is a ro- vivif ying effect on the industry; at Icait, the assur- ance against lo* and the development of the industry. 13,433. I should liko to be quite clear on this point. You have already admitted that the result of taking. SH\, the medium land as a basis for the guarantee w ill be tbut the rents of the best land will rise consider ably and leave the farmer practically in the same posi tion as before. You (aid that, I think? — Yea. IM l.'tl Then do you not see that if we were a nation of occupying owners the result will be that all the l-ciicht will go to the innn handling the land; that is the operator of the farm)' — You mean he would get the benelit ? l:t.4.'{.'>. Y. •> - He would be entitled to that because he has the extra capital in it as well. He would be entitled to the double benefit because he has the double risk. 13.436. You admit, therefore, that our system of landlord and tenant, and especially the yearly tenancy system under which we work, complicate the question considerably as compared with the state of affairs in Germany and other Continental countries ? — I can- not see that it does. 1 favour the system of tenancy in Great Britain as against the system of the occupy- ing ownership. I say the system of tenancy has not yet had a fair chance to work; and it is a distinct advantage for a man. especially for a young blood ming into agriculture, to be able to enter a farm on tenancy rather than have to purchase the holding or to take up tenant right or anything of that kind by a large expenditure of capital. If you can leave tin' tenant's capital over for the development of his hold- ing, it is undoubtedly better for his own sake, if you can give him a fair measure of security of tenure; and it is better for the community. 13.437. How ran you say that, in view of the fact that agriculture seemed to have suffered from the depression which you referred to in this country more than in almost any other country in the world? — Because the other countries were not allowed to go to the wall. Germany had a modified form of protec- tion. She also had a tremendous system of research. Shi- spent no end of money on re-parch. She made an organised effort to use the lirain power of her scientific men and men of the best ability who considered the matter. They put their heads together and drafted a scheme, and the whole thing became one con. effort to get the agricultural industry into a safe position, and they succeeded. They not only succeeded in making agriculture successful, but they helped to make industrial enterprise in their country MI« by reason of that, by one re-acting on the other. It .seem* to me in this country whenever tin- question of agricultural prosperity comes up it is always pitted :. gainst industrial prosperity, us if tho one w<-rn against tho other. That is when- we make the. mistake. 'Iliey mutually help each other; and if tho advice of men who ^o in for research and study matters were tak.'ii more in this country and u cert-cd scheme of action was lollowd. >mt only in ngricultuie, but in regard to industries outside agri- culture, you would have a very much greater success. 13,43S. Mr. tailed the period from 1853 to 1864 the " Golden Age of British Farm- ing." Prices were relatively high, nnd tho laltourera wore getting 9s, and 10s. a week, nnd sometimes week. During the eighties and nineties wages were 11s. and 12s. a week; and from T-01, when the pric- of corn touched its lowest point of L'lV. KM.. Hayes began to rise. I simply wanted to make that point clear as to whether you agreed that was M>, that thore has been very little relationship between wages and prices? — There certainly was no relation lx'twe common in all indus- tries. My only point is that in taking the items under the bonding of costings it doos not necessarily follow that they give actual results? — They might not reconcile to a penny, but they give results which would reconcile so closely that they may bo accoptod as accurate. 14,346. It would bo possible, would it not, by taking tho figures of cost to get a result which would .show a loss whereas in the actual trading thero might !>•> :i profit? Not if the costings are accurate. 1 I ,'i!7. Surely the costing is only nn estimate of what thw thing is likely to bo. In tho actual working out thero might l>o economic, effected which would prod jre different results? If you are speaking of the estimated costs so far ns tboy exist to-day T am inclined to agree with you. but our ovporionoo, in 26370 ascertaining the costs put before you has been such that the financial results have agreed so closely as to enable us to rule out the difference. 1 4,:{H. I hat would be in a limited number of cases? — It is in the only case where we have reconciled the financial results with the estimated costs. 14,3-1.'. llav you ever heard of cases "where esti- mates of costs have lieon made and tho production sold at cost and yet a profit having been made on 'the business? — No, 1 cannot say I have. 14.350. I have? — It might exist, but in that case the estimates were very far out. 14.351. In the carrying out there were economies effected far beyond the estimate of cost, and, therefore, a profit was made? — In that case you are taking a look into the future. We have been endeavouring to ascertain costs of what has happened in the past, and, therefore, the economies were already effected, and should properly have been given credit for in the cost prepared by the farmer. 14.352. In making an estimate even in regard to the past the estimate is in reference to different crops, is it not? — That is so. 14.353. Does not the work so overlap that it is necessary to make adjustments in order to get the separate figures, and in making those adjustments would there not have to be allowances made and so on? — These are really estimates, but they do not affect the financial results because the same estimates are taken or ought to be taken into account in the financial books. 14,364. WouJd you agree that the only real test as to the actual results in farming would be from a balance sheet? — That is the only real proof of the figures. 14.355. In your enquiries amongst the Scottish farmers have you come across any cases where balance sheets are kept? — Yes, we have. 14.356. Would it be possible for the Commission to have any information in that respect? — T might add hero that it was the intention of the Farmers' Union to submit to the Commission information as to the financial results of farming, but that involved a more detailed enquiry than was made in connection with the costs. It would have been necessary before we C M ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 15 , 1919.] ALLISON, Js*., McNicoL, STIWABT, DAVIDUM, [CoMtiniifil. .ubmilted those financial results to hm. toted tin- ts mill probably to have hud a |>.irti.il aiulil in in order tn eliminate it<-iiK wliirli pr..p.-il\ •peaking were not a charge against tin- trading. At we had n.it time to do that wo delayed our financial results in onl.T to ascertain the wish of tin- Commission on the matter 14.S57. If it was th.- desire of this Commission in regard to its future sittings wjiich might have greater application to what might be termed a permanent poli.-y rather than a temporary position would it bo possible to have, balance sheets placed before ua of farms?-— Wo think NO. and in raara where balance sheets do not exist we were prepared to make those up from the formers' records. 14.358. In regard to the tables of figures with refer- ence to the trading account you make an allowance of 15 per cent, for depreciation on implements? — Yes. 14.359. You also include all repairs and renewals. Do you not think if you aro going to bring in all your expenditure under repairs that 15 per cent, is a high figure for depreciation? — In taking a figure for depreciation I have had to be guided by the experience of practical farmers with those imple- ments, and notwithstanding that repairs and renewals are allowed for, it is the usual practice to allow a sum for depreciation. One has always to bear in mind the application of obsolescence to those implements. 14.360. Has that arisen very much in farming? — The general opinion is that your implements do go out of date very rapidly. That is the experience also in other industries. 14.361. I thought that there had not been that development in mechanical science so far as agri- culture is concerned to bring the implements on to a level in that respect? — I cannot speak as to that. 14.362. Would you agree as an accountant that 15 per cent, is a generous figure to put forward after having allowed for nil repairs and renewals? — No, I would not think it was generous; I think it is a reasonable figure in view of the fact that these imple- ments are out of doors and there is a more rapid depreciation on articles of that kind than machinery which is under cover. 14.363. One is always surprised to hear this because at some of the sales that have taken place one has heard farmers state how well they have sold their implements after they have had them for a number of years. That does not look as though agricultural implements depreciated very rapidly? — That is com- mon to all things at present, because of the reduced value of money. 14.364. But still if the implements fetch a greatly enhanced nriep it does not look at though they depreciated very quickly? — Provided the implement is not obsolete. 14.365. With regard to Statement No. IX on page 7, you hare " Allowanced £200." Would you givo us an explanation of what that refers to? — That refers to allowunew in kind which are made to the farm ser- vants. It is a credit to the trading account on tin* one side and a dohit on the other. You will aee under wage* the allowance* of £200 have been included. Those hate been made up as accurately aa possible taking the actual quantity of goods allowed to the ploughmen and servants in Scotland nt the cost price. 1 I :W>. Look at the next item, food consumed by bone*. On what basis do you value, that; is it at market price or at cost? — We have endeavoured to value it at close to cost price; it is not intended to value it nt market price. 14,367. What if. this actual figure based upon? — It is baaed upon the farmers estimate of his cost price of the foodstuff consumed — that is the foodstuff grown on the farm. 14,968. It is on an estimate of cost, not on market price f— Yen. 14.369. Mr. I'nrkrr. I notice in the first paragraph of your evidence yon say you rave been responsible during the part vear for the audit of the accounts of many farms? — Ye». 1 1.1)70. Doe* that moan that no accounts have been k.-pt helot.- hist vear'r That is so. 14.371. What is it that is indiiiing farmers to keep IK i. unit-, inm:- The payment of Income Tax on double their rent that it* their n-ason. 14.372. Then-lore. \uu have not much evidence to gi\e us \\ith ii-gard to th,> past? — None so far a» these farms that I speak of are concerned. 1 l :CH. Some of the gentli-mon who have associated with you have touelu.l ujxni tin- deteriorat ion of the land in their evidence. Have you, in estimating futur. M-ider<-d nt all what t!ia; nn -.;• we have not taken that into account; we have been dealing with the costs of 1918. 1 1.374. Has Mr. Stewart or Mr. Me Nicol con- sidered that point? Have vou considered owing to the deterioration of the land how much per acre it will cost to restore it to its pre-war fertility?— -(.Mr. Stewart): That is very difficult to say; it would matter of estimate. 14,375. You would agree there is a great deal of cleaning of the land to be done, and fertility to be restored by the greater use of manure? — I agree. 14.37G-7. Which would cost considerable sums in the next two or three years? — Yes. (Mr. Allison) : In making enquiry into this one or two farmers gave me an estimate of the position with regard to deteriora- tion. One farmer says it will take £150 to get his drainage right — it has deteriorated to that ex That is a sheep farm, 43 acres arable and 531 pasture In another case the farmer says the land has become more foul and that the steadings require attention. Ho says £200 will be required to put it right. That is a farm of 440 acres, 240 of which is arable and 200 pasture. There are one or two others I can give if they are of any interest to you. 14.378. From the evidence you have collected it is clear that considerable sums will be required to restore the land to pre-war fertility ? — Yes. Here is a farmer who farms 946 acres. 500 arable the remainder pasture, who says that the arable land will require an average expenditure of at least £6 per acre to bring it up to pre-war condition. 14.379. Mr. McNicol also touches upon the shorter hours of labour. Have you considered at all what that means in the future cost of production?- -(.V r. .Vi-.Y/W) : We have considered it to a limited extent. We do not know what the proposals are, whether the hours are to be shorter or longer or remain the same. We have had experience this year of a reduction of hours, and we find that the shortage is already increasing the costs to a certain extent. 14.380. You have not considered what the percentage is? — No. We have not gone into it in percentages. 14.381. You know it must increase your cost, but you cannot give us the percentage of the iner- We have not attempted to do so in the meantime. 1 1.332. Further with regard to future costs has anvone considered what the increase of rates will me. in— the education rate for instance? — (Mr. Mlixon): No. that has n;>t been taken into account. 14,383. That is going to be a heavy burden, is it not?— (Mr. .Ve.VicoJ): Yes. 11.334. The fact that farmers have been buying their own land is common knowledge among farmers. nnd it has been pointed out that the purchase of a farm by tho tenant will reduce the available capitM for working the farm? — Yes. 14,385. That is a serious matter, is it not?— Very serious. 14.3^6. Have you considered at all what guarantee would satisfy Scotch farmers and induce them to keep their land under the plough? — Do you mean a guarantee of price? 11.337. Yes? — Mr. Gardner has already touched upon that, and so far as the Union is concerned, we abide by what he has already said. I do not think t lii-re is a general call for a guarantee of profit. 11.338. No, but have you considered what figure tin- guarantee should be for wheat and oats? — Under what circumstances? 14.389. If the Government say that they wish the land kept under tho plough and wish to see a larger MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 35 15 October, 1919.] MESSRS. ALLISON, JNR., McNicoL, STEWART, DAVIDSON, MCLAREN. [Continued. rural population on the land? — Is that to be com- pulsory? If thej; say they want it under the plough, is there to be any form of compulsion or anything? 14.390. I am afraid I cannot say what the policy of the Government will be — you have not considered what the guarantee should be? — We wish a guarantee nearly up or up to the cost of production to save a big slump such as took place in former years. 14.391. You wish the guarantee to cover the bare coet of production and not to provide anything in the way of profit or remuneration to the farmer? — That is so. 14.392. Mr. Nicholls: I want to ask you a question, Mr. Allison, arising out of a passage in paragraphSof your precis. You say, " It has been felt by my Committee that the farmers approached have not grasped the purpose of the enquiry." What is the point there? — (Mr. Allison): The point i.s that in endeavouring to secure costs of production we have tried to obtain the costs from all farmers under the same conditions. We have found that some farmers give us the costs so far as they apply to their own particular crop or their treatment of that crop. For example, in dealing with potatoes, most farmers pit their potatoes ; other farmers sell them on the land. Some farmers have given us their costs based on simply selling the potatoes on the land ; others including all the expenditure of pitting them. That is merely one example. We have not obtained them on uniform lines, and if we had had more time to conduct the enquiry we would have been able to eliminate a lot of those factors which disturb the equalisation of the costs. 14.393. Then I notice you say : " The enquiry has been further complicated by the fact that it has not been possible to obtain costs from what might be termed the less successful class of farmer "? — Yes, that is our belief. 14.394. So that, really, you have got the cases of the successful men? — We think so, judging by results and judging by the production per acre that has been shown on the crops. In the case of potatoes, we made a detailed enquiry into the cost of their production per acre in order to be quite sure that thov wore r-orrcct. and these figures have been very slightly amended in one or two cases. The produc- tion per acre is higher for these men than in the Board of Agriculture figures. Consequently, we assume from that we have the successful men. 14.39.1. Mr. Ltnnard: Am I right, Mr. Allison, in assuming that in your evidence-in-chief by a quarter you mean 480 imperial Ibs. in the case of wheat and 312 imperial Ibs. in the case of oats? — No, 504 Ibs. in the case of wheat, 336 in the case of oats, and 448 the other one. 14,39G» Your estimates of costs are derived from from 15 farmers in the case of oats? — Yes. 14.397. The average cost per quarter of 336 imperial Ibs., as estimated by these 16 farmers, works out at just under 4fis. fiid., does it not? — I have not worked out the average figure, but I will accept that from you. 14.398. In the case of wheat your costs are derived from estimates made by 12 farmers? — Yes. 14.399. The average cost per quarter works out at 61s. 8Jd.?— That is right. 14.400. That is for a quarter of 504 Ibs?— Yes. 14.401. A larger quarter than the quarter for which 60s. was guaranteed originally in the Corn Production Act? — You will observe we have kept clear of aver- ages, as we do not like to deal with averages in su^h a small number of farms. 14.402. Yes, I noticed that, but you quoted the highest and the lowest case, and I found on taking verage that the average, if I remember rightly, was lower than the moan of the extremes, BO I thought it was only reasonable that that should be brought out? -Yes." 14.403. I have not bad time to work out the pro- portions between wheat and oats in regard to theso Scotch quarters, but I should like to know from you whether it fs the fart that the ratio of your costs of oats t<> your costs of wheat is greater than the ratio between the guaranteed prices for the two cereals respectively fixed in the Corn Production Act? — We have restricted our enquiry purely to the cost of 26379 production so far as we could ascertain that, and we have not theorised on these figures; we simply give them to you for what they are worth. 14.404. The estimates are for the cost of production in the year 1918? — Yes. 14.405. Have your costs altered much in Scotland this year — when I say have your costs altered, I do not mean your costs per quarter, which are, of course, affected by the poorer yield and the special circum- stances of the season, but the cost of operations apart from those affected by the weather? — The cost per acre? 14.406. Yes, including wages ? — The point that would affect them would be an increase in the cost of raw material, or an increase in the rate of wages. Those are the principal items, but we have not worked out any imaginary cost for 1919 or 1920; but if we as a Union could fix a basis for ourselves we could easily work out the hypothetical cost for 1919 or 1920 based on the increased cost of material or wages. 14.407. Could you make up such an estimate? — • Yes, after ascertaining what the alteration in wages or prices is which affects them. 14.408. You know what the alterations are in the prices this year? — Yes. 14.409. What amount do you allow in your costs for the farmer's management? — Do you refer to the nature of the services allowed for, or the amount allowed for them ? 14.410. The amount allowed for them? — The amount allowed varies. In this particular farm that I am looking at , which is a Renfrewshire farm, the farmer has allowed nothing for management, as he pays nothing for management. 14.411. Is that an estimate?— No, we are dealing with actual figures here. You mean did we allow anything in these costs of production for the services of the farmer? 14.412. Yes, that is what I mean? — We do not; we allow nothing for the services of the farmer. I have always gone upon the basis that the farmer will be remunerated out of his profit. 14.413. Do you deduct the rent of the farmer's dwelling-house from the gross rent of the farm before you apportion the rent to the various fields? — No* that has not been done. It is a question you will always get differences of opinions upon, and the effect of it on farms of the acreages we have would be very slight. 14.414. The effect would be slight if the acreage is largo? — Yes. 14.415. Still it means that under these costs the farmer gets a dwelling-house free? — Yes. 14.416. Just one question which arises out of a question asked you by Mr. Smith. You said just now that the rate of depreciation would be greater in the case of agricultural machinery than in the case of industrial machinery, because, as I understood you, agricultural machinery is exposed to the weather? — Yes. 14.417. I should follow that if the position were similar in other respects, but I suppose you would agree with me that industrial machinery is usually in constant use — sometimes in use night and day — where- as much agricultural machinery is only used for a short period in each year? — It does not follow that the depreciation would be less because of that, unless you are assuming at the same time that the agricul- tural machinery when not in use is being looked after and kept in the same good condition, with a special staff attending to it, but it is not. 14.418. No, but it does mean surely that there is actually more wear and tear because of the constant use of the machinery in the factory than is the caee with agricultural machinery in the field? — There is more wear and tear in the factory. 14.419. Mr. Prosser Jones : Mr. Allison, you told one of the Commissioners that the farms are in rather a bad way owing to the war? — That is the general opinion. 14.420. And it means a considerable outlay to bring the land back into proper condition? — That is so. 14.421. Whose duty would it be to find the money to bring back this land into condition: would it be C 2 M ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. , 1919.] A 1.1. i -v .IM: V. NIOII.. STKWART, DAVIDSON, McL*RiN. <>»«•tatou turn to your cost of production of oatK. the 1918 crop. I see you have got samples from 10 counties in Scotland? — The fifth one of these, namely. Fife, is representative of a large group, alt hough it is only one cost. ll.l.'Ki. Is Fori'ar.sl-.ire the .same.- V. |-'.,r tat -hire is not representative; it represents one form. 1-1,437. Do you think tli.it i .-suits ought to be obtained from other farms, or do you consider it is tt fair representation of the county '•: 1 think the result* aro rcpnis.'Mt.uivv <>f the licst clii.ss of farm in land. The wider the survey, howc\.>r. the more accurate will the figures become. M.I.'iS. v ko these figures as representing conditions roughly in the. county? — You may take them as being representative probably over a reasonable average. 14.439. If you were to group the counties specified here with regard to the rate of wages paid, you might take Forfar and Fife and Perth as the groups in which the highest wages are paid? — ^ 14.440. Would you agree to place Haddingtou and Aberdeen in the last category and the other live counties in the second category? — Yes. 14.441. I do not know whether you have worked out the labour pay in the costs per quarter. We have five instances from the highest wage paying counties, Forfar, Fife and Perth, and out of those five instances '"our of them fell into the lowe-: of labour and the lowest cost per quarter, so that there seems to be a connection between high wages and low costs? — Yes, I agree to that as an accountant from my own experience. 14,4-12. I would like your impression, Mr. McNicol, of what the effect of the last agricultural depression was in your county? — (Mr. McNicol): It had tin- effect of practically ruining many of the farmers in that county. 14.443. What was the effect. Did you turn the arable land into grass? — Not generally. 14.444. You kept on the arable cultivation? — Yes. at reduced rents. 14.445. You say you find overtime is only worked grudgingly by the workers? — Yes, this last year it has been. 14.446. What is your average working week just now? — 50 hours. 14.447. Plus stable work?— Yes. 14.448. How much would that be, would it be one hour a day? — No, not quite. 1 1.-I-U). Is it 4 hours per week or 5 or 6? — I should -av lietween .'! and ) probably I. on an nvern;; the year. 14.450. Counting Sunday? — About 4 counting Sunday. 14.451. That is a 54 hours' week that your men are working ? — Yes. 14, -152. Suppose the shorter working day is < Hishol, say. IS hours for the purpose of argument, do you think that will have a bearing on the i|iit-tion of the willingncsH of men to work overtime? It is a dif- ferent proposition to ask a man to work overtime who is working 54 hours a week from what it is to ask a man to work overtime who is only working a I- hour week Yi quite. 14,4-Vi. Sc. that the uii«ill.ingncsN to work overtime might disappear with the -IS hours? — Yes, it might. II, lot. You would agreu 1 tsuppoue, Mr. Stcwail. with the proposition put forward by your chairman 'clay that the agricultural industry has got to look to education on a very wide scale being intro- duced in the near future? — (Mr. Steinni) • I 14,455. That will cost a good deal of money, the farmers' money as well as other people's? — Yen, certainly. 11. -156. I was interested to soe what your educa- ,! rate in (Vies parish for this year is— £1,4-1'.' a< against £380 last yearP — Yes. Our parish council thought we were being charged too much as compared t.> tln> collieries and other industrial district* in Fife that we wero paving ix>nsiderablv more for the c nut, of education in our parish than what it actually eostfl. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 15 October, 1919.] MESSRS. ALLISON, JNK., McNicoL, STEWAKT, DAVIDSON, MCLAREN. \Continutd. 14.457. I am quite willing to admit that the in- cidence of the rate is very unfair, but what is your solution — not to spend money on education at all? — No, certainly not. 14.458. A reform of the rating system? — Yes. 14.459. Mr. J. M. Henderson: Turning to potatoes, Mr. Allison, how much per ton did the early potatoes realise Last year or this year? — (Mr. AUison) : We have not conducted any enquiry into that, and in preparing those costs we have eliminated any case of early potatoes as it was a special crop. Those potatoes have no earlies amongst them. 14.460. I thought you said one of them had? — No, we have eliminated those in the figures here. 14.461. What is the usual price of ordinary potatoes? — (Mr. Mcyieol): The controlled price was £6 10s. Od. to £8 10s. Od. according to the season they were sold at. 14.462. Was there a controlled price last year? — Yes. (Mr. Stewart) : A lot of farmers have not got paid for their potatoes yet. 14.163. If a farmer told me that last year he sold his potatoes at £10 a ton what would you say to that? — That would be before the control went on in November. 14.464. AVhat would be the price before the control went on? — That price would refer principally to the earlies. 14.465. No, September and October would not? — It would be second earlies. I do not remember what the price was. 14.466. It would he quite possible for a farmer to sell his crop in August, September or October at so much a ton although he had not really raised his potatoes ? — In Scotland they would not be sold per ton ; they would be sold per acre probably. 14.467. What would they be sold at per acre? — I cannot remember just exactly what the general run of acre prices was last year. 1 I. Hi-1. 1 was told distinctly by a farmer who grew potatoes on land which I let to him that he had sold the whole of his potatoes at £10 a ton last yeai •:-- U: Allison): He might have been specially fortunate. (Mr. Mcyieol) : Might I ask whether that was in England or in Scotland? 14.469. That was in England? — We cannot speak of what happens in England. 14.470. I have noticed that whenever there is a big price obtained in England they always manage to get a bigger price in Scotland. However, you cannot tell us anything more than the controlled price? — (Mr. Stewart) : Immediately before the control came on they were cheaper. I forget the price exactly. The case you refer to might have been the case of a farmer who sold his potatoes early in the season when his crop was immature and possibly he was entitled to a higher price per ton. 14.471. As practical Scotch farmers apart from con- trol or with control, what was the price you sold your potatoes at per ton ? — (Mr. McNicol) : The main crop of potatoes in Scotland were under the control and had to be sold at controlled prices — last year's crop. 14.472. Which was £6 10s. Od. a ton?— £6 10s. Od. rising to £8 10s. Od. 14.473. Rising to £8 10s. Od., when?— In May. I 1.-174. It would be quite possible for the farmer to hold over his potatoes until the high price came? — (Mr. Stewart): Yes, but in a great many cases the farmers sold 'their potatoes at much less than the controlled price in order to get quit of them because they would not keep ; that was a common experience in Scotland. 14.475. Why will they not keep? — Certain varieties will keep and others will not. 14.476. Am I to understand from you that where the cost per ton is not over £6 there is a loss? — (Mr. McNicol) : No, because it depends upon when these potatoes are sold. Our estimates are based on potatoes sold. 14.477. Taking the whole of these would you say Scottish farmers made a loss or a profit on their potatoes on the whole market? — I would say they made a profit. 2«370 14.478. Take oats now. Again I put the same question to you : what was the price at which last year's crop of oats was sold last year? — They were Government controlled last year at 47s. 6d. to 51s. 6d. ; in some cases they were sold under those prices ; at certain times of the year we could not get the controlled price in our district. 14.479. Did that controlled price last right into this crop?— (Mr. AUison) : It lasted until June, 1915, when the price was 52s. ; it rose from 47s. 6d. to 52s. 14.480. In all these cases there are only one or two that go beyond 47s. 6d. and there is only one that goes beyond 52s., so that, on the whole, they must have made a profit on the oats? — (Mr. McXicol): Yes. 14.481. What was the controlled price of barley? — 67s. up till November, and then it was raised to 70s., and it was a flat rate after that throughout the season. 14.482. Taking these figures before me, there was only one case where there was a loss of 67s. ; in all the rest there was a profit:' — Yes. 14.483. At 70s. there was only one that showed a small loss. As regards wheat, I see your average grain production in quarters is roughly 5 quarters to the acre? — (Mr. Allison) : It is a littte over 4| per acre. 14.484. I make it 5 quarters. What was that sold at? — The control price was 75s. 6d. in October, 1918, and it rose to 76s. 6d. by the 1st June, 1919. 14.485. At these prices every one of these made a profit?— Yes. 14.486. Does the difference between the, weight of th:> tj'.iai'ter ;a Scotland and England affect these profits at all? — No, that was a price for 504 Ibs. to the quarter. 14.487. Is your six quarters to the acre for No. 1 (in the same quantity, 504 Ibs.?- — Yes. 1-1.488. The English turnout is not up to five (jiiarters? — Yon will bear in mind that the average in Scotland for wheat in 1918 was five quarters. The Board of Agriculture figures show five. (Mr. McNicol) : The wheat in Scotland is practically all grown on the better class of Land — that may help it a bit — and it always follows n green crop, which also helps it. 14,489. Me. ./. M. Henderson: Have you any of the farmers' balance sheets Chairman: I think that has been dealt with. Mr. J. M. Henderson : It has boon dealt with • •ral times, hut 1 have never S«MI any. Chairman: Mr. Allison has stated that ho is pre- pared, when he has time to do so, to present balance sheets to the Commission to support those figures. The urgency with which the figures were required to present costs prevented Mr. Allison from the prepara- tion of balance sheets, but he has promised to obtain those and send them to the Secretaries. U..490. Mr. Green: I am rather interested in your hay costs in paragraph 7. Do these refer to the first or the second or the third year leas? — (Mr. McNicol) : Mostly to the first year's leas, including Timothy hay. 14.491. I was going to ask you whether the cultiva- tion of the first year is put down to the cost of the hay — I mean the ploughing? — (Mr. Allison) : Yes, it is carried forward. The limitation of our paper pre- vented us from showing it in detail, but in each case we have charged the cleaning and the residual value of manures. 14.492. What about the second and the third year? — -If there is anything in the second or third there should bo a credit for it, but in practice it i.s a Very small amount and would hardly affect the cost. 14.493. Did you allow for that in the cost? — No, we have not allowed for that, it is so small ; it is something like one-third of a half of £1 16s. 8d. II. \vonlrl roughly he in that cost about 10s. over 42 cwts. ; it is very -small. 1 I. I!) I. Has the value of the second crop been taken into consideration? — There is no second crop. 14,495. Have you allowed anything for the after- math?— Yes, we have given credit to the crop for the afternwith or the second crop as we call it. C 8 ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 15 Ocl»btr, l'Jl».] ME.KSKS. ALLISON, J.su., M. Nn .«i., STEWART, DAVIDSON, 14.496. It Menu to be a high coat U>r l.iUmr an com- pared to English costs?- (Mi M \ ,i ir'i : Climate may have aomothing to do with that. (.Mr. .lllitun): Our labour u fairly uniform. 14.497. 1 should like to ask Mr. Stewart a question. With regard to draining the land i- it tin- opinion of Ui« National Union of Farmers of Scotland that there should b» fcomo State loan for draining tho html ..- wa» accomplished in 1846, under Sir Robert Pool."— 1 think there should be. A great many fanners and proprietors are not in a position to expend this money. 1 may say that tho general practice in Scot- Und at the present time is for the proprietors to supply the tiles and for the tenant to do the labour. 14.498. Yes, but it is no good one landlord doing it and another landlord not doing it so that it could only be done rationally under the State scheme P— Yes, I agree to that. 14.499. With regard to your statement, Mr. Mc- Nicol about overtime being grudgingly worked, of course one can see your point of view. On the other hand you do not think there is something healthy about the tendency from the point of view of citizen- ship— I mean to say men do not rare to work long hours now-a-days, and probably if they had more leisure they would make better citizens for the State they would have time to educate themselves and think, and so forth? — (31 r. 3lcXicol): It depends exactly on the point of view. It depends a good deal upon the men too. % 14..">00. Here in England we find that many of the workers complain that the farmers do not give them the opportunity to earn overtime. That has been the case especially this last sumn.er during har- I rcinnot .say that is the case in our district. The farmers have generally offered the men overtime. I only eay that in certain instances tide men have grudged to work overtime. 14,501. Do the other farmers lien- this morning agree with you as regards that point? — (Mr. David- ton): My men work overtime very willingly. It is only in a very few cases that we require them to work overtime, such as the busiest times during harvest and turnip hoeing. (Mi. M We cannot ~i. Your estimates, therefore, only refer to a portion of the farmers of Scotland? — Yes. 14,506. Mr. MeNicol, you mention in the last para- graph of your ;./<>M that the rents are not altered except in oases where leases hav« run out and have been renewed and where the IIMM-, have (,,.,.11 i, . the rent* have mostly been raised?— (31 r. Mri-cis, you say that farm buildings, fences, drains, ditches, roads, etc., havo deteriorated and require, attention. In order to make it quite clear in my mind what is the practice in Scotland, I should like to know how you divide that work up as between tho tenant and the owner? — (Mr. Stcicart) : It is partly the tenant's duty and partly the proprietor's duty. In eome cases whore leases have been entered into at the beginning of the war the landlord was not able to execute his part of the contract owing to the want of labour and the work is standing hack. 14.514. What part does the landlord have to do? — The fencing and tho drains. 14.515. What about the ditches?— Except in th.« <:m- of sonic big water-course, the ditches are i ally kept by the tenant. 11.516. And the roads? — The roads are generally kept by tho tenant. 14.517. You say here: "Whether this increased under cultivation is to continue or not is an entirely economic problem." What do you mean hy that? — If the country wants farmers to grow grain, we ran only grow it if it pays us; if it does not pay us in the future we shall have to do the same a.s was done in the time we came through in the past the land will have to revert to grass. That is tho only solution. 14.518. Yon mention about the big rise in the rates in your parish? — Yes. 14.519. I suppose that is going to be a very important factor throughout Scotland in regard to in the future? — Yes. That only refers to the education rate. In our county, I believe, tho road rate and other rates havo also increased enormously — I cannot give you the figures exactly at tho moment. I I..VJO. I havo been given to understand that -h farmers arc very much ahead of either tln> English or the Welsh farmer, and to clarify my mind I should like your opinion on ono or two points that I have noted here. You just mention the question of a guarantee casually. I do not see whether you pui very great weight on a guarantee. Do you think that a men- guaranU-o of prices will prevent ih. land in Scotland going back to grass? — (Mr. .!/• \iVol): I do think the guarantee will prevent •nl going back to grass. (31 r. M< L«ren) : I |K>int out that the men farming inferior land in the hill districts where I am cannot exist without guarantee— I mean he cannot Keep ploughing. II. ''•-'!. 1 think you havo already said that the guarantee you refer to is a guarantee to cover the mere cost of production. Do you mean to say that tho guarantee is to cover the cost of production on tho kind of land farmed by you — the poorest land? — (Mr. McLaren): Not especially on that land. I was just pointing out that that land will go back to grass if there is no guarantee or if some assist : i mi- is not given to the farmer on tho poorest class of land. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 39 15 October, 1919.] MESSRS. ALLISON, JNR., McNicoL, STEWART, DAVIDSON, MCLAREN. [Continued. 14.522. (Mr. McNicol) : We have said definitely that we are not asking for guarantees to guarantee a profit and practically speaking we are not asking for guarantees at all in any case. What we say is this : If the community ask us to continue to plough up and want us to continue to plough on secondary land, if we have no guarantee the probability is that it will not be ploughed. Wo do not want the guaran- tee, but we say if you want that done we shall pro- bably need the guarantee. 14.523. (Mr. Edwards) : By " the community asking you " have you in your mind the continuation of compulsory powers to compel you to plough the land. What have you in your mind ? — No, I do nob say we are asking you to put compulsion upon us to do a certain thing. We say if you wish to keep up the arable acreage there is certain land that will not be kept up properly if prices fall back and the only way to keep that land under the plough is perhaps to give us some form of guarantee. There are other factors that oome in as well as the guarantee: the guarantee alone might not do it. (Mr. Davidson) : If it is in the national interests that the inferior arable land should be cropped and also in order that the country districts may not be depopulated, guaranteed prices are necessary. 14,5^4. How do you expect the community to express its wish? — (Mr. McXicol) i: It has been stated by -Mr. Lloyd George, representing the Government, that he would like to see the land kept under tho plough. Chairman: I think the witness from the Scottish Farmer's Union yesterday dealt with this point very fully indeed. I do not know whether you want to go over it a^ain with these gentlemen. Mr. Edvxtrdt: When we have an opportunity of putting the question to four such' good Scottish farmers as we have now before us, it is well to get it from them also. I'liniriiiiin : I thought their view-, wen- cxpiv.s-.Ml by their Chairman yesterday, but I do not stop tlu> question if you think it well to go over it again. Mr. Ikilhis: I think Mr. Gardner at various times said ho was only expressing his individual opinion. 14. 525. Mr. Kilintrda: Mr. McLaren, you said tlic poorest land would go out of cultivation unless some price were guaranteed. Do you recognise tho fact that if a guarantee is given sufficiently high to keep the poorest land in cultivation that the effect will be that other farmers farming good land will make very big profits?— (Mr. MrjAiren) Yes, they will make considerable profits — I do not say very bi<; profits. It depends upon the climate to a certain extent, but they will make a profit. 1 4.526. I have a paper here drawn up by an Eagliah gentleman, who has been before us more than once, and he says that 50 per cent, of the wheat area in England yields bolow 3^ quarters per acre. Necessarily, therefore, if this Commission or any otlier Commission recommends that the guaranteed price is to be of such a nature as to retain that land in cultivation the other 50 per cent., which yields up to 6 and 7 quarters an aero, will inevitably get enor- mous profits? — You must remember, Sir, that the land I am talking about is £1 an acre land, whereas the land some of the other gentlemen are farming may be C I or L'5 an aero land. 14.527. If that is tho case you mean the thing should be equalised by the rent? — It will to a certain extent, will it not? 14.528. Therefore, tho value of the guarantee which will keep your poor land in cultivation will ultimately benefit the owner of the land, and not the tenant who is operating it? — I think they will lx>th benefit. 14.529. In the long run it will go to the owner of the soil? — Only if rents go up. 11.530. Rents are going up in Scotland at tho present time, arc they not, as they are doing in Wales? — Yea, in tho meantime I admit they arc goinp; up. 14.531. You have in S'cotlan'd a system of leases, I understand:-' ( 'Mr. M< \ '/. -nl] : Yes. H.532. Still you feel that tl ••» do not give you the security which is necessary for you to launch out according to the Scotch fashion and develop your farms? No, in the meantime we do not feel secure 20:)70 in launching into a great deal of capital expenditure upon the land. 14.533. What would you say to a system of yearly tenancies? — That would be even worse. 14.534. You are, therefore, not surprised to learn that the farms in England, and Wales where I come from, where the system is a- system of yearly tenancies is much inferior to that of Scotland, where the system is a system of leases? — I do not know whether that altogether accounts for it. 14.535. You are not surprised to hear that? — No. 14.536. Do you keep sheep in Scotland? — Yes. 14.537. Are you losing money on your sheep? — (Mr. McLaren) : No, I do not adinit we are losing money on the sheep. , 14,538. Do you keep the sheep in Scotland to tread the land and manure the lajid? — The feeding men do. 14.539. Do they lose money on that? — (Mr. McNicol) : No, sometimes we may, but not every time. 14.540. Would you be surprised to hear that there are farmers in existence in England who tell us that year by year they lose about £1 per head on tho sheep they keep for treading the land? — I beg your pardon? 14.541. There are farmers in this country who tell us that year by year they are losing about £1 per head on the sheep they i.so for treading the land? — Every year? 14.542. Yes, every year?— (Mr. Stevxirt) : They must be fools to do it. (Mr. McNicol) : They must have a lot of money to start with. (Mr. Davidson) : Last year owing to the excessive price of turnips and feeding stuffs it may have been the case, but not every year. 14.543. Is the practice of fallowing the land common in Scotland? — (Mr. McNicol): In the carse districts only. 14.544. What do you mean by the carse districts?— The heavy clay land and riverside land. 14.545. Have you any such thing as three and four and five horse land in Scotland? — Three horse land ; we have no five horse land as far as I know. If there is any five horse land it is not wrought as arable land. 14.546. What is tho tendency at the present moment with regard to putting land down to grass in Scot- land?— (Mr. Stewart): I think the agricultural returns ,-liow that land is returning to grass this year? (Mr. linvidton) : I should not think that much land will be laid away to gra.ss at present because of the existing price of grain. 14.547. What is the correct answer — what is the tendency now in Scotland? — (Mr. McNicol) : The tendency is that there is some land going back to grMl. 14.548. In spite of the fact that you have a much higher guaranteed price than you are asking for. You only ask for a mere cost of production price? — Yes. 14.549. At the present moment tho prices guar- anteed to you by the Government are much higher than that?— Yes. 14.550. Still you say the tendency is for the land in Scotland to revert to grass? — Some of it. 14.551. How do you explain that? — Because it is inferio.- land and probably oven at the present prices that land is not paying well or even not paying at all. It is principally land that was broken up during the war to increase production. (Mr. Davidson) : Pre-war, when the wages bill was low, it did not pay to crop that laud, but now that the wages bill is so much higher it probably pays worse for the reason that one year in five you do not succeed in getting a crop at all and tho higher cost makes the loss heavier. 14.552. I should like to be quite clear what is in your mind as farmers with reference to whether prices are likely to remain as they are or to fall. Do you expect to find soon a big slump in the prices of farm produce? — (.!/>. MrNicol) : I would not like to prophecy. (Mr. Stewart) : We are told by high authorities that the cost of food is to become lower very shortly. (Mr. AIcNicol) : I think that depends on a great many outside subjects which we are hardly qualified to deal with. It is really a world element that comes in. (Mr. Davidson) : Farmers have a ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 15 \l S vRI. I)V\II- ••>. M< I . »»nt of confidence IMH-«UM> of what happened in the pact. It WM • mo* t unfortunate thing that agri < uhuic khould ha\c decayed t» >u< h »n ••\t«-nt did, and particularly M> 'for the agricultural work, i- «ho nt one limp «i-i.- earning 3Jd. to 4d. an hour when the m*n who came out from the towim i» i. |..i.i .•ui I'unii building* and roofs and so on were getting -•I and !»d. 1111 hour. I I..V».T Assuming that the (<«\< i mm-nt wci.- to i • We Mill ^iv.' MIU security <>l tenure mid full (ompeiisution for all bttproVWMBti you nm) • i. ii.int farmers instead of gi\ ing \ou this guai of prices," which would \ou prefer: (Mi. M>. \ifol): In what way are we to get full compensation for all we put in the pl»< 11.554. I am assuming that that has been mado perfectly clear to you by the Government — 1 am nof explaining how it is going to be done. Mr. Gardner yesterday said that the Agricultural Holdings Act ;s now a failure— that it does not guarantee you full compensation when you have to leate \X. Assuming that the. Government simply . nte«> you a pric< — which is very likely what they will do — will you be any better off than you are now without the security of tenure!- (Mr. .1/r.Vico/) : We are willing to take the risk, but we prefer the security if we can get it; we want it if possible. 14,556. Ts the security of tenure that you ask for essential for the full development of agriculture in Scotland f1— Yes. 1J..V57. And the guarantee as well?— Yes. U..W. Kither one of them without the other you think will not be sufficient? — 1 do not think it would be. 1 (.. ">.".: ' -Mi. I>uncnn: Mr. Allison, will you turn to the specimen schedule you sent out to the fanners. I notice you have an item running through all of them of idle time caused by unsuitable weather. What is the meaning of that exactly?— -(Mr. .U(i'«/;it : In ascertaining the labour cost the farmers wer.« directed to take the exact amount of labour required to plough, sow, and harrow one acre. In addition to that there are wages paid for work which is M.., done because of broken weather and they were asked to charge a certain proportion of idle time to i..\,-i that, and such an amount is necessary because if MHI take the accounts of the farm which is shown work out the labour you will find we are short of the actual labour paid for by the amount of the idle time. 1 ! ViO. In charging tho labour they charged tin. actual day's wage against each operation? — Yes, the actual day's wage on tho time. These haic •ent in by them in several cases, if you winh to sec them, showing how they arrive at their labour cost. 14,561. In what number of these cases where you have given the cost of production of different crops are these tho result of a Committee working and pre- paring an estimate, and in what number are they individual estimate*?— In the case of tho returns from they are the result of a Committee working; the other are oanos of individuals working separately and not in conjunction with one another. '•'•.2. Taking potato™, you give about 25 rase* altogether, excluding Kif... Doe* that mean, roughly that you have 24 individual estimates for Scotland" —I agree. 14,00.1. That 1-1 Uie total nomlicr you haveP— Y««. hoe been no attempt on your part to combine estimates? — No; the estimates are shown individually as they come in. >. iminating the iU>m» of error, or items which are not common to all of them!'- "> I !.'•( W. Take the balance-sheet you give, ami t!i« trading account of this farm. Can you say whether • .fa shown on those account* for the \e-.ir IVls is rather less than usual:' — It is less than usual. 14,567. This was rather a bad year for this farmer:' — I would not say u bad year — it was not just so successful oe bis previous years. His oat crop was short, as 1 have pointed out already. 14,5(38. His wheat crop was also a bit short, waa it not? — No, his wheat crop is all right. 14.569. le four quarters his average? — That is the figure 1 have proved from his books, and he i no comment with regard to it; that was his actual figure. 14.570. 1 am not throwing any doubt upon it, but have you compared it with previous yoar«? — V I have not. 1 would like to have had an opportunity of doing that, but we had no time to do it in prepar- ing these figures. 14.571. I should like figures for this farm for tour or five years back for the purpose of comparison. Do you think it would bo possible to get that I' — No. it is not possible to get that, because of the fact that these cost accounts which have been made up from the accounts of that farm have been derived fro: estimates of the cost of production in the year P.'l>. which was fresh in his mind. In other words, lie submitted -his coste for 1918, and* I reconciled tho>e costs with his actual financial returns. In order to prepare similar cost accounts for past years it is necessary for him. to prepare estimates of hie costs of production in those years that are past, and I should imagine that would be a most difficult thing to do. 14.572. Could we get the financial returns? — The financial returns are available. I am speaking with- out having asked him. hut I know they exist. 14.573. 1 put it to you that the amount of profit ho is showing on a farm of this size with the amount of capital employed is a good deal under the average returns from farming in Scotland in 1918? — I can- not speak of the average, hut in the account* of farme which I audited it ia just about the usual figure. 14.574. l think you will agree that the farms ot which you have audited the accounts have been farms where it paid thorn to pay Income Tax Sclu*Juh> " B" rather than pay on the other schedule? — No. The farmers did not keep accounts of these farms, ami they wire .sent in purely for the purpose of enabling them t<> keep a basis of accounting which would show in future years whether it was paying them or not. There waa no knowledge at Uie beginning in tho farmers' mind when the accounts were sent in. I l.."i"."i. Clmii iniin : For what period are you asking lor the hack balance she. Mr. Vuncan: For four years, if we can ha\e them. 14,576. Chairman : Can you manage that, Mr. •Allison?— They exist. ll..")"77You are not certain whether the farmer will produce them or not, because you have not asked tlie farmer? — That is the position. 14.578. Are you willing to ask the farmer? — Yes. 14.579. And to send them in to the Secretan. you get tho farmers' permission to do so?- 14,680. Mr. Unncan: I should like to ask. Mr. Stewart a question. You made a statement in reply to one of the Commissioners that you estimated n would take about JC5 an acre to put your land hack into condition because of the effect of the past four \c.ns' farming, on the land:' (Mr. Sltinirt) I do not think I r acre. ('lininnnn: The £5 per acre was from a statement read li\ Mr. Allison of one farmer who is not p'. 14,581. Mr. Duncan: I thought Mr. Stewart indi- 1-othian. for example, increased their staffs ?—(Mr. MtViett) : Yes, where thoy can get them. 14.596. Their permanent staffs?— Yes, they have. 1 tluuk some, of them have done so where they could gel them. 14.597. Can they get them? — Not in every case. 14.598. What increase would there be taking the whole county now?— I really could not tell you. 14.599. If I were to state to you from my know- ledge of the county and my knowledge of the number of workers in the county now, that the number of the permanent staff in East Lothian is pretty much the same as it was in the May term of 1918, would you )>e prepared to accept that?— There is not a great deal of difference with the exception that we art- employing more casual labour. 14.600. You are finding it more difficult to get casual labour? — Than when? 14.601. I think if you turn to your statement of evidence it hardly squares that what you are say- ing. You say in your statement of evidence: "The supply of casual labour for seasonal work is still deficient"? — You said we were finding it more diffi- cult to get it. We are not finding it more difficult to get it now than we did then, but it is still deficient ; it is not more deficient than it was. 14.602. Have you increased you casual labour? Yes. 14.603. To what extent?— We are taking all the casual labour we can get. 14 604. Are you getting more than you did before? Yes, we are getting more. 14.605. Is it an appreciable quantity? — Yes. 14.606. Where does it come from? — From Edin- burgh and from tramps off the road. We are getting Irishmen also now that we did not get before the war. 14.607. How many Irishmen have you got doi:ig casual labour? — I do npto know; I 'have not the .statistics of casual labour, but I can assure you we have them. 14.608. You get casual labour from Edinburgh — that is one of your sources of supply. What quantity can you get from Edinburgh?— We cannot get much of it, but the Irish part of it is the principal casual labour. 14.609. Taking into account the fact that you haw only had a slight increase in casual labour and very I'.ttle increase in the ]x»rinancnl staffs and a No tin'. fact that there is a reluctance on the part of the workers to work overtime, to what extent has cost ben increased by the reduction of hours? — They work the overtime, hut they do it grudgingly. 14,010. To what extent has tie reduction of hours affected the c<>st? — I have not gone into per- centages?—(Mr. Allixon): Would it interest you to leive this table of casual labour showing the "actii.pl wages paid in 1914, and 1918? It shows that the increase is almost entirely in casual labour. 14.611. To what county does that table refer? — Renfrewshire. 14.612. I can quite agree that is the case with regard to that farm. I know the farm you are re- referring to. You made a statement, Mr. McNicol. that the reduction of hours has increased cost. You are simply stating an opinion there, are you?- -(Mi'. McNicol) : Yes, a very geaieral one. II. ill:-!. You have no evidence to .submit in support of it? — No direct evidence. 14.614. I think you made a statement in reply to Mr. Thomas Henderson that the hours worked in your District were 50 excluding stable work and that the stable work might add 4 hours pe-r week, making 54? --Yes, roughly it does. 14.615. jl -would like to put it to any of the farmers who are here present that if your horsemen i le not putting in more than four hours a week doing (".able work would you keep them after the next to'-m? — We have to keep them, because probably we could not get anyone else. 34.616. Can you feed, groom and bed a horse on an average of four hours a week ? — Not properly. 14.617. Then they are not doing that part of the work in your district properly?— We are not satisfied »t ith that part of it. 14.618. What is your experience, Mr. Stewart, in > guarantee is given do you anticipate that there, will be much in East Lothian, Mr. McNiool, in the arable portions of the county which will go down to grass? — (Mr. McXicol) : No, I do not think there will be much. It all depends, of course, upon the events which are to come and which we cannot prophecy. But if prices are reasonable I do not think very much will go down. 14.622. What do you think will be the position in Fife, Mr. Stewart, if no guaranteed price is given. Will there be much of the arable land in Fife — land that you were keeping under the plough in 1914 — which will go back to grass ? — (Mr. Stewart) : I think a certain proportion will. 14.623. Of land that you were keeping under the plough in 1914? — In a great many cases we have increased the arable cultivation. 14.624. I am not referring to the land brought into cultivation during the stress of the war, but to land which was already under the plough in 1914. Is there any sign of that going back to grass ? — In some cases it was only kept under the plough for the pur- pose of producing winter feeding for our stock. 14.625. You are not anticipating that things are going to be very bad for some years to come, are yon? — It all depends on circumstances; we cannot go on producing at a loss. 14.626. If you are going to feed your stock you will have to keep the plough going? — To a certain extent. We require to keep a certain amount of land under the plough for winter feeding. 14.627. So that any land which is going back now is land that had to be brought under the plough owing to war circumstances? — Yes. 14.628. Are you of opinion that under any circum- stances, even with a guarantee, farmers would have kept that land under the plough? — It just depends upon the price we are going to get. 14.629. Apart from price altogether, is not the risk too great of ploughing most of that upland land?— There is a certain amount of risk, but it wholly depends on what you are going to get for your pro- duce. If we are going to get a high price for our grain products certain of the land will be kept under cultivation. If the price falls below the cost of pro- duction the land is bound to go back to grass. 14.630. The cost of production must be so low as to leave a very large profit on arable land in Scotland before you can bring that third and fourth class land in Scotland under the plough as we have had to do under war stress during the last three or four years? — I agree. 14.631. On this question of rents, and farmers buy- ing land there has been a considerable amount of land in Scotland changing hand and farmers buying it?— Yes. 14.632. If the farmer who is usually forced to buy hi* farm for sentimental reasons, as Mr. McNicol put it, does not buy it, who else is likely to buy it? — (Mr. McNicol) : Anyone could buy it. 14.633. It might be another farmer?— It might be; I do not know. 14.634. In cases where farmers have not bought land for sentimental reasons have their farms l»-en bought by speculators?— Yes, I think so. 14.635. So that, although it may be a reply to say that some farmers do buy their land and give more than they think it is really worth because of senti- i! riM-ms there are ot),Pr farmers in Scotland and people who have no sentimental reasons govern - iiiK them who are prepnred to pay the high price aaked for th- land?— That has happened occasionally. In tome cases there have been no bidders for the farm. H.lxKi. 1'uko East Lothian. At what pruv.s have luniia been selling at m r.a-i l.othiau iu> compared with pre-war prices, putting it iuu> terms ot yuan pun Uasu.' — 1 really could n«»i reply U> that years to 3D years pun-h. Lothian should 1 be within the mar*:- — .No, 1 think you would be over the mark. 14,640. I can give you instances of 32 years pur- chase:'— Was that by private saler H,U41. Yea?— I have not heard of it. 1-1,011'. At any rate they have been paying con- siderably higher prices than they did in pre-war times:" — Yes, tho prices have been higher. 14,613. And according to your own statement the farmers have been paying rather more for their farms than they are really worth:" — Yes, in some instances. 14.644. Would that not rather indicate that them are buyers and farmers who are confident ol what IB going to happen in the future. They are not buying on the pledges of the Government, and of politicians that they are going to do great things for agriculture. However sentimental a farmer may bo ho looks all round tho question before he buys a farm, does he not ? — He may be buying it for other reasons. YTou know it is very difficult to get a tenancy now ; they are not BO easily got as they were formerly and he may buy to put his son into it. 14.645. That all shows, does it not, that they have great confidence in the future on the part of farmers in Scotland. If tenancies are difficult to get it does not look as if there were a very great want of confi- dence on the part of those engaged in the industry if farmers are forced to buy their farms to prevent other people from buying them and if there ir- M> keen a demand for tenancies that they are difficult to se- cure?— It is not farmers in every case who are buying. 14.646. People who are going in for farming?- Yes. 14.647. Are you finding that there is a big influx of outsiders coming into farming in Scotland? — No. I I, i its. It is mostly tho people who are in it now?- Yes, or their sons. 14.649. All that rather shows, does it not, that there is not any great lack of confidence on the part of the farmers of Scotland as to the future of agriculture!-1— Everyone has hope. 14.650. Yes, but when hope is turned into hard cash in Scotland it is rather more than a vague aspira- tion. In Fife, I think I might be putting it fairly if I say that the farmers are so little afraid of what is going to happen next year, at any rate that they are now prepared to engage their men at 10 per cent, increase in wages? — Yes. 14.651. That would rather indicate, as regards the next 12 months at any rate, they are fairly hopeful ? —Yes. (Mr. Stewart): We feel that we have been dealing very generously with our men in comparison with other parts of the country 14.652. Does it not indicate that you do not believe the cost of living is going down to that extent at any rate, otherwise you would not lie increasing your wages in the meantime? — I believe there is a demand for even higher wages. 14,663. So that the farmers evidently anticipate that the cost of living which does affect the price of their commodities is likely to remain high for some little time? — At least for this present season. 1 !.r,:, i. .MI. /;,I// Committee in instructing t!it>tn how to e.s; tin- homo labour told them that they «.-i.- to t..i U'lnl wages of tin- men einp!.>\ei -h»<-iiig. harm*.*. upkeep ami tem>walft and any small implement*, veterinary Attendance. :inil Otter, and thru tin- t.it;il cost of feeding stuffs. us near as they could get at the - I production of <>ats, hay. chop|x-7. Do you know generally what rate of depreciation was taken? — No, I cannot tell that, but as you see in the other statement I produced I took the depreciation at 15 per cent. I have discussed this matter very fully with farmers and 15 per cent. is the figure that is pretty generally agreed, but of course, methods and ideas differ in that respect. 14,(59S. What does tin- on-cost include generally? As shown in tho tables the on-cost covers those items of expenditure which cannot be applied to a particular crop. 1 have used the term on-cost as it is used in ii commercial sense applying this item to all the crops and one has therefore to take the proportion applying to a particular crop. 14.699. What do you mean by management, for example!' Tin- actual money paid for managing the farm. That is n payment to a head foreman or some- thing like that. 14.700. Not an estimated salary? — No, there is no estimated salary; you cannot put that in. 14.701. It does not include interest either? — No, it does not include interest; that is impossible. 14, 702. Would you look at your summary of • on page 3P No. 11 is fat cattle?— Yes. II.7IW. Doe, this summary apply to the finishing period only or to the whole life of the beast?— It • to the finishing period. Are you referring to the n-t*.? 14.701. V. 's. Thai is the total weight of the beast? — Yes, that is the weight of tho beast when it is sold. ll,7o... Tho highest cost there, £'•!». mid tho low<*t, i.C. is the total cost of the life of tho beast?- > • 1 1,700. You have not stated the actual cn.t t... tmi-hing and tin- actual weight added during the finishing period?— You have it if you take the price of the store animal which is worked out on a weight running from 8 to 8J cwts., and if MHI take the imi-h ing weight it runs from 10J to 12 in one case. have the variation in the weight* there and you • .n, got at the amount added during the finishing period. 1 1,707. Take the next one, No. 12, tho cost of the calf ?— -Are you on store animals? 1 1.708. No, it is called " fat cattle," but I think n ••hould He r- •• Yen, it should be store. The highest total cost of tho animal in No. 12 is C.Ta 9s. 3d. 14.709. t .1111 reading Irom page 1 ol \<>ur /•<.• 1 beg your pardon, 1 thought you », ng to the schedule and 1 ».c taking the individual item. I have got it now. Tho highest cost of the il- 10s. 9d. That is the cost at the end ol the first year. It is arrived at by taking the C..M oi the tall and working out the quantity of milk and meal and •o on. 14.710. It is rather puzzling when we call a call a 14.711. If Mr. Davidson » ill turn to the statement of the cost of production of store lambs put in by the Teviotdale Farmers' ( lub I should lik. t,. hear hou he proportions the cost between lambs and ewes? — i )/ . l>iiri,l.iiui\ : 11 you take Class 3 " Half-hrc.: bringing cmss-i.red lambs on low country farms loo owes and 38 ewe lambs," the total charges coming against the 100 ewes and 38 ewe lamK- amount to £423 4s. 4d. The gross receipts . 12s. 10d. If it costs £423 4s. 4d. to produce £497 12s. lod. h..w much will it cost to produce one of the individual in IMS, the 141 lambs, for instance, i' .'{."> 7 15s. Od.? That makes the cost of production of the lambs £304 os. 4Jd., or £2 2s. 3d. per head. 1-1,712. You work out the proportionate cost on the proportionato value? — Yes. 14,713. Mr. Hatchclvi : Mr. Davidson, would you please explain in regard to the statement of the Teviotdale Farmers' Club how you arrive in class 1 at so small a number of lambs sold as 47.- You ha\e 1OII cwc.s and '2-~> ewe lambs ill that class!- (Mr. llnvid- M<») : \Ye start with 100 ewes in the autumn and you have to deduct the percentage for winter and spring deaths, eild ewes, etc., and taking the lambs at 75 per cent., or l"i to the score, that gives 7'J lambs. \Ye sell 47 of those and keep 25 to maintain the stock; it is a pore-brad stock 11,711. Mr. McLaren, on the question of sheep, you have eeen these figures of the Teviotdale Farmers' Club?— (Mr. McLaren): Yes. 14,715. You represent quite a different class of -heep. 1 understand? — Yes, black-faced sheep, pure- bred. 1 1.716. Would there be any material difference in your class of sheep as compared with these figm The conditions are different — the climatic conditions, to begin with, and the expense of producing a lamb in our district, is considerably greater than the figure mentioned in the No. 1 statement put in by Mr. Davidson. But I see, looking at his averages of sales, that wo make up that difference; we get rather more for our lambs when we sell them and it makes no dif- I in the end, as it were. 11.717. The resulting balance in each case is that there would bo a working profit, whether on \otir s\stem or on the system which prevails further south? Quite so. I might say we think it n most disas trous season this last one, and if we get another like it I am afraid that these costs will not stand? (.l/r. 'oint : Tho hill flocks are depleted in numbers, they have had a disastrous time owing to the bad winU-r .if 1!)17 and spring of 11U9. 11.71^. Mr. Stewart, is it the rase in Fifoshire before the recent reduction of hours that your plough- men wrought, 60 hours per week in addition to stable time? Scotland that did not work a 60 hour week. \\ •• wrought a 9-hours day not including stable time up till now or rather an average of ~>\ hours a week. but in other ptrts of Scotland with the exception of Fife and Kinrosc it has been a 60-hours week. 14,719. Have you any figures you can put before us in regard to what effect the reduction of hours by 10 would have on costs. I understand that 10 is a reasonable figure to take as an average of the reduction then- has been in the weekly number of hours worked recently. Have you any figures you can give us w::h regard to cost as affected by that reduction? — I bavo figures I can give you showing the comparison between a 10-hours working day and an 8-hours working day. I estimate on a farm that previously employed four pairs of horses it would require five pahs of horses under the shorter hour? MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 45 \;> October, 1919.] MESSRS. ALLISON, JNR., McNicoL, STEWART, DAVIDSON. MCL.AREN. [Contiiini'il. It would also require additional casual or occasional workers. I have put that down in figures. The first is the cost of keep of a pair of horses, harness, depreciation and interest. I estimate that at £198 per annum. Secondly, there are additional implements required for these additional pair of horses. 1 have put that very low at £12. 1 think that might be put a little higher ; that is for interest, depreciation, and up-keep. Thirdly, there are the wages for a ploughman for a year. I have put that low as we are engaging for 1920 at a higher rate, at 55s. a neck, £l-»3. Fourthly, there are the wages for extra workers which I estimate will work out at about £2 per week, £104, making a total of £457. Then there is the question of the extra accom- modation for the extra staff and stabling and imple- ment shedding. At the present time I do not think we could, erect a ploughman's cottage to satisfy the requirements that are necessary in Scotland under £500. I would estimate the stabling and implements shedding accommodation at an additional £200, which makes a total of £700. Taking this at 6 per cent, brings out an additional £42, which brings the total up to something like £500 per annum. This extra r-ottage and stabling accommodation will require to be provided by the landlord, and I do not think under present circumstances the landlord will be prepared to give these, to the tanner five, of charge ; it will have to go on in the shape of rent. A good part of the land in Scotland has been bought up by the tenants, and nii.^i of these men at the present time are not I think in a position to incur this capital expenditure. 14.720. That in your opinion is the effect on costs that a reduction such as you mention in hours would have? — Yes, that is my opinion, 14.721. I suppose you would also have to keep in ili«' I'aet 'hat the whole of the horses would be idle and not working for more hours than they have been doin;; in the past? — Yes. The effect of the Saturday atternoon I may say is that we are not getting the most out of our horses with the shorter hours; it is too long an interval from Saturday at mid-day until Monday morning, and we find it is usually at that time that the horses go wrong standing doing no work and probably getting too much feeding. U,7£.'. It ii i.ot -ood for the horses?— It is not - They are quite fit and able to do more?— The horses have been kept in perfect condition under a 9- or a 10-hours' day in previous times. 14.724. You mentioned in answer to a question that you calculated seven hours would I.e the amount of stable work. Wero you referring to the winter period only, and not including the time whon the horses would be out at grass!-— I was taking it for the winter period mly. In the summer time, when the horses are out at grass, there is very little stable work; it would not work out at more tliau a half of tha.Wproba.bly two or three hours a week if you take an average. 14.725. If you take it over the whole of the year you would reduce the figure of seven hours somewhat:' —Yes, it would have to be reduced for the months of June, July and August^-for those three months at any rate in Scotland. 14,726 To come to the question of having taken out of the land more in the post few years, and which it was suggested ought to have been put into '•rv« account, has it been put into reserve P-- I do not think so. 1 1.727. Is it not the case that it has been included in your ordinary yearly profits, and thereby to some extent inflated them? --Yes, in my opinion that is the case. HTL'^. So that the result will be in future years f instead of taking out the reserves you begin to put I back, your profits yearly will show loss than what they ought to? Certainly. 11.729. Would you say that, taken all over, the 1918 crop, which is the one upon which the costs put before us are based, was n better yielding crop and a better threshing crop than tho 1919 crop would r to I,,.'' Yeg, the 191S crop was onn of the l«-st ie h:ivn had in Scotland for a good many j-i f would iay that in the cerenl crop for this yenr. and particularly oats, there will be a reduction of at least 25 per cent., and our potato crop I am certain on an average will be two or three tons an acre less. 14.730. In addition to these differences the 1919 crop has cost you more to produce? — Yes. 14.731. In regard to the land under the plough in 1914, on the better class farms, I think it was put to you that without any guarantees such land might remain under the plough. Is it not the case that there will be a considerable proportion of that land requiring better treatment than it has got for the past four or five years? — Yes, if you use up the mauurial residue or cumulative fertility ot the land for three or four years it will have to be put back in some shape or form. 14.732. Would one of the ways be to rest it in grass for «. time? — Yes, that would probably bo tho easiest way. 14.733. With the result that you would not have so much first class land under the plough as you had in 1914? -Yes. 14.734. With regard to your wages which you are prepared to pay for the future year, beginning now, I suppose you would have in view the fact that there is a guarantee for the 1919 crop? — Yes. 14.735. And also that the Prime Minister has made a statement to the effect that he oannot imagine it will be other than somewhat similar in respect of tho year 1920?— Yes. 14.736. You had that in view? — Yes. 14.737. So that you were not stretching too much in giving an increase of wages — you knew what you were working on? — Yes. 14.738. Mr. McNicol, in regard to the turnip crop of 1918, particularly in tho Lothians, could you tell us what kind of crop it was?- -(Mr. UcJTietf): Very poor — in many cases a failure. 14.739. An actual failure?— Yes, an actual failure; there were many cases of nearly total failure. 14.740. And I suppose in a considerable number of cases the seed was sown two or three times ? — Yes ; four times in some cases. 14.741. Could you give us details of the hours of horse labour for a year? What in your opinion would te a reasonable number of hours for a horse to work ni a year? — Do you mean the actual working? 14.742. Yes? — I think it would ruV roughly speak- ing, to about 220 days on the average, or a little over that. 14.743. How do you arrive at that number? I sup- pose you start with 365 and deduct 52 Sundays? — Yes, and then deduct 26 full days — 52 half-holidays are equal to 26 full days. 14.744. Yes, that leaves 287?— Yes. 14.745. How many holidays do the men have ? — They have New Year's day and one hiring day. 14.746. That is 285? — Yes, and there are periods when the pairs are split on various operations during spring and summer and during hay and corn harvest. We only use about half of our available whole days staff at those periods — the others are not working then. Then there is bad weather and other conditions when we may not be able to get on the land, and when we may not have any carting to do, and the men then would not be using the horses, so that I estimate 220 as the actual number of working days per annum. 14.747. In addition to what you have mentioned there is also the time they are idle while you are threshing? — Yes, the Lulk of them are idle during threshing. There may be one or two employed carting to the mill. 14.748. You were asked with regard to the necessity of appointing a considerable number of officials if there were a guarantee. Are you aware that in Scotland applicable to this present year's guarantee, tho Board of Agriculture have issued forms to farmers asking them to fill them up with the acreages of thes varioiifi cereal crops? — Yes. 14.749. Are you also aware that the Board of Agri- culture for Scotland are only checking 10 per cent, of the returns taken at random out of the whole lot? — That is true. 14.750. That is all the officialdom there is with regard to this current year?— Yes. 46 ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. i:. (*/.,W, 1919.] MESSRS .IM:.. M. NIO.I., STBWART, DAVIDSON, M- l.u:i I. 14,751. In regard to tlio question of farmers buying their fanns nnil other laimcis U-ing willing in buy farm* fnun outgoing tenants when they go out is there not another reason in addition to the one you haxc given — sentiment ? Is there not the fact that the out- going tenant leaves a considerable amount in the land ?— Yes. 14.7.M.'. 1> it not the c«ae if an ouUide farmer « to buy he wants to get the U-ncfit of what the out- going man has not had time to tuke out? — Yea. 1 1 753. Is that not one of the principal reasons for Ix-ing higher tluiii what would be estimated as the economic value of tli- land' — Yea, that is the main reason probahU 14.754. I should like to ask Mr. Allison a question. Has this balance sheet which is produced been used for the purpose of satisfying tin- Inland Revenue Unit the income tax on that particular farm should U- charged at less than double the rent :- --(Mr. Allison) : Ye.. 1 1.755. And it has been accepted by them? — It has. 14.756. Although that profit for 1918 shown there ia not equal to one year's rent, from your knowledge of similar farmers and their accounts do you know that there are others that are probably better? — Yes, I am sure there are several better than that. 1 1.757. This particular balance sheet refers to a farm of what acreage? — A little over 500. 14. 75". What kind of farm is it?— Purely arable. 11.759. It is a farm where everything is sold off? — It is a farm where everything is sold off, excepting what is fed to the farm horses. 14.760. No cattle are kept?— No. 14.761. The straw is sold?— Yes. 1 1.762. The manures and dung are purchased I- Ye-. 14.763. It is a well managed farm? — The Commission can judge of that by the results of the trading. It is considered one of the best managed farms. 14.764. There is nothing in regard to the manage- ment that you can give as a reason for tho profit being leas than single rent? — No, nothing. 14.765. Looking at the cost of production of tho various crops that you have put in, taken generally if you were to eliminate the highest in each of the statements would the result be that the guaranteed prices for tho 1918.crops and the actual prices received would practically in every case show a profit? — Yes. 14.766. So that there has been a profit made in Scotland? — That is, I think, admitted on these figures. We know some of them are high, but there are prob- ably special reasons which made them high, and if time had permitted we could have enquired into it 14.767. I think you have already said that you have reconciled the cost with tho trading account as far as you possibly could in this particular in- stance?— In this particular instance, I think, as an accountant, it is completely reconciled ; it would satisfy any commercial house. 1 1.768. In view of that is it your considered opinion that these remaining costs where you do not have balance sheets to reconcile them are reasonable and fairly accurate? — Yes. My purpose first of all was to secure costs, and having obtained them I felt that I required to prove if thoy wore reasonable and the only wav I could prove it was to obtain accounts where the information was detailed enough to find the cost of production, and I found that tho cost came very close to the figures shown in tlie estimated cost. 14,709. One other question of Mr Stewart. I think it wan mentioned that in the case of sales of second- hand implements they W.-P.- \cry dear and, therefore, there should l>c verv little or no depreciation. IK it not the case that they are dear because there are no new implement* available? I.Mr. Sliii- of the current , r»p? -Yes. As a matter of fa-t I ordered now imple- ments for this year in plenty of time to reap the crop, hut they could not be delivered in time. 11.771. That is the reason for the price of sccond- li.uul implements being so high? 14.77-. Mr. <><•> mum : .Mr. Allison, if you will turn again to the balance -\i< ->-i which Mr. liatchclor ha- lunched iipiin. \ hat do you put tho capital value at in these ac< omits n-,.,! in the working of this farm'- (Mi: .-I//M..H): £10.o:t7. I 1,77.1. £998 10s. 2d. is the net profit on which he paid income tax? — That is not the sum on which he paid income tax ; that is the sum which he used as the basis. 14.774. Does any increase in these valuations of live and dead stock go towards the profit? — That is rather difficult to an.su ci because any profit is re- flected partly hy the < ash i vei\cd in excess of what is paid out and partly by tlie increase in the value of his trading assets at the end. 14.775. That is just what I want to get at. Is this profit arrived at by an increase in his valuation and not by his real profit? — That is his real profit. If one were to take his income and his expenditure one could not say that he had reflected his real profit or his real loss. It is absolutely necessary to take in the beginning and closing valuations. We have the commencing valuations in this account and any benefit obtained in the sales will be reflected by the sales on the credit side, aa will be seen in the trading account. 14.776. Were the valuations taken on the same basis? — Yes, on the cost of production of the crop as closely as it could be ascertained. 14.777. The costings at the end which are taken from these accounts I take it are as near as you can possibly get them. When you take the over-costs it amounts to as near as you can possibly get them? — Yes, and from iny ^xperience it would satisfy most engineering firms if you could cost as closely as that. 14.778. I quite agree. On your actual costings sheet at the end you will notice that the cost per quarter of oats is £3 Os. lid., I think?— Yes. 14.779. And the cost of wheat £4 Is. 2d.?— Yes. 14.780. It ia very much higher than tlie estimated costs which you put in on the other sheets, and these are actual costings taken from a balance sheet where- as the others are estimated? — It is admitted that the oat crop on that farm that year is low, but if the crop had been an average one it would be £2 9s. Id. in place of £3 Os. lid. You will see that in paragraph 14 of the precis. We admit there that the cost is higher than it ought to have been; the crop was not the success it should have been. 14.781. Then as regards the wheat?— The wheat shows a cost of £4 Is. 2d. as against tho highest cost of £4 4s. 4d. and the lowest cost we show of £2 Is. 7d., but of course the conditions may not have been the same. 14,782* That is the difficulty in getting at these costs- — the variations in the conditions?— Yes. 14783. Havo you any other accounts kept on a similar basis to these that you can produce? — There .ire none. 14,784. This is the only case you have of a balance sheet? — Yes. There arc accounts which are satis factory to tho farmers themselves, but there is con- siderable difficulty in finding out what the items really cover. It would be necessary to eliminate the capita! expenditure and show a purv trading profit. To do that taken time and if tho Commission wish it to be done I believe tlie Union would be willing to make up figures on the basis of other balance sheets which we know can be obtained, but in the time available we really could not do it. 1 1.7H5. I think it would bo extremely useful if we had other accounts on the same lines as these. Kvery one is always asking for accounts and balance sheets, and those seem to have boon most accurately prepared and very well put forward, and if you could help us in that way I am sun' the Commission would be very glad to have figures? T cannot speak for the Union, but I think the Union would be prepared to go to that trouble on behalf of the Commission. 11.786. Chairman : If you will he kind enough to bring that before the Union? — Yes. 11.7-7. Mr. lt"< : All these costs of yours, Mr Allison, relate to the 1918 crops P — Yes. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 47 15 October, 1919.] MESSRS. ALLISON, JiiR., McNicoL, STEWART, DAVIDSON, MCLAREN. \Cnntinnfil. 14.788. Have you formed any estimate as to the increase there would he for the 1919 crop?— No, we have not done so, but I think such an estimate could be made up very simply. Our costs are analysed into labour, material, and on-cost. By taking those three and applying the increases or decreases the 1919 figures or the 1920 figures or 1921, other things being equal, could be obtained. 14.789. You take the per quarter cost? — Yes. 14.790. I think you consider that to be the most reliable basis to work upon? — Yes. 14791. This year you have a double burden as it were. There is a considerable increase in the actual cost and there is a decided decrease in the yield, as it has been stated? — Yes 14.792. So th-.it the cost per quarter will be appreci- ably larger? — Yes, the cost is affected by the two things, one the increased prices and wages, and the other decreased yield. There is a decrease in the actual materials saleable, not exactly what are pro- duced but what are sold. In potatoes, for example, you may produce eight tons per acre and only sell six. 14.793. In cereal crops is there not a much lees quantity produced? — This year we believe that will be so; one can see that from the crop in the ground. 14.794. I think you said these are taken from the better class farms ? — We deduce that from the results we have obtained, and of course we have the names of the farmers who have produced them, and they are all known individually and are considered as being first-class farmers. 14.795. Their organisation, therefore, will be above the average? — Yes. 1 1,796. So that probably their costs will be less than the cost of a great many others?— Yes. 14.797. With regard to the cost of fat cattle, has your Union come to any opinion as to what will be a fair price as regards beef? — No, we have kept within the limits of the cost of production. 14.798. I see the average of these costs of last year works out at 93s. 4Jd-? — Yes. 14.799. That looks as if either beef production will be a losing concern or considerably higher prices will be required?— Frankly it is a more difficult matter to ppi at this cost than it is in the case of the others. The cost certainly appears high. It may not be so high as it appears, but these are the only costs we have before us. 14.800. These costs are actual figures?;— Yes, but they are not proved by accounts. As an accountant I should like to produce accounts which would prove that these costs are right. All costing is theoretical until you come to the proof of it at the end of the year by receipts and expenditure. 14.801. For practical purposes this can be taken as correct? — It is the best that we can produce. 14.802. With regard to the guarantee I do not want to enter on that question in the way it has been touched ujxm, but I should like your opinion as an expert in figures as to whether it is not highly desir- able, to put it in its mildest form, that this country should producr- all the grain it possibly can, so as to prevent the export of as muoh coal as possible and the use. of shipping to bring in produce from other countries? — I agree with that, if it is possible. 14.803. How do you mean, if it is possible? — If it is possible to secure this production which is going to enable us to keep out the foreign supplies. The whole thing, it seems to me, is governed by the world market — and whether corn can be sent in here at a a cheaper price than is required to subsidise this industry, but that is a matter of policy for the Union with regard to which I am not able to speak. 14.804. A subsidy is really a, sort of insurance against a heavy loss occurring to the farmer? — It is bound to become a subsidy so long as the market is open. 14.805. That is assuming that the world's prices arc going to fall seriously in the next few years? — Yes, ami it is assuming that other "countries will be in a position to send in the grain ; if they cannot send it into this country naturally the price here will be higher. 14.806. Do you not think that all the factors point to it being impossible to send it in at a cheap rate within a given time? — I am afraid I have not given that question sufficient study to be able to answer, but I should be inclined to say conversationally that that would be so. 14.807. Mr. McNicol, you were asked a good many questions about the sales of farms, and I think it was rather implied that the larger proportion of farms which have been sold were sold at an unduly high figure. Is that your experience? — (Mr. McNicol) : I would not say unduly high, but they have been sold at a higher figure recently than formerly used to be the case. I do not know that you could call it unduly high. 14.808. In cases where high prices have been realised there has been some reason for it, either sentimental attachment or the fact that the farm has perhaps been cheaply rented and the man has improved it by his own work, and although he does not want to buy it is a question of losing his own improvements or buying the farm. That is the case, is it not? — Yes, that is the case. 14.809. Against that have not a large number of farms in Scotland been sold at low prices? Is it not the fact that in your own neighbourhood there was some very good farming land sold at well under 20 years purchase on the rental lately? — Yes, but there was a special reason for that. That land had been turned into small holdings which restricted the sale in a sense ; there is practically a form of dual owner- ship there. The Government broke up that land into small holdings and the buildings on those holdings are Government property. 14.810. Is that the same land near Drem that you are alluding to? — There was another reason there. I was thinking of a different place. The reason there was owing to the high rents. They are on a half fiars rent; part of the rent is paid in cash und the other haif ifl paid in grain, and owing to the large rise in the Fiars Court these rents have enormously in- creased during the war, but the buying price has been based on what you might say was a market rent. The rent paid during the war owing to the increase in the Fiars "Court was really a false rent. 14.811. The purchase price was not based upon the false rent? — The buyer based his purchase price on the market value of the farm as a letting pro- position. The natural result is that it shows a small number of years' purchase on the present rental. 14.812. Is it not your experience that a good many farms have actually been sold at about 20 years' pur- chase on a reasonable rental? — Oh, yes. 14.813. So that it is not all due to what is rather implied as being the exceptional opulence of farmers that they are willing to pav an unduly high price for their farms. I do not think that is the case, is it? They do not, as a rule, buy their farms unless they see the likelihood of a commercial return from them? — They are mostly all looking at that when tliev are buying farms unless those farmers who are really paying the higher prices are sort of forced into it. But the bulk of the men that are buying farms are buying them as a commercial proposition to make a profit on them, certainly. 14.814. Dr. Douglas: Mr. Allison, I think you have recognised that there is a very great variation shown in the costs which you have submitted of all the various farms? — (Mr. Allison): Yes. 14.815. The variation amounting in some cases to as muoh as the lowest cost so that one cost of production is double the other? — Yes 14.816. That leaves a very lar^e margin of error in calculation, does it not? — It is not such a large margin if you consider that those high prices are very few in number. If you eliminate them you get a more reasonable average. 14.817. That is just what I was going to ask. I want you to develop that point. You said that it would be possible to eliminate these variations? — Yes. 14.818. What do you mean by that? — I mean to take out all those figures that have been shown to be exceptionaly high ones. For example, in potatoes you have a cost of £8 4s. 3d. That is very high. I think if we had time to investigate that we would probably find there were reasons for that high cost ROYAI. COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 160r/»/*r, I'.M'J V.IM:. Mi X .. ST*WA*T, 1>.\\ IM.-.IV. Mi LAKKN. which were not general to potato growers. Thou then- is the £7 Os. Id. and tlio £7 '2*.. that i» 3 .mt <>t 1 :. ^ .>u have several at fi>. one at L' I !'-. !M , mill .mi. ..t L3 17- I'd : 14,890. They range up and down. . \en after you hav« taken out the uxtreiue ca»e», b«-t«.. n LI and - 14,831. That still leave* a very largo margin of error f — It doe*. IJ.--.rj. So that even after \ou have eliminated all cues in which you show on inv.-sim.it ion a reason I.. i .Intimation you would still need, would you not, . Imp niiiniicr of cases of accounts before you could get rid of that margin of cii.'i !•• a certain t-xu-nt yea, provided that the conditions were the i l.-i'l. Do you not think that the difference in the conditions can only bo discounted by including n very large number ?— There is no other method. ll.-'JI. S.i that to dimply with the r> quircmenta of a .statist loin n you would really need an enormous number of account*? — I agree. 14,825. Mr. Stewart, there is one small matter I want to ask you about. You say the land suffered through hay and straw being taken by the military. You are an are, I think, that there WHS a pledge given that no hay or straw would be taken which a man found necessary for maintaining his own stock)* (Mr. Stevart): YOB. }'•.-•*>. Was that pledge not li >n .; .-d - Yes, but a good deal of the hay was commandeered for Govern- ment purposes. 14.827. Yes, but it was understood, was it not, that no hay was to be commandeered except surplus hay, that is to say, what a man did not require for his own use. Was that observed? — Generally it has been. 14.828. Do you think there have been cases in which hay and straw were t;ik. n which a man said ho w -islied to retain for his own use? — Not generally. 14.829. So that that would not be a general can-,- -No. 14,830-1. I fupposc other factors were adverse to cattle feeding? — Yes, cattle feeding was one of the most speculative branches of our farming business. It sometimes gave high profits during the war and at other times not. In MIMIC of theee years the cost of the store animal was out of all proportion to what we were getting for the fat animal, so that the feeding of cattle was not a paying proposition. It paid us better, therefore, to let the Government have that hay and straw. These farmers I refer to aro not in the habit of consuming all the hay and straw grown on tno farms in the particular district to which I refer. 14,832. Mr. McN'icol, I think you answered some questions about the position of vour I'nion in rela- tion to guarantees. Has your Union ever officially asked for any guarantees on cereal crops I mean as a policy?— (.V. I): Yes, in n modified form. 14,883. Is there any resolution to that effect? Yes 14,834. When was that? I could not give you the date. 14,836. It was comparatively recently, was it not — it was not before the siil.je. t had I ..... n brought before you? — I be^ your pardon. 1 am wrong; I do not think we had a resolution on the sub]. 14,836. That was my impression. Yon have never really asked fur this'-' No, we have not. '•'. Should 1 bo right in saying that when the v of a guarantee was first suggested tin- opinion of Scottish farmers was adverse t<,.l many of them v 14,838. Nothing wan done to welcome it or irage it in 1917. when it was first put before vou '- 14.K39. Am I right in saying that you do not put it forward that farmers are entitled in the londiut of their hmincM if they are left alone to have any kind of helper subsidy from the State. You do not i-lnim any advantage over nth.-r industries in thnl • n.- do not 14,S|fl Do, « \oiir present support of the policy of • ise from the fact thnt it hss been 'put • i| publicly bv (he GeviTiin.-iii that (her, i.e.-.! of increased ccre.,1 ptodurf inn? Yi-«. that is our reason. II. -II. Your position is simply that you come here U'ing invited to say that a guarantee of some sort in nec*ssar\ it that result is to l>e brought about • ^ I 1 - i'J \ '.HI do not put it to us that the tanning industry has any claim to special consideration. You merely put it that if th • country nce.U a . ertain supply of cereals produced it must give . ouliden the industry producing these things? — Yes, that is the idea. 14,84.'). That is your position quite clearly ? — Yes. ll.HII. Mi. l.i n mi ill : There are .me or t \\ o .pies (ions 1 should like, to rusk M M< Nicol. layout ti do you take the oats consumed by the horses at their cost of production or at market price in estimating your costs? — (Mr .Vr.Yi'rnCi : I cannot say definitely in every case, In-cause these are average costs over several farms given by individual farmers. 14.845. I am referring to your own costs? — No, I did not take the exact cost of production ; I took it at slightly over the cost. 14.846. This is an estimate, too?— These are esti- mates, too. They are average estimates over several farms in the I.othians. I cannot really speak to what the details of these costs are. 14.847. They are based upon costs submitted to you by other people? — Yes, including my own. 14,81$. And you do not quite know ns to horse labour? — No, I never definitely asked for the estimate as to that. 14.849. Do you know whether anything was included by way of wages of management by the farmer? — There aro no costs included for management by the farmer himself. The management shown there is money or perquisites paid to a grieve or steward or foreman taking charge. 14.850. Did these costs include the rent of the farm- Louse, spread over the acreage of the farm? — I famy that is so. 14.851. By a quarter of wheat in your evidence-in- chief you mean 504 imperial Ibs., do you not? — Yes. 14.852. I notice that your average cost of wheat production is £16 5s. and your yield 5| quarters of 504 His. ?— Yes. 14.853. So that a minimum price of 60s. per quarter of 480 Ibs., which is the same as 63s. per quarter of Ibs., would brin- in £16 18s. 7$d. ?— Yes. 14.&54. A profit of 13s. 7Jd. an acre for the wheat? —Yes. 14.855. By a quarter of oats you mean, do you not, .•tin imperial Ibs. ?— Yes. 14.856. In regard to oats, I see your average cost is £13 8s. 5d. and your yield six quarters an acre? — 14.857. A minimum price of 38s. 6d. a quarter of 312 His., which is the guaranteed price that was fixed for oats when the guarantee was 60s. for wheat, and vhich is equivalent, I think, to just over 41s. 5}d. MI quarter of 336 Ibs., would bring in £12 8s. 9d. per acre with a yield ot six quarters. That is a loss of 19s. 8d. an acre?— Yes. 14.858. So that these figures of yours indicate, do they not, that the guaranteed prices fixed for 1917 by the Corn Production Act would on your 1918 costs give you a profit on your wheat, but a loss on your oats:-— That is the case. The ratio between the prices for these cereals as fixed by the Corn 1'mduct ion Act tor 1917 is inoro favourable to the production of wheat than t i the production of oats? — Yea on our land. ll.-ifiO. I follow. Do you think that this would also hold good of other parts of Scotland outride \<>m diftri. V. 0,ir land is very suitable for wheat growing. It is good loam, and ne have a dry, MIIIII\ • limato. Wo can grow wheat to better advantage, therefore. The I.othians are. I consider, the Itesl wheat land in Scotland. Against that, we are in a rtrj dr\ climate, and oaU need more moist lire, and owing to our shortage of moisture we cannot grow advantage. Thai !s the only h for thai. 1 I -<>OA. Can you give me your opinion a, to the ratio between the Ivo prices fixed in the Corn Production \. I • Do vou consider thnt flint Pfttid MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 49 15 October, 1919.] HISSES. ALLISON, JNK., McNicoL, STE\YART, DAVIDSON, MCLAREN. [Continued. is satisfactory from the point of view of the national interest? As I conceive it, it would be to the national interest to have land which is really most suited to wheat growing wheat, and to have land which is most suited to oate growing oats. Would the ratio between the guaranteed prices fixed by the Corn Product.on Act lead you to that position, or would it give an undue preference to the wheat? — I think it is giving an undue preference to wheat. 14.861. Jj'or Scotland generally? — For anywhere. The Government, under the Corn Production Act, are paying on an acreage basis of four quarters of wheat and five quarters of oats, with this condition, that it is only in respect of oats sold. 14.862. I am not referring at the moment to the present position under the promise of November last, but to these ratios in the Corn Production Act — the ratio between 38s. 6d. for a quarter of oats of 312 Ibs. and 60s. for a quarter of wheat of 480 Ibs. On your figures for your particular farm it would appear that that ratio gave an undue preference to wheat, and what I am seeking to find out is whether, in your opinion,, that is true of the country generally or whether it is only produced by the special circum- stances you have alluded to in regard to the quality of your own land? — Yes, and climatic conditions. I think, speaking generally, that would apply just to the favoured districts — the undue preference to wheat. 14.863. While you feel dissatisfied with the ratio that obtains under the arrangement for this year by the promise of last November, it is your opinion that the ratio fixed by the Corn Production Act for the first year is satisfactory, and does not give an undue preference to wheat? — No, I do not think that it gives an undue preference to wheat if you have suitable oat land, because you would get a higher yield of oats probably per acre in the more favoured and moister districts than we have. I do not think the ratio is very far out between the various types of p:rain. 14.864. There are just one or two questions I should like to ask Mr. Stewart. I was much interested. MT. Stewart, in what you said about the pressure of the Education Rate. Do many young men leave your districts for the towns to seek industrial employment? — (Mr. Stewart) : Yes, occasionally they have done. 14.865. So that your Education Rate tends to be high, does it not, because you are educating the people for other placos? — Yog. 14.866. You educate the boys, and then they leave you and go to work as men in other industries than agriculture in the towns? — Yes. 14.867. Would the case be met. in your opinion, if a larger proportion of the cost of education was paid out of imperial taxes and a smaller proportion out of rates? — Yes, but I think in comparison the rate is charged over the whole county under the now educational system. Previously we were paying for our own parish. And thp difference now is that we are assessed for this vear at something like £1,440, , compared with £380 last year for our parish. That means that we are paying now for the education in some of the mining and industrial places. We are paying an undue proportion of the rates. 14.868. Do you consider it taking the county as the unit a more satisfactory or a less satisfactory method ? — It is less satisfactory for us. (Mr McLaren) : It is more satisfactory for other places. 14.869. I was under the impression it might work the other way? — (Mr. Steioart) : No. 14.870. That in villages you get a larger proportion of children to be educated — a larger proportion of youngsters to adults — and, therefore, it might be fairer to charge the education to the larger unit, the county, than to the smaller unit, the parish? — That is what they have done. Formerly in Scotland we were paying for our own parish. We got the Govern- ment grants and it only cost us £380 for our own parish. Under this new system, as I say, we are called upon to pay £1,440. That is the difference it means to us in a single year, and there is no guaran- tee that that rate may not be considerably increased. 14.871. Is that simply due to the change in the unit of assessment, or an increased cost of education per child? — Partly to both, I expect. 14.872. 'Supposing the old unit of assessment had remained and the education rate had been charged on the parish and not on the county, the burden on you in your parish would not have been as great as it is now under the new unit? — It could not possibly have been half of what we are charged under the new system. 14.873. Mr. Walker: I want to ask Mr Stewart a question. Have you any figures to show the number of men employed per 100 acres in Fife as against the number in other counties ? — I am not sure whether we can give you that or not. 14.874. Have you any figures? — I have not got any returns although I think there will be returns to show that. 14.875. What number of hours do you work per day in Kitr noiv? — On an average a 50-hours week, not including stable time We work 9 hours a day, but we give 42 half holidays in the year or 21 whole days. 14.876. How long hive you been doing that?-- Since the month of May, when the half-holiday system was introduced ; previous to that it was a 54-hour week except in the winter, when we had not sufficient day- light to work the 9 hours day. 14.877. How do you reconcile that with your replies to Mr. Batchelor ? — I do not understand your question. 14.878. You remember the replies you gave to Mr. Batchelor, do you not, about the reduction in hours and so on? — Yes. 14.879. You say now that you work a 9-hour day. How do you reconcile that with your reply to Mr. Batchelor? — It was the difference between the 10 hours-day which was general over Scotland, and if it was reduced to an 8-hours da>, I gave the figures not as applied to our county particularly, but over the greater part of Scotland. 14.880. I want to ask Mr. McNicol a question with regard to the guarantees. Will you tell me when the resolution you referred to was adopted? — (Mr. McNicol) : I withdrew that, and said there never had been a resolution. 14.881. I beg your pardon, you withdraw that state- ment?— Yes. (The Witnesses withdrew.) 26370 50 \i»\ \1. i OMMISSIO.N III. I I II UK. Ociobrr, I'.'l'.i; Mi i: M NOSSF.I.KY. muni. SEVENTEENTH DAY. I. <><•!•,, IJKI: ils-r, r.'l'.i. SH. ttll.UAM I)B. C. M. DOt Gl.AS. C I'- MB. (;. G. KKA, CM: i: MK. \V. ANKKK SIMMONS, ( MK HKNKY OVKKMAN, O.B.K. MB. A. \V. AS1II1V. MK. A. UATCHKLOR. M H. S. ('AITI.KY. K.C.. M.I'. MB. (JKi'llCI. DAI, I. AS. Mi.. .1 I HIM AN. MB. W KDWAKDS. MB. V. K. GliKI \ PRESENT : I'.AIU I.AV I'KAT (t'h,,«m«n). MB. .1 M. MKNDKItM'V MB. i. n I:M>I-,I!-' i\ MB. T. I'linssKU JONES MB. K. \V. I.ANCKOHD. MB. H. V. KKNNAIJD. MB. GKniiGi-: \K -MOLLS. MK. K. II. I'AKKKK. Mu. 1!. li. U<>i;m.\>. MB. \V. If. SMITH, M.I'. MB. K. U. WAI.KKU. Mr. K. M. N'l'NNKi.KY, Kari.li>.-. of WeUingbOTOOgh, Xorthant.s, called and examined. (Mr. H. G. Howell, F.O.A., Director of the Agricultural Costings Committee, was als-i p.. I'liiiiniinii: Mr. Howell, the, Commission has decided to ask you to be present while Mr. Nuuneley and the other tanner give evidence; and it may b.' that some of tho Commissioners may wish to ask you some questions on the larmer.s' evidence, or that you may be able to elucidate some point of their evii!' 14,882. Mr. Xunneley. Mr. Unwell has pros. .arming acoount.s tor you. Will you allow me to incorporate them in your evidence*!- Yes, cer- tainly. Then Mr. Kdwards will begin asking questions. 1 l.-s.'i. Mi-. h'.,limnh: In what part of the country- is your farm .situated!- Northamptonshire, between ring and Wollingborough. 14,8*4. What is the nature of the land?- Generally speaking, heavy clay land; but three years ago the Home Farm, which I had occupied for nearly 40 years, was sold away from me, and 1 was turned out. I then took an adjoining farm, which is more lime stone; so that tho 1918 figures refer to a rather different holding to the previous figures. I nta n about !-"•" v hat I hid before, but .TJii or more are trosh since l!M'l, and they are principally BnMgtoM. 1 t."."i. What is the general nature of your method of farming:- Is it mixed farming: \- '.cry mixed. It is principally rearing stock, and corn grow ing and wheat more than anything else. I have very little feeding grass land; practically none. ll.--ii. While you are on the matter, you said just now that the farm which you had boon occupying for in years was sold?— 'i 1 I.1**?. As one of our loaders. I should like to have your view as to whether you think, under the cir- cumstances, you got anything like a fair con.| tion when you left, for the work that you hail put in that land for W years?- No. I certainly do not think I did. though 1 will say one thing at once. 1 followed my uncle, who was the owner of the land and had farmed it very well indeed hetoro. -o that it was in good condition when I took it. and I think I am entitled to say 1 left it in unite as condition. 14,888. You did not buy it yourself:-- I did not. 1 had no: the <.pj>ort unity : they said thev wore obliged to nell it by auction as trustees, and bound • See Appendix No. IT. to get the highest price they could, and they thought tho\ would make more of it by selling the farm in live dilferciit lots, no one of which was sullicient to keep up the house and buildings. I should have bought it al a fair price: l.ut I was n,,; prepan-d to give so much as one or t>vo people in the neighbour- hood, who did not require the farm as I did. to make a living out of it. I may say it was bought by a manufacturer for a pleasure farm. Ho said he wanted it to g.. and kill rabbits on, or something of that sort. 1 I.-----V. Do you say that your farm, which had been farmed by you for 4(1 year's, and by your uncle pro \iounly as a well-developed farm, has been purchased by a gentleman who wants it for the pleasure of kill- ing rabbits!- Perhaps I ought not to say th.it : but I to him just after he bought it : " You have given a biggish price for it," and he said : " That does not matter. 1 wanted a nice home tor my daughter who has just got married, and I wanted a bit of sport. killing rabbits, anil MI on." nearly as I can are his words. 1 I. -•*!•. Looking al yinir figures, you cannot that you have boon farming at a ' ••me of the witnesses have sal ily. |-'or three or four • tween !*.!» and ]S<(1 1 think I show a i positive loss. I l.^iKI. I quite see that. because I rememlicr the time very well- 3 en I \i.\-- not had a positive I Jiave not had a positixe lo-s in any yea. about 1 •>•>(> or 1—7. 11.-!l|. Wo shall pi.ss,l,ly ask Mr. Unwell later on about the figures. What do you think are the factors t! .ho fooling of unrest that is un- doubtedly prevailing at the present moment amongst the farmers of ibis country 'r At the p -mont the principal thing, of course, is tho selling of land: bill over since 1 have known farming there has always boon a fooling of iiisooiirily ammmst tenants. I -.-If. the whole of the time I bad this farm, had knew at the death of mv n by marriage, who was ].', years older than T MI all probability it would bo sold. Of • that naturally a feeling of insecurity the whole time. t in your case the fact is. throughout i in which you handled, you in a position to launch out and exert MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 51 21 October, 1919.] MR. E. M. NUNNELEY. {Continued'. yourself to the full, as it were, in th<» developing of the farm-' — No, certainly not, especially with regard to the laying out of capital. I did not mind my own time and trouble so much as that I was chary of laying out capital which I knew, in the event of this lady's death, 1 should probably lose. 14.893. Of course, I quite agree with you that that is the feeling of practically all of us ; but do you not think that such a position is an impossible one for the full development of our land? — Yes, certainly, I do. 14.894. You will agree with me, therefore, that the first essential is to put this on a proper basis as a nation? Yes. I may say that security of tenure has been the great objecf, farmers have been striving for. It is the thing I have done publicly the whole ot my life. 14.895. It has been my object, too? — I do not know whether it would be fa'ir for me to say here that I am intimately connected with the Farmers' Union, but I am in no sense giving evidence on their behalf. T have not been asked to do so, and my accounts have not been submitted to them at all ; but, at the same time, I am Chairman of the Land Tenure and Local Taxation Committees of the Farmers' Union, and, therefore, if you are going into that I should have to be somewhat careful, because I should feel 1 have a certain amount of responsibility as being Chairman of those Committees. 14.895A. Chairman : I think the land tenure ques- tion is only one to be gone into so far as it affects the cost of production ; and, of course, it does affect the cost of production if you are unable to expend the capital which is necessary for economic produc- tion?— Of course, I look upon that and upon local taxation as two very important questions for the f,,ture. 14,895B. Mr. Eilu-anli: As you are probably aware, the drift of things at the present moment on this Commission ami. possibly, outside, too, is, that the remedy for the state of affairs is for the State to guarantee prices and leave the other matters as they are. I should like to have your opinion on tint policy, if it is a policy? — If I may speak quite freely, I was more in favour of that a few months ago. It was my idea very .strongly. But at the; present moment, if conditions of wages and, more especiallv, hours of labour, are to be continued. I am certain that no Government could guarantee such a price for cereals (and I say frankly, speaking as one of the community at large. [ do not think they ought to) as would enable me to continue to cultivate them < ti a very large part of my land. I refer more especially to the hours of labour, because my farm lies, as it were, in a triangle, with the villago and the. buildings at the apex. A very large proportion of it is from 1J to 2J miles away from that. With a lOJ-hour working day, I could not get more than 6 hours' work from horses on that land, and not more than a 7 hours' day from the men. With an 8^-hour day. it w ill make it absolutely impossible to cultivate that land. In fact, I am at the present moment laying the whole of it down to grass again. The principal part of it was in grass from about 1880 until three or four years ago, when I broke up over 100 acn-s '.f it. Next year, or the year after, the whole of that will be down to grass again; because it means this, that if the men are to have an 8J-hour day, it takes at least 1} or 1^ hours to go from the dwel- lings to that land, and the same to come back. With- out reckoning the time of getting the horses fed, before and after, it would mean on that land they could not be at work for more than 5 hours a day. I think you will agree with me, that with the present wages conditions, cost of horse labour, and so on, it would be absolutely impossible to cultivate the land if they could only work not more than 5 hours a day, even in summer. 14,896. I quite see that things are unsatisfactory; but you noticed the renly of the Chairman of the Wages Board to Lord Lee as to the recent Order. M" said there would be no difficulty, or no legal objection to the farmer coming to terms with his men to work any hours they like? — I know, and I thought it was one of the weakest replies I have ever seen mnde by one public man to another. If Sir Ailwyn MHO Fellowos had been farming as 1 have done, without a foreman or anything of the sort, for 50 years, I think he would know that the men will not work overtime systematically. They do not mind three or four weeks in the summer, the hay time or harvest, but they will not work for many weeks systematic overtime. They say those arc their hours. Another thing. I cannot conceive any Government giving such a price for wheat as will make it pay me to cultivate that land with regular overtime, and over- time pay during the greater part of the work on it. 14.897. So that the conclusion you are forced to is thjt, whatever the guarantee or anything like « a reasonable guarantee may be, it would be impossible, for you yourself at all events, to carry on as you have done in previous years? — Yes, it is utterly im- possible. I may say my son is in partnership with me, and I have been talking it over with him, and he ({uite agrees with me. He practically manages the lerm now. I am only there two days a week. Ho agrees with me that it is absolutely impossible. Of course I do not say if the Government were to guaran- tee £0 a quarter for wheat and £5 for oats, it might not make a difference ; but I cannot conceive any Government doing that, or any community agreeing to it. I do not think it would be fair. 14,89~A. Mr. Duncan: Just on this point Mr. Ed- wards has been asking you about, is the land you are laying back to grass, the. land which you broke up within recent years? Yes, principally; but I also intend, and am laying down, 60 or 80 acres more. J n fact I have made my mind up to lay down to grass the whole of the land that lies under a milo or more from the buildings. 14.898. Mr. Cautley: I notice that you have been farming this farm for 40 years? — I entered on it in- 1878, but I left in 1916; that is 38 years. 14,898A. Y'es, to be accurate; so that the insecurity of tenure has not troubled you very much? — No; but I might say that I was farming my own cousin's laud. I knew perfectly well I was practically safe as long as my cousin lived. 11, --99. Creaking gates last a long time, do they not ? — Yes. 1 l-.iXJO. And, at any rate, it did not trouble you so much as to make you offer to take a lease? — I object very strongly to leases, not because of- my iii'-K-iirity, but because I object to them. ll.!K)l. Am I right in saying you object to a lease because of the obligations you undergo? — No, not altogether. 14.902. Why then?— Because, in the first place, if I had taken a lease of that land when I took it in 1878, I should have been in the workhouse in 10 years. I will say at once my landlords met me fairly. They reduced the rent enormously. 14.903. That is exactly what I want to get to?— Then I go on to say that beyond that, the whole idea of a lease, I am afraid is, that a man knows how long he is going to farm the land, and ho may farm it fairly well until about three years from the end of the lease, but then he is bound, for his own protec- tion, to run it all he can and take all he can out of it. He knows, if he loaves it in good condition at the end of that time, if he wants to renew his lease, he will only have to pay a higher rent for so doing. 14.904. I do not want to go into details, but what are the valuers doing? You object to a lease because if you get falling prices it is onerous for a tenant?— Yes. 14.905. On the other hand, you get the security of a lease in case prices go up, so that you can reap the advantage. Is that not it? — No, I do not think that would be fair. 14.906. Neither do I? — I have said so all through — and I took another farm in 1894 at 13s. an acre — it would be absolutely unfair for me to take a lease then ; and I am now giving £1 an acre for it, and it is worth the money. 14.907. You secure your obligations by taking a lease. If you get further security, are not you trying to get the advantage of a freeholder, without paying for it? That is the trouble?— No, I do not think I am in any way. 14.908. You are aware, arc you not, that owing to the position of a landlord being made so un- D 2 ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. il October, 1919.] MB. E. M. NUNNBLBY. popular, land is being sold rapidly all over tho country? — I did not know it) was because the position of the landlord was made unpopular. I thought it was that they could make more money for tho land and could get more interest on their money elsewhere. 14.909. If you object to the phrase, wo will say that landowners are not caring to hold their property. Do you agree with it? — I thought it was because they could get more interest for their money elsowl. 14.910. Anyway, they want to be out of it. I suppose so, if they sell it. They want to get the best interest they can for their money. '14,911. The complaints we have heard here 'are that tenants have been compelled to buy? — Yes, 1 have been myself. I do not like it at all. I did not want to buy. 14.912. It seems to me, your view is that you ought, without purchasing, to have similar rights to those which a man who has bought has? — I have never said that. . 14.913. But is that not what is meant by security of tenure? — No, I do not think so at all. Wli.u I huve always contended is that if a man is turned out unfairly, for a reason that is not really sufficient, he should be compensated for any monetary loss he sustains through it. 14.914. If he has entered into a contract by which h« can give up the farm at a year's notice, and can receive a year's notice, is the unfairness that you speak of that the contract is performed by one side or the other? — It all depends on the conditions of that contract, whether it is fair. 14.915. He has made the contract for a yearly tenancy. It is not unfair if the tenant gives a year's notice I understand? — I want to make it fair on both sides, and I have always trii«d to do so. I do not know whether you have seen the Bill that has now been put forward, which was practically drawn up by me, for alteration of the Agricultural Holdings Act, which I have put forward on behalf of the Farmers' Union. I contend that that does secure the landlord in every right he has. It leaves tho land- lord perfectly free to give the tenant notice to quit at any moment he chooses, only if by so doing he in- flict* loss on the tenant, he has to compensate him for the loss if he cannot show a, fair reason for doing it. 14.916. And if the tenant gives unfair notice to the landlord and inflicts loss on tho landlord, what then? — I do not think it ever does, if the tenant gives it up in fair condition. 14.917. Ah, yes?— Well, tho Bill provides, as far aa it possibly can, that the landlord has a claim if he does not. 14.918. Would you mind telling me what difference you draw between the agricultural yearly tenant and the manufacturing yearly tenant? — I am not suffi- ciently intimate with the conditions of manufacturing to answer that at all fully; but I think the bulk of manufacturers own their factory. 14.919. On the contrary? — I do not know that; but, generally speaking, I do not think u manufacturer would lose ao much on having to leave his factory and tako another as a farmer would, or in ]>ro|x>rtion. 14.920. Suppose you tako the shopkeeper who has the goodwill of his business? — I am not speaking for shopkeepers, and I do not profess to understand that sufficiently. 14.921. I do not want to go into this in too minute detail ; but does it not come back to this, that you Are seeking to attach to a tenancy some attributes of ft freehold?— I think not. I do not .•.<••• that it 14.922. Getting something for nothing? — No, cer- tainly not. I have protested most strongly against that the whole of my life. I have said all through that we must have fair treatment of both. 14.923. Of course, you have told me your official position and we know it. Do you mind pointing out a little in detail bow, seeing that you have been here for 40 years, you have been deprived of tho opportunity or, in fact, have not spent the capital that you would have spent?-- For one thing, for tho whole of that time I do not think I spent £5 a year in artificial*. 14,'Ji*. \\JLS that because the land was in such a good state ol lerulity as left by your undo, as you nave told us? — No; because of the state of fertility I got it into. H.yi;. Without artificials?— Yes. M/J&i. But whether you spent the capital or not, us .Mr. Edwards has poiuU-d out, the roault of your fanning has not been unsatisfactory !' — 1 do not call II \cry satisfactory when for 16 or Id years 1 did not get 3 per cent, for my capital, without reckoning a single farthing for uiy own work or my own out-of- pocket expenses. That is not what a business man would call satisfactory. 14.927. You are going back to ancient history? — No, it is not. 14.928. Forty years ago? — And, in my opinion, what we are going to have again in the next 40 years. 14.929. I agree with you, and that is what I am try- ing to find a remedy for. To that extent we do agree. But, your average is £1,944 for the last 5 years, but that includes your son's services and your own services, and your interest on capital, so that it is not as big as it looks? — No, and 1 want to point out that the great part of that is only paper profit 14.930. I am coming to that. Then again, I find. preceding the war, for 19 years you made an average of £706. Again that allows nothing for your own services, I understand, or for interest on your capital? — No, nor for my son, who was with me the whole of that time. He came to me in 1895 or 1896, I forget which. 14.931. Practically the whole of the 19 years?— Yes. , 14.932. So that with you was the really more skilled experience and he — it puts a big hole into it? — Yes. 14.933. It was not a too profitable undertaking nil that time, was it? — It was not. 14.934. But, so far, you have not convinced me that the insecurity of tenure has made the land any leas profitable under your management? — I think I could have made it more profitable if I had felt more secure. But I say at once, I, like so many others, feel that we farmed better than we ought to have done. 14.935. I am not unsympathetic to the tenant fanner remember. My view about tho Land Rales Bill shows that; but I cannot help feeling that this security of tenure is a little of a bug-bear?— I do not think it is. because, as I said just now, I considered I did not get fair play when I left the farm. 14.936. Let us look 'at the next point. When did you leave? I understood you had to leave tho, farm because it was sold, and you left in 1916? — Yej. 1 l.f>.17. When I look at' your profits for 1916. they are 50 per cent, bettor than your biggest pre-war?— Y. -. I can explain thnt to a' very creat extent. 14.938. I think the note you have made show* frankly that you did get out of your farm pretty well? — I cannot say that I agree with you there. The great bulk of that profit that year is from the large increase in my valuation of the stock I was keeping. 14.939. I see what you mean? — That is the great thing, and it is only a paper profit. 14.940. I will deal with the paper profit afterwards ; but do I understand you to say that this large profit of £3.246 for 1916 does not Show a considerable- in- crease in your tenant right, and what I call the tenant's valuation apart from the saleable stock lie had? — No, I do not think it does. I may say I do not know tho particulars. Valuers never <;iv<> that, of course; but I was enormously disappointed at tnv tenant right. When I came out that year my tenant right did not come to nearly so much as I paid for it ir. 1878. 14.941. The same farm?— Yes. I paid over £900 goinp; in, and I got less than £700 roming out. T could never understand it, and have never done to this day. 11.942. Neither can I. That is an answer to my question? — Of course, I have not my figures here, but I could show them. I paid something over £900 for tenant right going in, and, as I say, only got something under £700 on going out. 14.943. Was that tho Michaelmas valuation? — Lady Day. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 53 21 Octvler, 1919.] Mlt. E. M. NCNNELEY. {Continued. 14.944. Did that include the outgoing crop, or only the tenant right? — Only the tenant right. 14.945. Not the off -going crop? — What do you mean by the off-going crop? 14.946. The, away-going crop? — I. was paid for the wheat and so on I had sown in the autumn before, but nothing else. 14.947. You did not get the crop?— No. 14.948. In all the Lady Day tenancies I know you get the crop? — We have nothing of that sort. 14.949. In Northamptonshire do you have Michael- mas?— Principally Michaelmas; but where there is a Lady Day you have no claim on the crop. You are paid for the actual work done, the seed sown, and that is all ; the incoming tenant takes the rest. 14.950. What about hay? — You are paid for the hay you leave on the farm, but only the consuming value. 14.951. Probably you did not leave the hay? — I left very much more altogether. 14.952. Then it is unintelligible to me? — So it is to me, and always has been. 14.953. Then 1 will leave that. I notice that dur- ing all the War years, like other farmers, until 191P — or 1917 if, your bad year — you have made a con- siderably larger profit? — Yes. 14.954. Is a large part of that profit made up of the increased valuations of all your stock that you had at the end of the year as compared with the beginning? — Yes, and especially that applies to 1910 more than any of the other years. 14.955. .In 1916 there was a larger rise in values? — Yes; because in 1915 (I know, as I made my own \ aluation) I did not think the prices would continue, and 1 did not value at all anything like up to their value. 14.956. If I may say so, I did rather the same. In 1916 you camo to the conclusion that the valuations were more permanent, and you wrote them up, and that showed a large profit? — Yes. 14.957. Did you write them further up to show tho profit of £1,797 19s. 8d. ? — No, they were quite as high. Speaking from recollection, I think I put everything quite as high at the end of 1916 as at the end of 1917. 14.958. I understand your view is that these profits are considerably a paper profit? — Yea. 14.959. In other words, although you have had five years good, you have to face the diminution of your stock, alive and dead, all the way down until it gets back to the normal, if it ever does? — Yes. 14.960. And it is not fair to count these as profits which you may expect to make again? — No, I do not think so. 14.961. I gather from something you said to a pre- vious Commissioner, that you take the view there will be a sudden fall in prices? — I do not know about sudden ; it would be rather what I should call a rapid fall. 14.962. I take the view it will not come just at once, but when it does come it will be sudden. How- ever, that is a pure matter of guess-work only. I suppose you have formed your view on the fact that all the outeide producers will very shortly be able to land their cereals and farm produce into this country as in the past? — Yes, to a great extent. 14.963. And that as soon as the shipping can be got to bring the cereals here, we shall have to compete with the Chicago price? — I think so. 14.964. I want to ask you as a man who has farmed for 50 years, what in your view ought to be done to make the tenant farmer's position secure? — In his business going on? 14.965. Yes, in his business. I do not care twopence about security of tenure? — I. cannot say, but I agree entirely with the statement put in by Mr. Donaldson on behalf of the Farmers' Union, that it is for tho country to decide which of the two policies it will pursue. 14.9fi6. I am sorry to hoar you say that, because I think thfi Farmers' Union have made a huge mistake in that statement. I am not going to repeat the cross- examination I put to Mr. Donaldson ; but the leaders 26370 of the farmers who are engaged in the industry come to this Commission and tell us: "Though we are in control of this industry, we cannot suggest anything that ought to be done." It is an impossible position? — It is hardly fair to say that. We do suggest, or I would suggest, myself. 14.967. I am not asking you as a member of the Farmers' Union, because we have done with their official witnesses; but I am asking you as a farmer who is farming, I understand, very difficult land. Is it 4-horse land? — Most people would call it so. I never use more than 3. 14.968. I know the district well;' — I very seldom use more than 3, in fact never, except when breaking up in the summer, when it is very hard. 14.969. But it does bake very hard? — Yes, so hard that steam will not touch it. 14.970. Do you keep steam tackle? — No, I hire it. 14.971. At any rate, for a man who has farmed that sort of land for 20 years, which is about as difficult land as you can have, what do you think it is that ought to be done? — 1 think it is hardly fair to ask me what ought . to be done. I suggest two courses, and the Government or the nation must decide on which. Either they must give us a very big guaran- tee under the present conditions, or what are likely to be the future conditions, and as I say, such a guarantee as I cannot conceive them giving; or they must leave us entirely alone to go our own way and to go back to the conditions of 1880 to 1890. I may ,s iv. before 1880 the whole of that land was ploughed. 14.972. What is the average yield of wheat you get from your land? — I put it at 4 quarters. 14.973. Then you need not tell me that a reasonable guarantee cannot keep that land in cultivation? — If you will allow me to finish what I was saying, tho 4 quarters is the average for the whole of my land, in- cluding the land near to me which is far better and worked -at far less expense. This land I particularly refer to. the very heavy land. 2 miles away from home, I do not think you could get on an average more than 3 quarters from ; but at home I have fre- quently grown 5 and 6 quarters. I was speaking of 4 quarters as my average of the whole. 14.974. I see what you mean. Anyway, to ki-i>j> the 3-quarter land in reasonable cultivation, do you not think 80s. for wheat wouM be all right? — Nothing like it. 14.975. I do not say you would grow rich on it, but you would Have some other crops? — As I told you before, my day's work under the conditions which now seem probable to come in on that land for men and horses, would only be about 5 hours. 14.976. That is because of the action of the Wages Board ?— Partly. 14.977. I do not commend the action of the Wages Board ; but you must start with the assumption that the minimum wage fixed on the basis it is by the Corn Production Act, has to be tried. We may have some doubt whether 10 years' experience will not show the economic law is too strong for it; but you must start on the assumption that the economic wage for the agricultural labourer is to be more proportionate to the townsmen's wages than it has been in the past. Starting on that assumption, and nlso starting with the assumption that land such as yours has to be kept in cultivation, I want your practical view, not to mislead us but to help us, as to what is the lowest guarantee that would do? — You have not yet referred to what I consider the most important part, that is the hours, not the wages. I could face the wages if you would let us go on with the old hours. I can tell you that land 1J to 2J miles from home always takes the men 1J hours to get to work and the same to get back. 14.978. As a practical man I quite see what a serious thing that is; but suppose you get the Wages Board more reasonable as to the question of hours? — I can only say if you went back to the old con- dition of a 10 or 10J hour day, it would make a very considerable difference. 14.979. You may take it again, I think, that the labourer is not going to work the long hours that he did before, but he will work reasonable hours. He will work longer hours than the present hours? — It is not the work. There is so much difference I' 3 ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 21 , 1919.] MR. E. M. NDNNELKY. [Continued. between what is called tho working week and work- ing day t.« tin- actual li.. ...it is what I think most •bunt If the men cannot work on that land something like 8 hours a day, it adds t'lmrn. • . lv to I'M. expense. 14,9X1. You Hi. an it the, i annul wurk. tin- rogt of your horse-. ami ploughing is all going on just the •am- . oing on the same. Mi.instl,, under thoso condition., my horws would not work on that land more ili.ni V to 4} hours. 14,981. In then- much of that Ian,! in tin- county of Northampton:' — There is a big stretch along that road which runs from Kfttrring to Northampton. When you get 3 miles out of Kettering von largo Tillage of Brought mi. ami until you get within 3 mile* of Northampton tin- road runs along a ridge with this sort of land stretching about a mile on each side, and the whole of that distance there is not a village. There are several hundreds of acres of that class of land along there. 14982. Of course, on anything like the figures you mentioned, it is absurd- That i.s what I say. I cannot see the Government giving a guarantee, and I do not think it would be right. 14.983. If you had a more reasonable week and more reasonable work hours in the day, you would go on pretty much as you have done" in" the past. In that it?— Yes; I should be prepared to face a very considerable rise in wages. 14.984. But even then some very heavy land would have to be laid down? — Yes, I think so. A good deal of it ie now being done by men farming 2,000 acres or upwards employing their own steam tackle, and employing as little labour as possible. The only men I know who are making a success of it are doing that to-day. 14,986. Keeping their own steam tackle and using it for everything:* — Yes, and using as little labour as possible. My farm is not quite big enough for that. 70(1 or 800 acres is not big enough to run a set of steam enjoin. •». 14.986. There are two views, it stems to me, as to the future of farming in this country. One is to farm by the •farmer employing labour at weekly wlges, and the other the small holder. If the system of the farmer employing labour at weekly wages is to continue. I take it you agree with me that ihing must bo done to enable the farmer to be put in the position to pay the wages when they are fixed on the present basis? — Yes. 14.987. If the land is to be divided into small holdings where the man works it himself, is that a feasible or appropriate position ?— Not for that land. 14.988. Certainly not for that land; but, taking lie- rountry generally, is it feasible?— No, not the land generally, because there is so much of that class of land a long way from any town or station, heavy land which cannot be worked without three horses. A small holder could not do it 1 !.!»-!». From your experience is there a large class of •grkraltkTft] workers in the i-oiintrv who w:mt to remain on the terms of the weekly wage rather than Income small holders:- | think so. In fart hav.- oil, -ml land to some of mv men and i of them will take it. 14,990. As a matter of fact, from experience is not iv small hol,|,.rs- life rather a dog's life in that he is r done. and is nl«a,s at work?— Thai is mv opinion and my experience. 'I. And is then. m,t a largi- proportion I notild the people engaged in agriculture. ,,ho ,,,,,,|(] rather remain at the weekly wage with the fixed hours, and have Cm, bed I think so, bnt I do not "" "n(ltl<<1 to ""' thnt more than "">' thnt more than Nobody ,- enntlcd to say it. You ran onlv rom your n» ., BtpvianoeP Then fro,,, „,',- I ih il'" , ""' ""'"•"•twin, with the men. f <• attrinnt..* ,,f , fr,,.|,0|(i. ,)0 V01|-kn,,w • ... Of ,:„, lha, ,,:,,.r O ,„, la, is „,. FlWI a tenant ha« some ad, ant rig™ of a. freehold:- I think a tenant has advantage over the 1 I. ehllld. ll.'.'i'l. Making it i|iiile plain, do you know am instances in which lor instance shop! .11 tin- goodwill ut then, business and pass it, on- 1 knon nothing of that. My lather was a shopkeeper; but I have had nothing to do with it sim ••• I left him • '•' years ago. rt.SHi.'i. l)o you know anything about th.- Kvcsham custom, for instance- No'. I 1m, ,. heard it it. Inn I know very little ol it. From nil I Imvo heard of it, I do not think it is suitable for our class of farm, that is large ln-a\ \ day larm-. Mi. Turning 'to statement • D," page l.'t. I'rotit and Loss Account, I understand you to say that you had written up the valuation in each til the war years to some extent r } 1 1.W7. And written it up in the highest proportion in 1916? — It got up more to the highest then. I was slow at putting the valuation of the stock that I could not realise up to what it was M ally worth. because I thought, and I still think, it will come down. But when it kept up so long, 1 felt bound to put it up a bit more. 14.998. As a matter of fact in the earlier years, at any rate, you did not put it up more than you «ere justified in doing?— I do not think 1 put it' up more at any time than I was justified, if you take the market value-. In the earlier year* I ,li,i not put it up to that or anything like it, and I do not think 1 have now. 14.999. The point I want to bring you to is this, that you did, as a matter of fact in Kiibecqiu nt realise to quite the same extent i(s \,,u v rote up your capital: In what I sold 1 did— more. 15,000. Then to that extent th© profit was not a paper profit in your sense?— No; hut I mean stock you cannot sell, what you keep in way of imple- ments, breeding stock, and so on. lo.lKll. With regard to the fall in the profits in 1!U7, have you any explanation to make as t-o that? —I do not know why, but I had particularly bad crops. I think the worst I ever had. It was not the. usual experience in my district. (ieneraliy speaking, they were better than ].< KM. Do I understand correct ly thai, -on ha,,. -about. 711 acres of land?— Yes, about that. I.-..IKI:,. Your profit, for 1!»IS is JL'1.7!»7. which work, «mt at about £2 8s. fid. an acre?— Yes. I"). IKKi. Your profit pet acre on your corn statement i:»s. (id., which loaves you'ah.,ut !>N per acre for your live stork. Does not it bring you hack to the point that, ac.-or.ling to your own . yon made your profit on your arable farming?— No, I do not we that at all. I do not say that 1 should iiat in every year. It is only .i rah-ulati. what I reckon it cost me generally, hut it clopencl* .so much on what cropping I had' that year. I ,|<, not know what it was. Tho whole ot the 7 Id was not under crop. 1V007. No, I understand that; bnt to take you literally, you do not pUce any reliance on your own estimate? — I cannot quite s«e that. 15,008. Yon have MV, acres ol :i,al,le h.nd you not? Yes. atmut that. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 21 October, 1919.] MR. E. M. NONNELEY. [Continued. 15.009. And you farm it on an 8-course system? — Not all of it. That is the heavy laud. 15.010. So that this estimate of cost refers to the heavy land only? — Yes. 15.011. Which is the best land from the profit point of view — the light? — No, I should not say that. 15.012. I am asking you which' yon think is the best land? — I have not gone into that sufficiently to say. I should say that the heavy land in a dry summer is better than the other, but in a wet summer it is just the other way. 15.013. This is the 1918 harvest. I presume 1918 was rather a normal year, neither wet nor dry, was it not; so that the heavy laud would not have any particular advantage in that year over the light land:' — No, I do not think it had. , 15.014. And, according to your estimate, you made nearly £2 an acre profit on your heavy land on the 8-oourse rotation? — I really cannot say what profit came from the heavy land or from the other. It so happened that year, I think I have mentioned some- where, I had over 20 acres of peas, which made about £30 an'acre; but that was a thing I had never done in mv life before. I have generally sold them at about £5 per acre. There was a very consider- able profit on that. 15.015. What was about the acreage to which this 8-course rotation course would apply on your heavy land? — I have not reckoned it up ; I should think something like 150 to 200 acres. Then there is another thing I ought to mention. During the War, for those years I have departed entirely from my course. We were told to grow all the corn we could in those years, and I cropped my land very heavily. In one year I did not have a single acre of fallow. I took extra crops. 1 ".,016. I am not concerned with the previous years; I am only concerned with 1918, to which this statement of cost relates, according to the date at the top of it. You say that you have 250 acres at least -I think you said 1>.">0 to 300 — of this heavy land ; and on your own estimate here given you show a profit over the rotation of £15 6s. 6d. on eight acres, or £ 1 19>. Cxi. an acre. Then you say that in this year you thought the e!ay land would have no abnormal advantage over the light land; so I want to bring you hack to the first point, that, as a matter of fact, on your own statement, yon make the bulk of your profit on your arable land? — I have never gone "into that, but I do not think it is so. 15.017. If you do not think it is so, I can only bring you back to the point that you do not seriously mean your own calculations? — It is an estimate, and I really cannot say where I did get most profit. I do happen to know that on that one particular field of 24 acres of fairly light land I did get a profit of, f should think, quite £20 an acre, a thing I hav<- never don" before. 15.018. But a high profit on 24 acres would have to bo enormously high seriously to affect the whole of the profit on say 250 acres? — I reckon it was a profit of over £500, more than T had ever had before on land of that sort, and that might have somo effect. There were other things as well. 15.019. Will jou have a look at your valuation for :i moment. There are two items at the bottom; " ti'higiK. (including i nrcs'l" and "stand- ing crop-*." 1 see yon do not value the unexhausted manures, (lie mamirial value of cake, &c., but yon have there about l>2l in the two combined items to start with, and £1,291 to finish. How much do yon think in money your land has deteriorated over each acre? -That year? 15.020. Say from 1914 to 1918?— It has deteriorated, 1 think, in that we have not had the labour, and, as I say, I have .overcropped it. It is rather difficult to say how much. I gave a rough estimate on one of (lie-,, sheets. I forget what I put it down at, but I think 25 or 2fi per cent. 15.021. Then hedges 80, foulness of land 70. and1 fertility 7~>. That gives you an average of 75 per over the three items? — That is a fairly good estimate. 15.022. That, in money would not be a large sum if you took the valuation at say £1,000. It would 16970 be only £250 over 700 acres. Is that your general opinion? — I do not know quite how you get at that. 15.023. On taking the valuation of the two items here, there is one missing on the proportionate reduction in fertility, &c., as stated in paragraph 7, which is 25 per cent?— I am afraid I cannot quite follow you. You are referring, I think, to the two items at the beginning and end of the year, the 396 15s. and £427. The £396 compares with the £886, and I did notice that great difference and re- ferred to my books to see how it was. I see that in 1917 I had no dead fallow at all, and only 22 acres of' half fallow. The total for fallowing came to £44 in that year. The next year, 1918, I had 30 acres dead fallow which cost me £6 an acre, that is, £180. I had 64 acres which I had half fallowed after seeds, which costs £162. That alone came to a very considerable sum. It accounts to a great extent for the difference. 15.024. So that as a matter of fact you are start- ing to re-improve your land to get rid of loss of fertility? — I just state that then I was obliged to. 15.025. Mr. Batchetor: I understand in your profit you include interest on your capital. It is not taken out first? — No, that is all I have got. 15.026. Your capital is, roughly, about £20 an acre, and 750 acres would be £15,000?— I put it down £10,000, I think. If I were to sell it, then I suppose the things would come pretty well to £15,000. I have not put extra capital in ; but my capital has increased because of the increased value of the stock. 15.027. There is a sentence I do not quite under- stand in paragraph 2, under the heading " General Re- marks " : " Half year's Income Tax is included in rent, rates, etc."? — That is one year. I had never paid much Income Tax before. 15.028. That is in the year 1918?— Yes. 15.029. I understand your rent for that was £859? — Yes; I am afraid it ought to have been £865. I forgot one little field of 3 acres which we occupy under a separate tenancy. 15.030. About how much would this half year's Income Tax that you included come to? — Something over £100. I really forget. I have an idea it was about £130. 45.031. In these profits which you show for the years 1?>14 and 1918, is it your opinion that you have taken a great deal more out of the land than you have put in? — I think not, in the way that I have used f&r more artificial manure 'the last few years than I ever used before ; because I took a farm which was absolutely run out as far as it could be, and I have used far more artificial manure, but I have not fallowed the land and kept it nearly so clean. It is not so clean now as it was five years ago. That is on my old land. 16,039. So that these profits for the first five years are inflated to that extent? — Yes. 15.033. And I suppose the opposite will now happen for the next five years, if you want to put your land back to the condition it ought to be in, and have reduced profits? Ye,. 15.034. Even assuming the costs and market prices remain the same? Yes. 15.035. Mr. Overman : From 1878 to 1894 were the disastrous years, and then you began to improve. Was that improvement in any way due to the altera- tion of the .sy.stem in your farming? — Yes, I altered my system entirely. 15,035A. Will you tell us in what way?- I laid down more land to grass; and the heavy land which I kept under the plough and which I had previously ploughed on the 4-eonrse system I put on the 8-course system, having put down three years temporary pasture, one year dead fallow, and 4 years under corn. 15.036. You increased your stock? — Yes, I think I did on the whole, more especially with regard to breeding ewes. 15.037. And therefore the increase in the profits from 1895 to 1913 is due to the alteration of system in letting your land down to temporary grass and using less horse flesh and less labour, and in that way curtailing expenses? — Yea, a great deal. Of course I took more land in 1894, but I managed that on the same system. A great deal had been laid down to grass before, and I saved a great deal of labour by having more grass. D4 56 ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 21 October, 1919.] MR. E. M. NUNNBLEY. [Contiiiunl. 16.038. Mr. Ashby has suggested to you that you had made your profits out of corn. 1 do not like to differ from him, hut 1 roiiMilcr th.it your account* show that your profits on live stock have boon the mainstay of your IIIIMIIC-S- I certainly think BO. That was my idea. I really eoul'l not" follow Mr. Ashby in what be said in that way. 1 cannot agree with him at all. I think my live stock has been my mainstay. 15.039. For a great number of years? — Yes, taking IHI average, sometimes one year would be different from another ; but the whole of those years, from 1895 to 1913, I certainly did rely more upon the livestock than upon the corn. 15.040. And from what you have suggested, thnt looks as if even iti the future you will depend on livestock ?— Yes, I think so. 15.041. Mr. Anker Simmons: When you talk about your method of farming in 1894, hare you any idea what the drop in the alteration of the methods per acre in your labour bill was? — No. You say 1894, but I had begun it gradually before then. In 1894 I more than doubled my acreage. I think you will find I hardly increase my labour bill at all. I have not looked at that; but I believe you will find my labour bill for 900 acres after 1894 was hardly heavier than it was for 400 acres previously, certainly from 1878 to say 1884 or 1885. 15,04lA. Looking at the matter from practical ex- perience that you have had in a very long business career, would you not say that bad time, such as we experienced in the eighties and nineties, would be felt to a harsher degree by the labourers than by any other class connected with agriculture? — No, I should say they would be felt less by the labourer than the others. 15.042. From the point of view of employment? — Yes; I mean this way, that my rent and my own profits went down very much more than my labour bill did. I continued to pay my men just about the same in 1884, 1885, and so on, as I was doing in 1878 and 1879. 15.043. But you were only employing half the num- ber of men per acre? — Yes, in that way; but I thought you meant the individual labourer. 15.044. No, I was speaking as a class, taking the landlord, the tenant, and the labourer. W»uld not you say that in such times as we experienced then the burden would fall more harshly upon the labouring clasi as a class than upon any other class connected with agriculture?— Yes, in that way. I think there would be far less labourers employed. 15.045. Dr. Douglai: I want to get from you exactly what it is that you think necessary in orde'- to remove the sense of insecurity on the part of tenants of farms. Do you propose a scheme by which a tenant will have an absolute right to remain on his farm, subject to cultivation? — No, I have always been against that. 15.046. You know that that is proposed?— I know t has been talked about. I have always said that the owner has a right to resume possession of his land if he needs it, even for his own private pur- poses; but if he does so, and by doing so inflicts hard- ship, or pecuniary loss, upon his tenant, he ought fully and fairly to compensate the tenant for that lots. 16.047. Then you do not propost that rents shall be fixed by at Arbitration Court?— My proposal, which nan practically been embodied in the amend- ment* to Uio Agricultural Holdings Act now pro- pOMd by the Farmers' Union, is that they should be left entirely free to themselves ; but that if they fail tu agree, that is to say, if the landlord says, "I think my land is worth more money," and the tenant §*yi, " I do not think it is, and I will not give it," or if, on the other hand, the tenant demands a re- duction in the rent and the landlord will not give it, and they wish to come to terms, then they can each appeal to some outside authority to settle it, whose decision will be binding. 15.048. But your proposal is not that the tenancy •hall continue on the basis of an arbitrated rent and the tenant shall remain as long as he chooses? — No; but 1 should say, if the landlord or the tenant refused tc pay or receive the rent fixed by arbitration, and the tenant wan turned out in consequence, the land lord would have to pay him, if the landlord would not accept the rent fixed. I have never at all ad- vocafo-d fixity of tenure. 15.049. Just talce the point of rent by arbitration for a moment. What would be the basis on which rent would be fixed:- What conditions would deter- mine a Court or Arbiter in deciding the rent:'— The current prices of what he considered the laud was worth at the time, and the circumstances. 15.050. That is to say, it would bo simply by com- parison with the free bargains arrived at in the neighbourhood? — Yes. 15.051. What is it that you propose by way of com- pensation? Your proposal is compensation to the tenant for being disturbed in his tenancy? — Yes. 15.052. That is to say, your view is that he has a larger interest in it than the mere year for which he holds it?— Yes. 15.053. What is it that you propose by way of com- pensation?— The way we have worded it in the pro- posal we put forward was, that it should be not loss than one year's rent, not more than four unless the valuer or arbitrator saw special reasons for going beyond those limits, and stated those reasons in writing; but, as a rule, it would not be less than one year, or not more than throe or four. I am not quite sure which it is. 15.054. And it would be subject to arbitration, like the other matters dealt with in the Act? — Yts. Our proposal was for a Land Court, or Land Author- ity, to be set up, but 1 ani not at all pledged to any particular way. It must be settled in some way by arbitration, or by some authority. 15.055. Then, in your opinion, can the matter be dealt with by amendment to the existing Agricultural Holdings Act? — Yes, I think so. It would need rather extensive amendment, but I think it can be done by amendment. 15.056. Can you for the information of the Com- mission put in the Bill or Proposal to which you refer? Has the. Bill, been introduced into Parlia- ment?— No, we have laid it before the Agricultural Committee, and also before Lord Lee. 15.057. Can you put it in for the information of the Commission? — I have not it with me, and I do not know whether I ought to do so. It is the amend- ment now adopted by the Farmers' Union. I have no doubt they would be willing to put it in, but I have hardly authority to do it, although I am Chairman of the Committee. 15.058. We can get it?— I have no doubt you can. 15.059. You said you would wixh that farmers should be left alone altogether in their business and go back, I think you said, to the conditions of 1883? —I think I hardly said I wished that, although I am not so sure I should not go so far, but that it must be one thing — either that, or the Government must guarantee. 15.060. Do you consider that that, in actual fact, is a possible thing to happen ? -No, ' I hardly think it is. 15.061. You recognise it is not the minimum wages that is determining your present wage. The wage is above the minimum? — Yts, the wage is above the minimum. They are not much above the minimum fixed by the Wages Board. 15.062. Is it not generally the case that wages are above the minimum fixed?- Very slightly in our part. 16.063. Do you think they nro ever likely to go below that point?— Do you mean as they are now fixed by the Wages BoaVd? 15.064. Yes?- I think they would in a few years time if there is no Wages Board. I think there, will be so much unemployment, that men will l>o glnd to take work at considerably less if they are free to do KO. IVIMM. Anyway, you think your cost of produc- tion would be reduced? — Yes. 15,066. Do you think that wages aro likely to fall back to the level at which they were before the war? — I do not. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 57 21 October, 1919.] MR. E. M. NUNNELEY. [Continued. 15067. It would only happen if wages fell generally to that level throughout the country? — I suppose no. I hope not. 15.068. And therefore it is unlikely that a reduc- tion would enable you to accept the prices which existed before the war, and yet enable you to cul- tivate?—Yes. 15.069. So that the result of letting the farmers take their natural course would be the result of reduced production? — Yes, a great deal of land would go down to grass again. 15.070. Which you, personally, find an advan- tageous way of farming? — Yes. 15.071. And which many farmers find is advan- tageous?— Yes, I think that is the only way. 15.072. But which would result in reduced pro- duction?— Yes. 15.073. Mr. Smith, : Have you any suggestion to make as t.> what could be done to help agriculture in the future from a national standpoint? — I hardly like to say ; but one thing strikes me first, and thajt is sweeping away the Wage Board. 15.074. All that will be considered? — It is not so much with regard to wages as with regard to hours, I cannot for the life of me see how agriculture can be carried on on a strict 8 hour day, or anything of the sort; because an 8 hour day means only five or six hours work, and I cannot see how it can be done. 15.075. In your consideration of this matter, you have not come across anything else that might be done to help the industry, have you? — Of course, prices may he guaranteed. That would all help. 15.076. Have you thought of the question of the improvement of transport, as to whether that might hf-lp? — Yes, that is a very important thing. I have for years been on about our railway rates. We are charged more for the carriage of English goods than foreign produce is charged. All those little things help, although comparatively small. 15.077. Do you think if something could be done in improving transport facilities, it would help agri- culture?— Yes, cheaper transport would. 15.1 i7-i. What about scientific research? Do you think there is anything beiK-ficia.1 possible in that direction? — Yes. I do not say there is not, but I think it will be a very slow process. I think our grandchildren will benefit from it more than we should. I think it will take many years to make much difference from that. I do not want to throw cold water on it at all. I think it is a very im- portant branch. 15.079. Did I understand you to say it took your men 1$ hours to go from the farm buildings to their work in some parts of the farm? — Yes. 15.080. How far is the furthest point?— About 2^ miles, or a little over at the furthest point. If they go by the road it will be very nearly, if not quite, three miles. 15.081. You would not suggest, would you, taking your farm as a whole, that you -would have reduced your working hours by 3 hours per day because of the time it takes to get there? — No. I only say it with rrgard to this land at the furthest point, and, therefore. I am laying all that land down to grass. 15.082. I rather understood you to say in regard to labour, that if the 8J hour day becomes operative, you will not be able to get more than 5 working hours from your men? — From the horses more par- ticularly, and the men with the horses. 15.083. Do you really suggest that seriously — that 3J, hours will be taken up?— Yes. I do. We can reckon it up if you like. In fact it will take more that that. My horses must be fed, and someone must I e there to brush them, feed them, and put the tackle on at least an, hour before they go out. 15.084. Do they not always come before the other men and always did so?— Yes; but I said if the 8J hours became compulsory and nobody was allowed to work morr. I thought there was some idoa of that fort. 15,080. You do not soriously suggest that that ever was contemplated, do you? — I do not know what, is • Nt'-Tnplati-d. I only know what is stated in the papers and in the Bill. I believe the Bill states that except under certain conditions, which I have not seen, no man shall be allowed to work more than 48 hours per week. 15.086. Which Bill are you referring to? — The Em- ployment Bill, No. 2, 1 think it is. 15.087. Surely in that Bill there is provision made for overtime? — I thought only on special occasions by special permission. 1 have not seen the full Bill. I have only seen a clause quoted from it in the papers. 15.088. Do you understand that at the moment agri- culture is not withir. that B.ill? — At die moment; but I understand a very strong effort is being made to bring it in. 15.089. You do not suggest from anything the Wages Board has done there is any restriction put on working hours, except so far as it is necessary to determine the number that should be worked for the minimum rate of wages? — That is all the Wages Board have done. I have said repeatedly, and I stick to it, that men will not work regularly more than the statutory hours. A horseman will come in the morning 15.090. Do you suggest that your horsemen do not do enough work, longer than the hours fixed ? — I say the horseman will come in the morning and do it. 15.091. Does not that, therefore, destroy your fur- ther suggestion that you cannot get more than live •.vorking hours from your horseman in the field?— No, rot on that land furthest away. 15.092. But you spoke rather generally, did you not, •.vhen you said you could not get more than 5 working hours? — I was speaking of that land particularly, 1 think, because I was saying that land could not be cultivated. It is in this way. Suppose you take it on an 8$-hour day, it would mean 10 hours, including meal-times, say, from 7 to 5. That is about the time. The men leave home and do not get to our place at 7. Agricultural labourers reckon the time they leave home and not the time they begin work. It would take them 10 minutes, say, to get to the buildings, and they then have to get the horses out, and it is at least a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes before they start. It would take them an hour and a quarter at least, walking well and faster than they generally 'io. to get to the furthest fields. They have to get the horses ready, and put their nose bags down, and ;;<•» the horses to work. It is a full 1^ or 1J hours. I 'invo seen it myself. I have often been on those fields, and know when they start from home and get to the fields. It is over an hour and a half. 15.093. Do you seriously suggest that the agricul- tural labourer considers his working day starts when he leaves his house? — I suggest and say distinctly, that for years when our time began at 6, I was out in the nckyard to meet my men practically every morning, and they never came in before 5 or 10 minutes past. Once or twice, when I have said a word to them about it, and that I thought they ought to he there sooner, they have said to me : " I was coming 'out of the door when the clock struck 6, and I think 1hat is good enough." They do come out of their liouse when the clock strikes the supposed time foi starting work. 15.094. And that irrespective of how far they live from the farm? — Yes, quite. Men who live farther off oome later. 15.095. Do you suggest if men have to walk, say, half an hour or 15 minutes and some 10 minutes, they arrive at the farm at varying times? — No, they all come in about together. 15.096. Then how can they leave their houses when the clock strikes ?— Because those that live close to my rickyard, in their own cottages, waited until the men at the farther end of the village came up, and then they came in with them. 15.097. There must be some wonderful under- standing amongst your men? — It is always the way. If you nad worked on the land for 40 years you would know it. It is always the way in our part. 15.098. I did not think the mind of the labourer was so subtle as that? — It is always the way. My men always came in a body from 5 to 10 minutes past 6. 15.099. I suggest you have exaggerated the position here so far as the difficulties are concerned? — I do not think I have. 58 ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 21 Odobtr, 1919.] MIL E. M. NUNSKI.KV. l.'i.lOO. And that you do get, and have got a 1- working day than you liaxi- -taled here: NO. \\hen tlu> men had a 10}-hour day mi that t«|> land, 1 did not us i\ rule get were \\itli the hurst's. Other inon J should get nli, nit 8 hours u.,ik from; Inn now ihcy have lens, th>< whole of the time that is lessened is taken i.ti their working time. 15.101. I .suggest you have done wonderfully well amidst all these difficulties:'--! have tried to do my beet. I do not say it is sn \\itli all my land. you 1 am only referring now to the land farther off. 15,101*. CouM yon give us any idea as to what the view <>t the farmer i^ regarding I lie future of agriculture? — No, 1 do not feel inclined to pledge myself as to the \i<\\> <>i farmers generally. I will give my own view. 15.103. Von would not like to say as to whether they have any confidence in the future to encourage them to go on with farming? — No, I will only speak for myself. 15.104. Then is it your view that you look forward with any confidence as far as the future of agricul- ture is concerned:'— No. I do not. If I were a young man I should either throw it up altogether or go to another country. I certainly should not go on farming. 15.105. And yet you tell us you were prepared to purchase your farm:' — I have been obliged to pur- chase it. If you want the full particulars, I took that farm in 1916, in worse condition than any farm I have ever known. The last two tenants had failed at it. There was nothing done. There had not been a chain of In-due cut for 10 years, or an acre of corn li ed for 10 years. I took it on a verbal understanding that we should not be disturbed for 3 years certain, and after that, if we went on farming properly and paid the rent, we should m.t be disturbed. Two years afterwards the agent wrote to me and said : " I am very sorry, but 1 have orders to -ell that farm this year. If you like to buy it 1 will give yon the first offer; if not, I must give you notice to leave." I consulted my son, who had been turned out of the other farm two years before, anil he said: " Do as you like, father ; but if we are turned out of this I shall leave the country." I felt myself bound, against my own better judgment, and I say so to-day, and really against my own wishes, to do what I could to help him. and I bought the farm. I am very sorry I was compelled to do so. 15.106. I understood you to say that the farm which you held for a great number of years had been sold? — Yes; that was sold over my head, and we were turned out. 15,107 Y-!i5 to I!H3. and I'M I to li'l*. In the first period you only made 3 per cent on your capital and an average of 1-151 a year?- Yes. 15.120. I suggest to you that unless you had had some ki«d of outside means, that first period must have led to ruin- Yes. if I had only had the amount of capital when I started. 15.121. You withstood the times, but a great many others came to grief, I snppo-e!' Yes. There was hardly a farm in my own parish or in an adjoining parish that did not change hands in that time; and I should think in five cases out of six the farmer had failed. I"). 122. What the farmer fears is, that owing to a fall in the world prices for products of the farm, and also the inci eased expense of labour and shorter hours, a similar experience may come again!' I think it will be worse. I think it will come more quickly and more severely. 15.123. And farmers maintain that they ought to be protected against a similar experience if land is to remain under the plough? — Yes. 15,121. In the second period you made 10 per cent. on your capital!' Koughly. 1 "i,l 25. Do you consider that a fair profit to cover the interest on your capital and remuneration for your own work? — No, I do not. If you reckon my own time and my son's — «nd during that time I was engaged constantly in it. a lot more than I have been lately I do not think it leaves sufficient. It is only an average of £796. I think, really, we ought to have received quite half that, and more for our own work, and so on ; I have allowed nothing for market ex- penses and out -of pocket expenses of that sort. 15.1 24). Do you consider 20 per cent, a fair and reasonable profit, or very much on the right side 1 should not call it n really very extravagant profit; but I should be- perfectly satisfied and rather more than satisfied with it. 15.127. Do you think a farmer making 15 per cent. on his capital would have- every inducement to do the land \\ell and put further capital into the farm'r Yes, if be bad security for that further capital. 15.12*. If be bad security of tenure-1 Yes. 15.129. Mr. Liniinril : Was 1 right in understanding that, the land which you are lavim; down to grass was ploughed no since the outbreak of war' Yes. most of il I also intend laving down 50 or (50 or perhaps 100 acres more all that lies furthest awav from home. 15.130. The land which yon have actually laid down already, was land ploughed up since (be outbreak of Yc«. 15.131. And before that it bad been grass land since about 1"O- Some of it. Some of it was laid down in I*!*:, or 1 *!»(!. Some of it T took in 18P1. and there wore 70 or s»0 acre* of that 1 laid down soon afi 15132. 1 understand it would only pay you to keep this land under the- plough if the price of wheat woi-e as high ax 100 shillings a c|iinrter!' I do not 1JV,. to fix any price, but T cannot soo that I could if the hours of labour are reduced. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 59 21 October, 1919.] MR. E. M. NUITNELEY. [Continued. 15.133. Unless the price was £5 a quarter?— I will say unless the prices were guaranteed higher than 1 can conceive them to he. 15.134. You have mentioned the reduced hours of agricultural labourers. You are aware, 'of course, that hours of lahour have been reduced in other occupa- tions; that, for example, railway men have an eight- hour day? — Yes. 15.135. Do you not think that if long hours were maintained in agriculture, it would be very difficult to get a sufficient supply of able-bodied labourers? — No, I do not. You must remember there is such a differ- ence in agriculture and these other things between the working day and the actual hours of labour. Out of a 10^-hour day. we used to have men who did not spend in actual labour more than about 8 to 85 hours as a rule. Out of an 8^-hour day they will not spend in actual labour on an average more than 6 to 7. 15.136. You mean they do not spend this time in actual hard work, but they are on duty all that time. They cannot do as they like? — Yes, that is one tBing. They are partly on duty ; but you see in farming you have to send the men, generally speaking, up to the fields to their work. Then very frequently you have to change them during the day from one job to another. You can hardly say they are actually in work, when they are walking a mile or half mile from one field to another; but you cannot help it. 15.137. They are not their own masters? — No. They are what are called working hours, but they are not hours spent in actual labour. 15.138. What I suggest is this: that if in other occupations the hours of work are reduced in such a way that the man working in those occupations has a larger proportion of the day to himself to upend as he pleases, will not those other occupations become so much more attractive to labour than agriculture, that it will be difficult to get a sufficient supply of able- bodied men for farm work?- Of course there would have to be some correlation between the two; but 1 honestly think that men would prefer, say, 9 hours a day on the farm to an 8-hour day in the factory, and they would not do as much work in the time. They would not lie at work so long. A man goes into a factory and site down at his l>ench. and is at it the whole of the time until the bell rings for him to .;o out again; but on a farm the man is never like that. !)•• ^oen from one job to another; and apart from that tin-;, always have time to stretch their backs and have a little chat when they like, and smoke a pipe, and so on. 15.139. Yes; but do you not find that with the younger men especially, there is a tendency for them to leave agriculture for other employments? — There always ha-. Keen. 15.1 10. And is not one of the reasons they show that preference because they can get more leisure and more time to themselves:^ That is one of the reasons, no doubt, and town life attracts an active young follow of course. 15.141. Y<>ke of the difficulty of men reckoning that their working day started when they left their homes. Might not the Government regulations pro- vide that the day should start at the farm, and so help to tighten up things a bit? It would be no uso if they uld keep those horses all together, it would be certainly largo; but I have them divided, and have one- liorse-keepe'i- at each. We do not go on the- i' which pre-vnils in some part-, and of which Mr. Overman knows, of having n man to every 2 I, nnd each man sees to his own horhct* and works them. We have one head horseke»<-p<>r who is responsible, for soejng that the horses are fit, and the men go with them" to work if necessary. 1.VI79. He is looking nfte-r the 14? — There- are about (i or - in two different sets of buildings, and there is one man in each place. Kvi>n when t-b< y were nil kept together, as they were up to 1916, I alwav.t had two horee.W.pers, a* we call them. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 61 21 October, 1919.] MH. E. M. NUNNELEY. Continued. 15,130. Mr. Thomas Henderson: Referring to Mr. Langford's questions on the Hours of Employment Bill, you said you had not read the Bill:' — 1 have not. I have seen extracts, and, I suppose, the princi- pal clause, but I have not seen the exceptions. 15,181. You are not aware that there is a con- siderable amount of elasticity with regard to the working of overtime:' — No, but I understand that practically each time you want a man to work over- time you have to get special permission, but as I say I have not seen the Bill. 15,132. There is a clause providing for the working of overtime in cases of emergency:' — Yes, I under- stood there was such a clause, but I object very strongly to what I may call being obliged to have overtime regularly in the carrying on of our business. 15,IS3. You cannot blame the workers because of what is in the Bill:" — No, I have guarded myself already in that respect. 15.184. In the first draft of the Bill the agricul- tural industry was included? — Y«B. 15.185. So that evidently the reasons for exclud- ing the industry from the second draft were not con- sidered to be very strong ones at the time of the first draft:' — I do not know anything about that, but I consider agriculture so entirely different from other industries that I do not think it should be put upon the same level as industries in general in that respect. 15.186. At any rate our legislators thought it ought to be included to begin with!'— Yes, those who drew up the Bill ; I do not know who they were. 15.187. You said in reply to Mr. Lennard that you were in favour of a 9 hours working day? — 9 hour* actual work, which really would mean the old 10£ hours working day allowing for meal times. We have put up with the 9 hours lately, and I think we should try to carry on with that; that is to say, the same* as last year — a 54 hour week in the summer and 48 in the winter. I should not personally have tried to upset that arrangement if it had been left alone. 15.188. Assuming your wishes had been carried into effect, that woukl involve the abolition of the Satur- day half holiday? — No, it would not, and it never has done. I have had a short day on Saturday for the last 20 years. 15.189. If you have a 9 hours' day, a 54 hour week, I cannot see where your half holiday, or short time Saturday is to come in? — We have worked 9J hours for five days and taken it off on the sixth. 15.190. At what time do they get off on the Satur- day?— I believe it is 1 o'clock — either 1 or 2. I am not on the farm myself now ; I leave it all to my son ; but all the summer they have been working 9^ hours for five days, and that leaves 6J for the Saturday. That would be 7 to 1 and half an hour for lunch — I think it would be half past 1 before they leave off on Saturday. 15.191. You said you had not paid Income Tax before last year? — That is so, or not so much. 15.192. Is that not rather a surprising statement of yours, having regard to your profits in 1914, 1915, and 1916? — Not at all. Farmers have always had the right to pay on their rent until recently, and dividing my rent between myself and my son, we have never become liable to much Income Tax. 15.193. I see, you divide the rent between the two of you? — Yes. I may say I have boon for many years a Commissioner of Income Tax, and also that I did not have the pleasure of paying much Income Tax until last year. 15.194. I congratulate you on your good fortune? — Of course, when I say that I have never tried in the least to escape from the payment unfairly. I have always laid the whole thing before the Sur- veyor of Taxes and proved that I was not liable. 15.195. There is some confusion, is there not, with regard to your cost of production estimate? — You give us the costs of production for your 8 years' rotation ? — Yes. 15.196. That, I take it, is the cost in the year ending C'hrUtmas, 1918? — It is the estimated cost in any year— it ia what I consider the average cost. 15.197. Ovt-r the 8 years of your rotation? — Yes; I have always contended that it ia impossible to separate one crop from another and say what is the co»t of one particular crop. 15.198. Take your wages. Are these wages the average wages over the 8 years' period? — No, they were the wages we were paying at Christmas, 1918. 15.199. Are you estimating the cost of labour over this 8 years' rotation on the basis of those wages? — On the wages in force ,at the time I took this out. 15.200. How does that give you the true picture of your cost over the 8 years? — I did not say they were the actual expenses. I said they were what 1 calculated would be the expense with wages at that rate and the hours as they were then. 15.201. You give the total produce for 8 years, and you deduct the 8 years' cost as if those were the actual costs for the 8 years? — Yes. 15.202. Whereas these are simply the costs esti- mated on the wages and hours' rate at Christmas, 1918?— Yes. 15.203. The actual costs, therefore, would be much less? — -Yes, before that period, no doubt. 15.204. So that the figure you give is not the correct figure — it may be higher or it may be lower? — It may be so; I cannot say. It is my calculation of what would be the cost based on the wages and hours which were then in force. 15.205. I quite understand that, but your figure of the annual average cost over the 8 years is a mere estimate? — Yes. 15.206. And bears no relation to the cost in the previous 7' years? — That is so. 15.207. It is only an estimate? — Only an estimate. 15.208. So that if you were to put in the accurate figures for the previous 7 years you might get an accurate result? — Yes, but I oould not divide the cost up between the different crops. I never meant it to be an actual cost ; it is an estimate. 15; 209. With regard to the question asked you by Mr. Ashby in reference to your profit for the year 1918 of £1,797, you said you did not divide your profit between the arable side of your farming and the stock rearing side? — No. 15.210. In reply to several Commissioners you have told us you are going to put certain fields down to . grass because you are more hopeful as regards your stock prospects than your arable prospects? — Yes. 15.211. How can you tell that if you do not divide your costs and your profit up between your different crops? — I do not say that exactly; what 1 say is I cannot see with the present costs as they are how it can be otherwise. 15.212. So that you are throwing your land down to grass simply under an impression and without any actual knowledge? — Taking my profit and loss account years ago it showed that as soon as we came below 40s. a quarter at that time and certainly when it got as low as 30s., with wages as they were then at 2s. 2d. or 2s. 3d. a day, I began to lose money. I may tell you that I got very much found fault with in the county, because at a meeting, I think it \vas in the year 1882, of the Chamber of Agricul- ture, I said that wheat under the conditions then prevailing could be grown at about 32s. to 33s. a quarter — I do not say at very much profit, but that 1 thought we could do it. I say I was found fault with for that statement, yet 7 or 9 years afterwards many of those same farmers were saying they would be very glad if they could get 32s. a quarter and that they could grow it for that amount then, but with wages as they are now and with hours as they are — paymg 6s. Id. for an 8 hour day, I do not see how wheat could possibly be grown to show a profit. 15.213. You have not in reality worked out the division of profit between these two systems of farm- ing?—No. 15.214. So that you are really putting certain of your land down to grass on the strength of an impression ? — Yes. 15.215. Which may be right or may be wrong?— With the experience I have had I have not much doubt about it being right. 15.216. You have not had experience of the future? — No. As I have said, if we could have such a price as would induce us to go on with it wo would go on with it, but I do not think it is practically possible. 62 ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 21 October, 1919.] MR. E. M. Ni SSH.EY. [Continued. r. With regard to your figure of JU1.7H7 for last Noai's profits, taking tin- art mil uatimat vour average nniiunl profit •<< i'l l!*s that is mi Homcthing lik>> -' n acres, in it n -.•"" nr --"ill "i something of that sort. 18, That is. roughly speaking, about I ukin.; ti te tl V.i- I'M I . which i.s m>t an a«-tu:i' '> . it mi^ht Ivr. IV-'I'.>. You hail a special profit mi MIIIK- -I acre* nf peas last \.-ar- I hail last \ear, hut I (hi lint Bay tnv othrr 'anil paid mo that. 'l.'i.-.'-.tl. X.i. hut ill.-.- peas H.IU'.I! figure ill the average ..f £1 l!>s. (id., would they not?— No. 1.V.-JI. How inui-h total profit did you make mi tin- |M>a«? — I raiinoi -ay. I in v.-r i-an say what any on.- crop ha- cost MII-: I can -a\ what it jirmluc.Ml hut nut what it actually cost me. l.'i. --•-'. V.HI cannot gixc a (inure for tin- cost of product inn- No. It I remember right the cos; of pnMluction of tin-so j>cas was not high, f think tho land for that crop was only ploughed once and Jiart of it manured and part artificially manured: it was hoed once at ah.uii LI an aero — hut 1 have never reckoned up the actual cost ; there is so much manu- rial value especially left from a previous crop, and KO cm. 15,223. You have not worked it out? — No, I do not think it is possible to do it. -'iM. You stated in reply to another Commis- sioner thai v.iu were in favour of a return to a state of freeilom for farmers? — Yes. I think 1 would go as far as that, but I want an alteration in other ways. 15.225. That would involve some limitation of your freedom, would it not?— No, I think it would give us more freedom. I should want better security of tenure- -security of capita! perhaps I ought to ca'l it — and I should want a drastic revision of local taxation. I consider we nre jiay ing enormously more than we ought to do for that. I should also want a revision of railway rates, and to be put upon a fair basis in other ways. I believe that we could then hold our own against the world, but it would be only by growing corn on the most suitable land and under the best conditions. 1 '• '-"-'G. I take it that you are not in favour of reverting to the previous very low standard of wages in Knsiland- I hojio never to do that again. 1.V -"_'". Vour freedom will not be limited in that direction, at anv rate- No. l.Vl'--. You do not propose to use your freedom for the purpose of reverting to the low wages of tho past? — No. I have always said that farm labourers have not been properly paid, but at the same tinio I have also sai.l I was tln> worM paid labourer on my farm for 2" \ears; I paid my labourers better than I wa» paid in- l"i.22!l. The nirniers in the [>ast jmid very low- wages? --Yes. 15.2UII. You do not propose to use your freedom to revert to that ? Thev were forced to pay low wages. I hope we shall be able to pay more in the future if we get fair conditions which we have never vet had. l.'i'-^tl. You think if you get security of tenure you will he able to pay siillieieni wa^<-- Yes, hut mind you. I do not think the price of our produce is ever coming down no low as we have had it in (In- put. 1.VJ.TJ. You said you wen- in favour of sweeping awav the Wages Hoard, not so much because thev fixed high wages, hut because they fixed the ho;i I think the wages would have gone up practically to the extent that thev have done without the Wages Board, but not the hours; that is tin- point which is injuring us. l.VJ:t:<. I)., Mm think it is likely that the lalxmrcrs in the agricultural industry would lie content to work lone hi. I think so. U. (In what d.i you base your experience- H, some one or two of my m,.n have told me that thev d'i in. I < insider thnt last year's hours I do not go back further than that wore too long, and I havn • had any demand from my labourers for shorter hour*. Have anv nf your neighbours had anv do mand for shorter houM? I bnve never heard of it. I. V_':!i. 'I he Wag.* Board fixed the hours?— Yea. :7. So that there was no in • tin- men to make an\ demand on their own ace. unit- 1 hav.- n.".. i heaid «>l any dciiuind I'M. in the men lor si hours. 88. Do vim think it the Wag.-- It. n.l w.-red away with that the men would p. l.a. k to the old hours' It is rather a dillicull mailer to alter a thin./ after the men have got usisl to it. I.V.£»!I. S.i that, when \ou go back to vour state of ii, .•.!>. in to which MIU arc a.spiring. you will have to put up with what according to you is an artificial dcMrc on the part of ihe laliourers for shorter li I •!.. not think we can ha\e shorter hours, hut I think tin- tendency will I., to go u little bit back to \s I s;iv. I w a ! w ith last Nour's hours, but I am not content with any shorter number of hours. I.VJIO Do you think the men would be . onteiii wii'i last year's hours? So far a.s I have heard and I think they would IM- absolutely content. I.VJtl. .l/i. ./. M. Ili-iii I, i-fn n : You said you would lie willing to go back to tho old position without any guarantee, but you make several provisos? — Yes. 1.1.1' 12. First of all you say the railwav rat«s should he lowered? — Not that they should he lowered tiat we should he put on fair terms and conditions. l.l.lM.'l. What do you call fair terms in respect of railway rates? You want them lowered, do you not? — I should like, to see them if anything rather better, but certainly not worse, than the rates for foreign produce which we comjioto w ith. l.V.'ll. So long as the railway rates are raised all round, you do not object? — No, I do not think it would make much dilfcrcncc to us, but I do ohj. foreign j>roduce — as I know was the caM '-M vear.s ago, and I believe still is should have a preference over our home produce. 1 know it has actually hap poned. when a load has been put on the railway, for the sender to be a.sked : " Is this Knglish prodii' is it foreign.'' and ii' it is foreign it is carried at about two-thirds of the English rate. 1.1.2 1;1. I do not think you are right there. You are referring to through rates I think from America or other place* abroad? I know that foreign jirodm-e. fruit and so on, ha,s IKH'II brought from Franco and landed at Kolkostone. and carried to London from Koike- . less rate ;haii is charged if tho same quantity of home grow n prodm ••• is put on tho railway half-way Ix-twcen Koikes tone and London. That 'l think is emirely wrong. I.VJ4G. I do not think you are right about thatP — I know il was sn I'd \ears ago. 1 have not. enquired into it of recent Years. I.V_'I7. I'nloss the railway rates charged to you are less. YOU do not in any way benefit? The merchant who buys my wheat knows exactly what carria: has to pay on it t.> get it to where he wants it, and if he only has lid. a quarter to jiay instead of Is. for rates. 1M, will uive me (id. a quarter more. l-VJIv You want cheaper rates' I am referring to the foreigner. l.'i.-'l'.i. I. CMC the foreigner out? You cannot do that, because, if the rates are higher it adds to the c:ist and the consumer has to pay it; it is the con sinner who has to pay all the costs in the end. l.'i.'J'o. Noii know there must he an enormous rise in railway rales in the Cut lire." So I understand. l."i.2"il. You want to make a point of the lowering of railwax rates? No. I said I want.d fair rates for our produce in . omparison with the produce of the _'iier. 1 •">.'-' '•'.' V .d.si. want an alteration of the local ' You want them revjsi .1 .- \ , l.'i. 2.11. \V:is not there a thing calhd the Agricul- tural Kalinu Act *> l.'i.'.'.Vi. Did that Act not benefit vou- Very slight ly. There was aKo what is called th lucation rate. which has inflicted a very much higher payment on me than tie -aving from Agricultural Rating Acts of six years before. 15.2.50. You do not want any education rate? — I did not say that. I only want to pay the same in proportion to my income as other people jiay. At present I pay from six to ten times as much in propor- MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 63 21 October, 1919.] MR. E. M. NUNNELEY. [Continued. tion to my income as some townspeople pay, and I do not think that is fair. I did not expect to go into this, but I am prepared to put certain figures before you if you think it worth while to prove what I have just said. 15,257. Do you suggest that you pay six or seven or eight or ten times more on your income as a farmer than other people do for rates? — Yes. 15,259. That is a sort of statement which wants verification in some way or other? — Yes, I can verify it. 15.259. Chuirmun: I think you might, if you will put in for the consideration of the Commission the tigures you base your statement upon? — Yes, I will do that." Might 1 say that we had a deputation some time ago to Mr. Lloyd George when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of rating, and we laid the figures before him. 1 am quite prepared to submit those figures to you now. 15.260. If you would be so kind as to send them in, and if any of the Commissioners wants to ask you questions upon them, perhaps you will put yourself at our disposal at a later period? — Very good, Sir. Might I give one very short illustration of what I mean? It will not take two minutes. 15.261. Please? — For the last 40 years I have been occupying land at Orlingbury, four or five miles out of Wellingborough. There were five parislies, for which we had one policeman. A penny rai/e in those parishes produced £80 to £90. That policeman's wage was £o5 at that time, and, therefore, if we had to pay him ourselves out of our penny rate, we should have had £20 or £30 in hand to apply in other direc- tions. There were 17 sergeants and constables in Wellingborough, and if the people of Wellingborough had had to pay those men it would have meant that they would have had to raise a M>\ rnpenny rate. That was never done. What they did was to levy a 3d. or 4d. rate over the whole area, and that; went to pay all the policemen in the area. Is that fair? Our agricultural district could have paid its police with a mil' penny rate, and had a good bit of money over. On the other hand, the urban district would have had to raise a 7d. rate to pay their police. Instead of doing that they made us all pay 3d. or -Id. in the £ to pay for the whole of the police in the area. I5.2l>2. Mr. -I. M. lliH'li'i -«nt : You said, a- I gathered, that you bought your farm for £5,850? — No; that was the price which the old farm made when it was sold by auction. I was prepared to give £4,000 or £4.200 or a hundred or two more, but it marie £5.850. 15.203. What did you pay for it?— I did not buy that farm. I have bought another one since. 15,2fi4. You told one of the Commissioners you were not happy about it'-- No, T was not. 15.205. You intimated speaking about the farm you did buy that you were not satisfied with the price yon paid for it? — It was not quite that. I did not wish to buy it at all ; I am not satisfied to be the owner of it. I5,2IVi. Why? Ki«-ause I think farmers are very much better off renting land and employing their i] in their farm — not locking their capital up in the land to pay them 3 or 4 per cent, when it ought to be employed in their farm at a higher per- 15.207. You could sell it again, could you not?— 'ily, but if MI, what is my son going to do — a you n Ionian -about 35. 15.2f!«. Tin- Cliuirman: I do not like to stop you, Mr. Henderson, but the witness did say lie would not h:iv<- Ixiught his farm unless his son had said thlat if the farm were sold over their heads he would have to leav the country?— I do not know that I actually said that, but that was the substance* of it. 15. '.*;;>. T«, I think you actually did use those W..!' 15.270. .1/r. 7. M. Ilititlrrxon: I understood you to say you wore i!i-..atisfied abnut it. Are you satisfied, or "are von not? With what? 15.271. With having had to purchase your farm?— I am dissatisfied because I did not want to pur- chase it. Not 15,272. Then you are dissatisfied with the farm?- il with the farm at the price I gave for it. but dissatisfied with the conditions that forced me to buy it. • 15.273. You do not like to be an owner? No. 15.274. You wish to bo a tenant? Ye*, under fair conditions. 15.275. You are satisfied with the price you paid for it? — Satisfied so far that 1 think it was well worth the money at the time, but dissatisfied because I think land will come down in value within the next few years. 15.276. Beyond the fact that you think land will come down in value you have no reason to .find fault with your purchase? — Not with that particular pur- chase, but I do not think the practice of farmers owning their own land is a good one; I think they are better off under a reasonable and fair landlord than farming their own land. 15.277. You prefer that the landlord should get the 3 per cent, and not you? — Yes, you can put it in that way. Landowners are usually men with large capital and they can afford to accept 3 or 4 per cent for their money, whereas a farmer is generally a man with small capital, and he ought to get more than 3 or 4 per cent, return on his capital. 15.278. What do you say lias been the result cf the Corn Production Act guarantee during the years 1918 and 1919? What extra quantity of wheat do you say or do you believe it has produced? — None at all — not the Corn Production Act which you are speaking of now. The present prices are not due to the Corn Production Act. 15.279. The Corn Production Act was passed in 1917?— Yes. 15.280. Did that or did that not have the effect of increasing the production of wheat in 1918 and 1919? —I do not think it did at M ; the Corn Production Act has not raised the price of wheat to its present pitch ; it has risen independently of that Act. 15.281. I am not referring to price; I am referring to the quantity produced? — I do not think it did — not the Corn Production Act 15.282. Mr. Cautley asked you something about .shipping — whether as shipping got more free and freights easier, freights would not come down and more corn come in from abroad at a cheaper price. IK that your idea? — Yes, I suppose that is what .vill happen. 15.283. Do you know how many tons of shipping vrere sunk during the course of the war? — No, I have not gone into that; that is not my business. 15.284. Would you be surprised to hear that it amounted to something like 8,000,000 tons? — No. 15.285. How long do you think it will take before that amount of tonnage can be replaced? — I have no idea ; you can hardly expect a farmer to be able to answer such a question as that. 15.286. So far as shipping is concerned it does not ii'terest you — it does not affect you? — Yes, it affects me decidedly ; but as to how long it will take to replace the lost tonnage, I can express no opinion. 15.287. If you can express no opinion with regard to that, you cannot express any view as to the future prospects of agriculture? — Yes, surely, I can. 1 do not know whether it w.ill take one or two or three or four or five years to replace the tonnage, but whenever the replacement is effected it will affect the price cf •vheat. 15.288. You have no idea when that will be?— No. I may have my own vague ideas, but I do not think they are worth anything. 15.289. Dunns; all these years of which you have {liven us an account, there was a period during which you were only earning 3 per cent. Did it ever occur to you to throw up the business of farming? — A good n any times, and I was very nearly doing it more than once. I went so far on one occasion to enter into negotiations for going into another business. . 15,290. I suppose you know in the early nineties, when you were making this 3 per cent., that the bank rate was only 2 per cent, for two years, money was so cheap? — It did not affect me much. I may have known at the time, but I really do not remember. I do not see what that has got to do with it. 15,291. If you had had more capital then to put into your farm, you would not have got more than 3 per cent, for it? — As a matter of fact, at that time I 64 ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 21 Oclobtr, 1919.] MB. E. M N< .SKLRY. [Continued. happened, through an outside circmn.-t.ime, to coma into possession of a little money, ami 1 m\ e*t< d tlru money in taking more land. 16.293. If there is a general tendency to put more land down, to grass how will that affect milk produc- tion P — It will not affect it at all in my particular case, because I do not go in fur milk production. 15,383. Is not the natural result of putting land down to grass to increase milk production? — I think not, at any rate not in my case, because without that I should hare had sufficient grass. 15.294. I am not speaking of yourself alone, but the general view? — I do not think it would, because if you plough it up it leaves you with less grass, but more straw and more roots. 15.295. Instead of turning a field into wheat you turn it into grass. Will that not have the effect of increasing milk production? — It all depends on the eircuiiistamvs. If roll hare not sufficient grass to Ueep your stock in* the summer, turning it down to grass would enable you to keep rather more, but, on ther hand, with ploughed land it enables you to keep more in the winter. But in the case of this particular land it would not affect it at all really, because you cannot grow roots on it. 15.296. Ther. you do not think the increase in grazing would affect the production of milk? — Very slightly, if at all, especially with that class of land. 15.297. How far is your farm from the nearest town? — The buildings are four miles from Welling- Lorough and five from Kettering; the top land would be a little more. 15.298. You hold with the principle that if you could get satisfaction in rating, and if the foreigner were charged as much as you for railway rates, you would be content to go back to the old position rather than want a guarantee? — With other things put on : fair footing I think I should prefer it. 15.299. That is the view which was given to us by one of the members of the National Farmers' Union (Scotland)? — I did not know that. 15.300. Mr. Cautley says he has queered the pitch ? — I have not seen the evidence given by other wit- nesses at all, and, as I say, I am not speaking for the Farmers' Union to-day. 15.301. Mr. Green: I want you to turn to your profit and loss account for the years 1878 and 1918, inclusive. You make a statement in tho footnote to Statement " D " : " It will be seen that I have divided the 41 rears into three periods — 1878 to 1894, 17 years of falling prices, when I only made 3 per cent, intere-t on capital ; 1895 to 1913, 19 years of very slowly rising prices, when I made 10 per cent, interest on capital ; and 1914 to 1918, five War years of quite abnormal prices and conditions, when I made nearly 20 per cent, interest on capital"? — Yes. 15.302. I venture to suggest to you that your facts are not correct. For instance, if you take the aver- age price of wheat in the first period, 1878 to 1894, you will find the average price was 35s. 9d. You say from 1895 to 1913 were 19 years of very slowly rising prices. As a matter of fact they were not. Tho average price from 1895 to 1913 comes to 29s. 7d. So it amounts to this : if the figures I have given you are correct — and I think you will find them correct if you refer to the figures of the Board of Agricul- ture which I have in front of me — that in those 19 years of lower prices for wheat you were making a much higher. average of profit than when the pi • were higher? — Excuse me, I never said anything about what was the average price for those two periods. I said the first period was a period of fall- ing prices. The price of wheat in 1878, speaking I'rom recolle<-tion, was somewhere about 45s. to 60s., and it had been at that figure for Mime • During the next few years it fell from that to as low •« 19s. a quarter in 1894. That is what I sold wheat at, I think, in 1894. From 1895 to 1913 it rose again until it got up to .'«•<. or 34s. When I said the first period was a period of falling prices. 1 ine-uit <,n tin- whole; I did not refer only to wheat, but to other thing* M well. 16.303. I put it to you that in the other period, from to ll'l.f, prices fell still more rapidly?— I do not agree with you at all. 15.304. You only have to refer to the Board rjeultiirv figures to prove it? — I say that in 1894 it went down as low as 19s., but it rose again from 19s. until, about 1913, it got up to 32s. or 33s. 15.305. The average was higher in the first period than in the second ; the prices in the second period were much lower than in the first period? — I was not speaking of the average for the first period; I said the price^ weie falling during that period, which I thinU is rather a different thing. 15.306. Yon have implied already to this Commis- .-niii that you could make a better profit when wheat was over 40s. than you could when it was under 30s. Take the six successive years 1878 to 1883. I find from your own statement of your profit and loss account that you made an average annual profit for those six years of £101. I think you will find figures are correct. Take your next period. Take six successive years of mucli lower prices — under 30s. a quarter. You will find from 1899 to 1904, in spite of the price being under 30s. a quarter, you made an average annual profit of £490?— Cannot you under- stand that? 15.307. Does not that strike you as rather remark- able considering your former statement:- Oh, dear, no, not in the least. I should have thought you would have understood that. I took the Farm' in 1878 at the rent of 36s. an acre. My rent was redm ed subsequently, and in 1804 I was paying 16s. an ai-ie for that land, besides which I had cut down my other expenses. I was not employing nearly so much labour ; I laid a lot of the land 'down to grass. My costs of production were cut down, and it was not on wheat alone that I got that profit, hut by an altera- tion in my system of farming. Practically 1 did then what Mr. Donaldson, in his statement the other day, said we should have to do in the future. I went in for more of what we may call the ranching style of farmer— laying down tho poorest kind of land to grass, and cultivating it all ns cheap as possible. You must remember, too, the last six years you took I *M farming a larger quantity of land than I «as in the first six years period. 1 got a larger profit, but it was from double the quantity of land, and farmed more on the ranching system. 1">..'W8. I do not know whether you remember the years before 1878?— I began farming in 1868, but 1878 was the time I moved from the smaller to the larger farm. 15.309. You will admit that wages were lower in 1868 than they were in the period of depression in the 'nineties? — I believe the lowest wages I ever paid, 11s. t \\.ck, was about the year 1885, and lowering the wages from 12s. to 11s. cost me a good many pounds since. 15.310. In the 'sixties, at any rate, you were paying about 9s. or 10s. for labour? — No, 11s. was the lowest I ever paid, and I paid that in 1885 or 1886. 1.").311. I understood you to say that you thought the abolition of the Wages Board would mean that wages would go down?— No, I do not think I said that. I said that if we had not bad the V. Board I believed that wages would still have risen to about what they are to-day, but I do not think the hours would have been altered so much. 15,312. As regards laying down land to grass, how do you stand with reference to Part 4 of the Corn Production Act. which contains the cx>mpulsory powers:- Would they have power to insist upon your ploughing up that Mod again?- I do not think so. I happen to lie Chairman of the Committee which puts the Act in force. l.">..'(i:t. From your general knowledge of farming in this country, with regard to the figures which have boon given us by the Board of Agriculture as to the land which has been laid down to grass this year, do you not think that those figures might be discounted largely by the fact that a good deal of that land ought never to have been ploughed at all for wheat production? — There was a good deal of land ploughed that. I think would have been better not, but I would not say even now, under the conditions of two or MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 65 21 October, 1919.] MR. E. M. NUNNELEY. [Continued. three years ago, that it ought not to have been ploughed. I myself ordered land to be ploughed up then which I should not under normal conditions do. 15.314. That is my point, that under normal con- ditions a good deal of it ought not to be ploughed? — It was not profitable to plough it, but if the country wants a large agricultural propulation and men kept in the country and a large quantity of food produced, that land must be cultivated in spite of the loss. 15.315. Mr. Dallas: With regard to the Wages Board you think if there was perfect freedom tha Wages Board should be abolished. What change would that make; why do you want it abolished? — I think without the Wages Board and its Order as regards hours our men would not have asked even for the hours we had last year, and I certainly do not think that they would have asked for any further induction. 10.316. Is that the only change you think would be made? — No, I do not say that. With freedom I think we should get on better. 15.317. What does freedom mean? Does it mean that you would not negotiate say with the Unions concerned? — Well, I suppose nowadays we shall have to, but I think the men would get better terms if they did not. 15.318. You would not get freedom in that case? — It is not freedom now; it is law We are not bound by freedom to obey tho Wages Hoard ; it is by law. 15.319. Do you not think if the Wages Board were abolished and there was no law to compel them, that a large number of employers — I do not say you and some of the other men, but you know the people I am referring to — would not pay the rates? — I believe there are a large number of farmers who would only pav what they are obliged to to get the labour, nnd I think thore are a good many similar employers in other industries. ].V:',20. Yes, that is the |>»;nt. The Wages Board puts all the farmers on the snmc level; it makes ihoiu all pay the same rate?- 1-".321. If tho Wages Board were abolished there would be a tendency for a large number of employers not to pay the rates? — They could not do it to any great extent. Conditions in the case of individual farms may vary, but not taking a district as a whole to any great extent. 15.322. Would you be surprised if I told you that at the present moment, even with the law as it is, thon are hundreds of fresh complaints every week of employers not paying the rates fixed by the Wages Board?— I do not quite understand it, but if I am told it is so I must take it. 15.323. Are you aware that there are Wages Boards in other industries fixing the rates of wages? — I do not know of any Board that has the same legal power to fix wages as the Agricultural Wages Board has. 15.324. I can assure you that there are quite a number? — They are not called Wages Boards. 15.325. It is only ;i difference in the name, but it is the same thing. They are called Trade Boards, and these Trade Boards fix the minimum rates of wages for certain trades, and the employers have no guaranteed prices? — Yes, but in those trades if »n employer can get his men willingly to work for less, is he liable to the law? 15.326. Yes, he is liable to the law?— I did not know that, but I do not say it is not so. 15.327. So that there is a precedent for the retain- ing of the Wages Board? — Yea, I expect we have got to retain them. 15.328. Mr. Nicholls : I was not quite clear as to your answer about the Corn Production Act. I understood you to say that you did not think it made any difference reallv to the breaking up of the land?— No. 15.329. Will you agree that when the Corn Pro- duction Act was passed it indicated a part of the Government policy which showed that they were prepared to back up the farmers' efforts, and even though it did not affect prices, they thought it would facilitate the work of the War Agricultural Com- mittees?— Yes, it might perhaps have done that. What I meant when I said that it did not cause more corn to be grown was that the prices have gone up above the guarantee in the Corn Production Act, and that the rise in prices has tended to keep land under the plough ; but the rise in prices is quite indepen- dent of the Corn Production Act. 15.330. Do you really think that the action of the Government gave any confidence to the farmers? — No, I do not think it did — very little, if any. 15.331. That would indicate that no movement on the part of the Government would remove these fears that we are told so much about? — I would hardly go so far as to say that. If we had a guarantee of prices sufficient to pay for the cost of production — which, mind you, I do not strongly advocate — my idea is that it would be higher than any fixed price under the Corn Production Act at present. 15.332. What was in my mind was that fanners did not know that prices were going up to the height they did? — No. 15.333. And I wondered whether you thought that under the Corn Production Act the Government had indicated a policy by which they were going to give a certain price under that Act, and that that would tend to give confidence to farmers and encourage them to crow more cereals? — No, I do not think it did, really. (The Witness withdrew.) MH. A. H. POTTS, Farmer, of Felling oa Tyne, Called and Examined. 15.334. Chairman: Will you allow me to consider the statements which have been put in by you, and by Mr. Howell on your behalf, as part of your evidence «ithout reading them*? — Certainly. 15.335. Dr. Houylnx: Will you turn to paragraph 3 of your evidence? You say you are in the habit of buying large quantities of town manure, and last year you were not able to obtain that; is that so?— Only part of it. 15.336. So you used more artificial manures? — I u i •! part artificial., but not as much as I should have liked to. 1-V337. What do you mean by saying that "this latter system is much less profitable"? What do you refer to? — I refer to the keeping of stock. 15,338. You recognise that the system of farming you have boon carrying on must always be only a small proportion of tho whole? — Yes, in the minority. 1 '"i.330. It is a very exceptional method? — Yes, comparatively in the minority. 15.340. Only a small number of farmers have a similar opportunity of carrying it on? — Yes, only those in tho neighbourhood of large industrial towns. 15.341. Your method of farming has been to keep no stock and to purchase town manure? — Yea. See Appendix No. III. 26370 15.342. You have lately had to practice a different method of farming? — Yes. 15.343. Have you formed any opinion from your experience of a different method of farming of the relative cost and return of the two methods? — The cost would be much larger in the case of keeping stock on account of the amount of capital that is expended in buying the stock. 15.344. Does that capital not yield a return? — It does not yield as great a return as the system of selling all off, as I call it — marketing the produce. 15.345. Your farm is really of rather an excep- tional kind, and is not illustrative of any large number of farms? — That is so. 15.346. Mr. Ben: In your statement C. on page 16 under Expenditure your rent is stated at £265 12s. 3d. ?— Yes. 15.347. In paragraph 5 (2) you put down your annual rent as £196 15s. Od. Which is the correct sum? — The latter one. In statement C, I have simply put down the payment of rent that occurred in the year ; part of that payment should go into the pre- vious year. 15.348. Your actual rent is £196 15s. Od., and the first figure includes part of the previous year's rent? 15.349. Your farm is near Newcastle? — Ye«. E 66 ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 21 Uctobtr, 1919.] MB. A. H. Porrs. [Continued. 15,350. So that you had exceptional facilities for carrying on the system ><>u lm\e Ini-n doing until •M.ll. i '•-•»"•! You had lug profits last year? — Tho biggect profits I have I>\IT . .11 n. .1 !•"'.. ' :hiit due. t<> tl \r<>|itifinally high yedd -It was partly due to it and panK due to tho fact that I could nut r-pend UK much on the fanu an I should have liked to do. l."i..V>3. Your expenditure was less because you could not get tin. material! vou wanted;' — YOB. !.">.. V.4. Of cour^-, tin- yield of i urn in tin- north was very good last year P— It was the best I have ever known. 15,3-V). \V<> cannot therefore k>ok up<;. Your profit for the previous year, 1917 -, was £35-5, and tin- average profit lor the three pre- vious years i'530 per annum?— Yea, all war years. 15,357. That would be higher than you wonkl estimate in normal times? — If I had given you pro- war times it would have been considerably lose than that — something round about tho value of the rent. 15,3-V. With your system what do you say of a guaranteed price being required. Would farms of tho nature of yours go on growing corn on tho chance of getting a fair return without some form of Government guarantee? — Yes, I think they would because we have such few things to rely upon on sucb a difficult class of farm ; if we cannot grow corn we can do nothing; it i- :m exceptional < 15.359. That land would go out of cultivation? — It would go into grass. 15.360. That is what I mean : without a guarantee would you go on growing corn or would the land be laid down to grass?— It would be laid down to grass. No different form of arable farming would be taken up. 15.361. You are not dairying at all — you could not grow crops for dairying? — -No. 15.362. 3/r. liatchrlur: How many acres of wheat had you for the period dealt with here?— 30 acres. 15.363. How many acres of oats? — 38. 15.364. The sums received would be for tho full quantity of wheat? — Yes. - 15,365. With regard to oats, would there be a deduction for what is consumed by the horses? — Yes. l."i.:t(iii. Would the straw be the whole of the wheat straw and oat straw or did you retain uny? — Very little just for a few winter store cattle, to use up the refiiM< stuff of threshing days. 1~>.3G7. How do you sell your potatoes. and when:' Do you (-ell them immediately you lift them or do you put tin-in into a pit?--I house them some years and some years I sell them straight out of the ground ]."i .:!• -. I)., MIII remember what you did with them this particular year? — I housed them and sold them by the bag. l"i.. '«'.!». Will you look :i( paragraph 2 of j our /.i • You calculate that your hedging, fencing, ditching and drainage are in a much worw condition now than they were in 1!>I4? — Certainly. 1.1.370. Is it part of your duty as the tenant to keep those in propel condition "or is it the land- lord's duty? --It is my duty. l.").37l. So that the want of labour during the war has pretty much prevented you from keeping them in condition and also the forcing upon you of other cropping?- That is •.«>. J">.37L'. The result is that your profits for this year we are dealing with were, much higher than they would have IKM-II if you had expended all you ought to havo done to keep your land in proper condition ?— Very much higher.' 1. "i.37.'(. Is it your opinion that in the future you will He faced with putting these fences, hedges, diteho* and drains into proper 01 doubted ly. 15,374. So that that will have a tendencv to lower future profit*?— That is so. >/r <;i,iflf;l: You carry on, as I under- stand, a class of farming designed to meet the r iron instances of being within five miles of a bie town?— Yw. 15,376. And you have found it profitable? — Yes, it il profitable. l.'i.'irr. How many men do you employ? — Three to four. 1.V37S. Since the minimum wage has come in and you have had wages fixed for you and the. power of bargaining with your men for your labour taken awav from you. do you anticipate that that s\. of farming will bo unprofitable in tho future? — I think that it will get more unprofitable. |.'..37!>. Why i-. that- Because I am surrou by seven collieries win-re there is any amount nf employment, and when a man is not satisfied on the farm bo goes to tlie pit. 1Y380. That is nothing in do with farming?— No. II. can command a big price in the collieries and, therefore, we always pay over the minimum wage — nothing like the minimum « 15.381. The minimum wage does not affect your class of farming at all? — No. 15.382. You aro perfectly happy to go on as you are- Until tho men's demands become greater, which I thoroughly expect they will do. 15.383. Then you will" have to stop?— Yes. 15.384. How much above the minimum wages are you paying now ?^I am paying from 45s. to 50s. net wages and perquisites on the top of that. 15.385. What is tho minimum wage? — That does not refer to 1918. I may tell you. Perhaps you wMi to know about 1918? 15.386. Yes?— In 1918 the wages were slightly lower than that. They were 38s. to two guineas. 16.387. Is that the minimum wage? Let mo get it clear, whichever way it is. \Yhat is the minimum wage you pay on your farm to-day in your district ? — I really could not tell you ; we never pay the mini- mum wage, so we arc not interested in it. 15.388. Do you not know what the minimum wage in your district at the present moment is? — I have forgotten really ; that is the truth of the matter. All I know is I a.m paying above the minimum wage at the present time. 15.389. You do not want the Corn Production Aet either for the protection of the men in your district or for the protection of the farmer. You know the. Corn Production Act provides for a minimum wage to be paid by farmers? — Yes. H). It also provides that in return for the farmer paying tho minimum wage he shall receive certain guaranteed prices for cereals? — Yes. 15,391. As I understand, for your class of farming neither the minimum wage is "necessary to p the workman, nor is tho guarantee necessary to the farmer?— Perhaps that might be so at the moment . but is it the future you are referring to? l."i.3!ii'. Yes, that is what I 'want to get from you. At the present moment neither is necessary? — At tin- lit I don't think either is necessary. 1.">.:)!'3. Supposing there were no guaranteed prices of corn, and that the result of tho world's prices by competition were to reduce the price of wheat to 46s. a quarter, could you then go on paying tho present rate of wages and curry on your farm in tho same position as you are dcillg nOWf — -No. 15,394. You could not?— I do n I would be able to do so. ML What have you ionic here to tell us' Have you come, here to help us as regards your class of farming:' Is there anything you M • •r?— I was asked by th- give some figures and account* for my farm. 1 knew that I had had a good year and I did not want to refuse to give i! use it was a good vear; I wanted to lie perfectly frank and to h then- were spivial fluctuation in my case. l.">.3fKi. I i-egaid \nurs us a special sort of farming? That iv as simply the solo reason I wanted to . them to you. I have some figures showing some other \ears which an- not so good. '7. Your figures do not interest me, but your vi. -MS as a farmer carrying on your system of farm- ing do interest me, hut you have not got ;mv as I understand. Yon are carrying on a special - of farming which is quite common just outside our big towns where you sell everything off, and buy manure from tho town authorities and bring it on your farm?— Yes. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. '67 21 October, 1919.] MR. A. H. POTTS. [Continued. 15.398. You have a market ready at hand in the town for all you produce and your cart or waggon goes into the town with the produce and hrings back the manure:' — Yes. 15.399. That is a special kind of farming ?— Yes. 15.400. You do not trouble about the minimum rate of wages, because as you say owing to the higher standard of wages which prevails at the collieries in your immediate neighbourhood you could not get anyone to work on a farm at the minimum wage? — That is so. 15.401. Therefore, the minimum wage is not necessary to protect the workman of such a farm as yours? — That is so. 15.402. That is quite clear?- -Yes. 15.403. The next point is this : is a guarantee necessary in your case to enable you to continue farming under the Corn Production Act? At present you are getting a maximum and minimum price both fixed under the Defence of the Realm Act. Are you aware of that? — Yes. 15.404. With a price of 75s. 6d. I understand you could continue on your present system of farming and make a reasonable profit? — That is bo. 15.405. The Defence of the Realm Act will shortly come to an end. The fixing of prices under the Defence of the Realm Act will come to an end and you will either be driven to the Corn Production Act or some amendment of it or you will have to rely upon the play of the market — that is the competition from abroad and the world prices as so fixed. Do you follow? — Yes. 15.406. What I wanted from a farmer carrying on your class of farming was your view as to the future. Would your position be secure — could you carry on your business first of all with a guaranteed price of 45s. for wheat as provided by the Corn Production Act? — I do not think that the guaranteed price would be sufficient in my particular case. 15.407. I suppose yours is not a special case. There are other farms carrying on a similar class of busi- ness are there not? — Yes, in my particular district round the town there are, but it is the most ex- pensive kind of farming on account of the wages we have to pay. 15,406. I quite understand that. Therefore, at what price would you have to have wheat as a minimum price to enable you to pay your present outgoings for wages and such other outgoing^ as you do have and continue to carry on your industry with a reasonable profit? — I have thought myself that it should not go below 60s. 15,409. You think with 60s. you could still pay the wages that are above the minimum rate in your dis- trict, and pay all your other outgoings and leave you a profit? — I think so. 1.1.410. Have you considered the matter carefully? — Not in an expert way from the point of view of figures. I am just an ordinary farmer and not an • •Xpert in any way. I have told you how it is I have come here, and I have given you the result of my farming from the experience- of' my farm books. I have not gone into it as an expert in any way. I am simply an ordinary small farmer, and I have put that forward specially that I come here as a typical small farmer who knows a little bit about <>ooks. • 15,411. Am I to take it that you have reallv con- sidered it or that you have not. If you have not considered it I will not pursue the question? — I havo considered it,. • 15,412. How many sacks of wheat do you grow to the acre on your farm? — It entirely depends upon the season. ]-">.413. On the average? — It fluctuates from six ^I'-ks up to 13. We had a great year last year when we had 13 sacks. 114. You tell me as I understand that you want some guaranteed price to continue your present sys- tem of farming with wages and outgoings at their present rate, and you think that 60s. a quarter would bo enough? — Yos, but it is really so very diffi- cult because of the tremendous fluctuations there are, especially with such strong clay land as I am farming. 1 •Yll.'i. How many horses do you have to employ? — W 'lo not plough very deeply on account of the clay •- some-times with three and sometimes with two. 26370 When we are ploughing to any decent depth we have to employ three horses. 15.416. That is all you can tell me, that you think 60s. a quarter would be enough to keep you going ? — \es, that is my view as a farmer who has kept books and profit and loss accounts, but not costs, which is quite a different thing. 15.417. I am told that the minimum wage in your district is 42s. 6d.? — I think that will include per- quisites, and as I have already told you in my evi- dence, perquisites in my cage are in addition. 15.418. How much are you paying now? — Between 45s. and 50s. 15.419. So that you are paying 2s. 6d. to 5s. a week more than the minimum rate? — -Yes. There are such various values for perquisites that I have never got at what to value the perquisites at, and that is such a strict question that I am afraid I cannot answer it accurately. 15.420. Mr. Duncan : Just one point on your income and expenditure table. You put your wages for the period under review at £463 Os. 2d. ? — Yes. 15.421. Is that the cash wage, or does it include the value of the perquisites? — No, that is the cash wage. 15.422. What perquisites do you give in addition? — . 'I give half-a-ton of potatoes— and a pint of milk a day. 15.423. Is that shown in the statement? — No, that is not shown because it comes into profits and it goes out again on the other side of the account, and of course I do not show it. 15.424. Do you produce the milk on the farm? — Yes. 15.425. Does that item appear in your sales? No, not the perquisites— just the milk sold outside. 15.426. I suppose you supply your own household? That is so. 15.427. That does not appear in the statement either? — Yes, in paragraph 5 you will see there is £40 put down for produce consumed by household. 3. Of course, there are houses which are in- cluded in the total rent of the farm?— Yes. 15.429. How many houses have you? — Three. 15.430. If those were allowed for it would necessi- tate a slight adjustment of the account?— Yes, they would make a difference. 15.431. Mr. Edn-ards: What is the area of your farm? — Two hundred acres. 15.432. You say you buy all your manures and still you have only £74 6s. 7d. down for manures ?— Yes, the value of that manure is chiefly in the carting and the labour. I have a good distance to go for it. That is the cash vnlue of the manure paid to the person who lets me have it, but really the value of the manure would be more than that if it were taken out in another way. 15.433. How many loads does that represent? — Th^ loads are not shown here. 15.434. My point is this: You do not keep sitock and you said you made up the fertility of the farm by buying manure? — Yes. 1"). 135. Still, although you get annual receipts from the farm of £3,645 17s. 6d., I find you only pay £74 6s. 7d. for manure? — I can explain that. The war made a great difficulty in getting manure, and I only got a small quantity of farmyard manure, as it is called, but really town manure. I, therefore, had to make it up by getting scavenging manure from South Shields. We got that for nothing so far as cash payment is concerned, but it costs a lot in labour. Still, I was very short of manure, and the farm will suffer for that in the future. I got into that difficulty owing to the war. 15.436. That being so, and you having produced no manure on your own farm, your farm must have lost considerably in fertility? — Yes, in the last two years. 15.437. Mr. Green : I simply want to ask you, as a typical North Country farmer, whether you hiive any fear of the future with regard to falling prices? — I have not any very definite opinions upon that, because the situation is so complicated and one hears so many different views with regard to it. 15.438. You are not worried about the guaranteed prices? — I am in this position, that I really do not know. 15.439. At any rate, you are not keen about gauranteed prices? — You mean at 45s.? E 2 68 ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 21 Oefefor, 1919.] MR. A. H. Pens. [Coiiliiinfil 15.440. You are not worried about a guaranteed price being fixed for future yearn? — No, but I am worried in this respect, that in my own mind— if you want to know what I think — I l>elieve the thing would never b« kept off, because the moment cheap wheat .aim- in the Government would not stand it, but, as I have already Raid, I have not consider* d the ques- tion vrry much or taken as much interest in it, because I do not believe in it. I do not believe tlu> (Jovernment would keep to a guaranteed pn cheap food comes along in the future. The political cry of "Cheap food for the people" will prevent that. 16.441. Mr. .1. M. Ihiiili -i .i.in: If 'no guarantee is given at all such as there is in the Statute at present will it alter your system of farming or upset you very much?-! w'ould wait until something happened, if that is what you mean. 15.442. You would go on- YOU must go on plough- ing your land and so on? — f would go on until the, market showed signs of starting to drop. I"). 443. As a matter of fact, are not farmers round you ploughing away just as they did before without apparently troubling anything about the future at all •'—That is so. 15,444. Mr. Thomas Henderson : You say in your l>n'rit that the foulness of the lnn;l was pretty -much the KM me in 1914 a* it is now? — Yes. 1 "i,445. It has not got any dirtier since 1914?- Not appreciably. 15,446. How have you been able to keep it up: Being in a pit district I was fairly lucky in getting women labour. That is the worst of my case, it is nut typical at all. I am farming under special cii- < uiuslaiices surrounded by pits. That is one of the few advantages I get. 1. "i.447. Does that also explain the fact that your state of repairs and equipment is quite as good now as it was in 1914 ? No. because I have kept them up. 15.448. Mr. J.n n ijfonl : You have come here as you have stated to give us your individual experience and accounts?- That is so. 15.449. You thought because you had rather a large profit last year it was only fair in the farming interest that you should come and put those facts plainly before the Commission? — I did. 15,450-1. You did not think when you were asked to come here that you were going to be questioned upon the future policy with regard to agriculture? — 1 did not. I do not consider I am a big enough man to answer important questions of that kind. 15,452. In your opinion this Commission is sitting with a view to taking evidence and then suggesting a policy? — Yes, that is so. 15.452. Did I understand you to say that 1918 was *4ie best year you have had — that you made more profits that year than you did in any preceding year since you have been farming? — Yes, 1918 was easily my best year- far the best. 15.453. But you did make profits in the years immediately preceding last year? — The year before that I made £355 profit. 15.454. As against £1,256 in 1918?— Yes. 15.455. Can you say what you made in the year 1916? — I have shown that in paragraph 8 of my prte.it. 15.456. Can you tell us anything as to your pre-war profit*. What was your profit in 1913?— The average for the three years previous to 1917-18 was £530 per annum-- those are war years. 1. "i.4-r»7. What were your profits before the war com- menced :- Very often I hardly made a living. We did not make a living because some years we lived on our capital when the family was large. 15.458. In any case, the profits were relatively smnller pro-war? Very much smaller. 15.450. Without giving its your opinion as to policy. ']•• you think that the profit* of 1918 are going to be maintained?— I do not think so. 15.460. Are you paying higher wages now than vou were in 191 8 "-Ye*. 15.461. And the hours are shorter now than they were in 1918?— Yes. 15.462. You know there is a movement on foot to make the hours shorter still P— I have heard so lately. 15.463. Do you regard the shortening of the hours as a serious matter to the industry? Do you want me to go into details? 15.464. Yea, if you have any details? — What I mean is this: If you stop overtime on a farm it is a MT\ -erious thing— if you take away a man's right to please himself whether he works overtime or not. when you ask him especially, if he is a decent fellow who would be willing to work overtime at the busy times of the year to get your crops in, but he has to say. " No, I cannot because I am not allowed to work ,. vi time " like they do in the case of bricklayer, Hiid those sorts of trades. That is a very serious thing for tan. 15.465. Do vou find any difficulty in getting the men to work overtime now? — None whatever. 15.466. That is to say during harvest and hay- making, but they will not work overtime all the year round? — No, we never ask them to work overtime except during the crucial times, at harvest and so on. 15.467. You do not want that privilege taken nway in any case? — No. 15.468. You want a free right on the part of the men and of yourself to bargain with regard to over- time?— Yes, and for this reason, not only is it against my interest, but it is against the man's interest. If he is an industrious man he likes to work overtime and likes to make money just as we all of us do. 15.469. Do you think the agricultural labourer if lie were asked his opinion by referendum would iw a party to having that privilege taken away frnm him? — I do not think so. 15.470. Mr. Nirltolls: Have you discovered any- thing which uives you the impression that the right of the man to work is to be taken away from him? — Yes, I heard that the Labour Movement had put something forward to get Parliament to include agriculture in the Bill. 15.471. It is the yery opposite. It fixes a certain number of hours as a working week and then it says that all hours worked beyond that number are to be paid for at overtime rates. Surely thai" is so, is it not? — I did not understand it to be so. 16.472. I have not heard of anybody who wants 1 •< take away the right of an employer and a workman to make an arrangement with regard to working overtime. What really has happened is that they want to fix a standard working week for all workers, including agricultural workers. That may be a questionable thing on the part of many people, but that is the aim, and that any time worked beyond those standard hours in the week shall be paid for at overtime rates? — It always is paid for in my district. 15.473. You do not object to that? — I do not. 15.474. It is as well that that should be made clear? — All the fair-minded farmers that I know think that the men ought to be paid for every minute they work now of real overtime — you know what I mean by real overtime. 15.475. Y'ou do not find any difficulty with the men. The real type of man is willing to work over- time when it is necessary? — Yes. 15.476. 1 have no experience about the building and other trades. You suggested something about bricklayers refusing to work beyond a certain num- ber of hours. That I do not know anything about. You have no real knowledge have you that the 1'nions prevent a man from working overtime? — The bricklayer is only allowed to lay so many bricks per day where I come from. 15.477. Per day or eo many hours? — That is so. 15,47--. W-. hut is there any restrii tion against them working beyond those hours so long as they are paid overtime rates because if there is I have not heard of it? — I have always understood that was the case. 15,479. I can assure you there is nothing, so far as tho Wages Board are concerned, that goes in that direction. Kvery arrangement they have made is that a week shall consist of so many working hours, MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 69 21 October, 1919.] MR. A. H. POTTS. [Continued. whatever it may be. 48 or 50 or when it was 54 — and you cannot fix a minimum wage without arranging some scale of hours for which a man shall be paid on a weekly basis, but we have always encouraged the idea that the men should be at liberty to work overtime beyond those fixed number of hours if it is necessary. We have been told in some cases that the men object to work overtime and that that was the real trouble the farmer had to meet. When we came down to hard facts we could not trace that disinclina- tion to work overtime except in a very few cases. Of course, there always will be a solitary case of that kind here and there. There were, as I say, a few cases where that happened, but the men as a rule are always willing to go on working overtime at special times of the year if they are asked to do it?—- That has been my experience. 15.480. Mr. Kuhbins : Do you object to the inclu- sion of agriculture in tho Hours Bill — because if agri- culture were included it would not be possible for the farmer to do what he is at liberty to do now, that is to contract with his workers for any number of hours work that he thinks necessary? — -That ie what I understand was the case at a meeting of farmers on Saturday last. 15.481. That is apparently your objection to the Hours Bill?— That is so. 15.482. Mr., Smith: Do I understand that the farmers want overtime to be worked systematically every week of the year? — No, the men want regular hours, but in busy times I think they expect that they will be called upon to work extra hours so as to get the hay in and the corn harvest in. Those are the only times we do call upon them to work any overtime. 15.483. It would only be on such occasions as that that you would want longer hours to be worked?— That is so. 15.484. There is nothing in this Bill which has been spoken of to prevent that?— I did not know that; I have been informed that it is otherwise. 15.485. Overtime rates are specially provided for in the Bill. Part of the proposal in the Bill is to fix rates for overtime. Surely they would not fix rates for overtime if it was proposed to prohibit overtime from being worked, would they? — No, I suppose not. 15.486. Therefore, speaking 'as a farmer, so far as overtime is concerned you would only want it worked on special occasions? — That is so. 15.487. Mostly at times of the gathering of the crop?— Yes. 15.488. Have you any ideas as to what your return is likely to be for this year. Does your year end at Michaelmas? — At the 31st May. 15.489. Have you any ideas as to what your posi- tion is likelv to be this year from the point of view of profit? — Yes, it will be quite a different year this — it will be a serious year owing to the tremendous drought more than anything else. 15.490. Which means there will be a poor yield? — Yes. 15.491. In regard to the future of agriculture have you formed any opinion as to how the industry could be helped by national effort in any way such as im- proved transport or scientific research or things of that description? — That is rather a big question to ask, but I think that if things were systematised in districts transport could be cheapened and horses could be practically done away with. 15.492. In that respect it would be helpful to the industry ? — Yes. 15.493. In so far as economies are effected in that direction it would help the industry to stand these improved conditions for the workers? — I could not say that it would. 15.494. If there were economies effected it would certainly help in that direction, would it not? — Yes, if we could prove that there would be economies obviously it would give us a better opportunity. 15.495. I understand you to say that in your opinion a proper organised system of transport would result in economies? — I think it should be tried — that is what I mean to say — to see if the horse cost and the mechanical cost could be cheapened. 15.496. If successful economies were effected it would help you in regard to providing better con- ditions for the workers? — Yes. 15.497. That would be a desirable thing? — Yes. 15.498. Mr. \Vnlkrr: Have you any personal know- ledge of what happened before the Joint Committee which dealt with the question of this proposal of a 48 hours week? — No. 15.499. Where did you get your information from with regard to the question Mr. Bobbins put to you and which you answered a moment or two ago so far as the working of the 48 hours is concerned? — I got my information at a meeting of farmers in Newcastle on Saturday last. That is the impression I gather generally. 15.500. You think now that that impression was a wrong one when you find that provision has been made for tho working of overtime? — Yes. 15.501. Have you seen the Bill at all that proposes it — have you read the Bill? — I have not. I am afraid farmers have no time to rend'Bills. (The Witness withdrew.) MtTO 70 BOYAL COMMISSION i»X AGR1CULTURB. 28 Octofer, 1919.] MR. THOMAS WILLIAMS. [Continufti. EIGHTEENTH DAY. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28™. I'.M'.i. Sin WILLIAM DR. C. M. DOUGLAS, C.B., MR. W. ANKER SIMMONS, C.B.E., MR. HKXRY OVERMAN, O.B.E., MR A. W. ASHBY, MR. A. BATCHELOR, MB. H. S. CAUTLEY, K.C., M.P., MR. GEORGE DALLAS, MH. J. F. DUNCAN, MR. W. EDWARDS, PRESENT : BARCLAY PEAT (Chairman). MR. F. E. c;i!l.l.\ 'MR. T. HENDERSON, Mn. T. PROSSER JONES, Mi.. K. V. LKNXARD, MR. GEORGE NICHOLLS, MK. E. H. PARK I II Mi. R. R. ROBBFNS, MR. W. R. SMITH, M.P., MR. R. B. WALKER. Mr. THOMAS WILLIAMS, representing the National Called and STATEMENT or EVIDENCE TO BE GIVEN FROM NORTH WALES BT Tuos. WILLIAMS, Esq., THE GAER, FORDKN, WELSHPOOL. 15.505. I have been a farmer in Wales for L'-r> years, and am well acquainted with \\Vl-li farms and Welsh farmers. 15.506. (1) Wales is pro eminently a land of small holdings. By small holdings, I mean farms from 5 to 60 acres. 70 per cent, of the farms in Wales are under [50 acres and 87 per cent, under] 100 acres, and large farms are the exception. The majority of Welsh farmers ore, in reality, agricultural labourers. They work hard for long hours, assisted, when that is possible, by their families — wives, sons ^and daughters. For many years the farmer in \\ 'alos earned less money than his paid labourer, after deducting reasonable interest for his capital. \\ ith the exception of the last four or five years, the majority of Welsh farmers would have earned more money in almost any industry than they did from their* farms. Probably in no part of the United Kingdom is the attachment of the tiller to the soil so prominent as in Wales. Reluctance to leave tho old family homestead has boon the cause of thousands of farmers continuing to slave and toil on unpro- ductive farms. They will utrive in every way possible to meet an often impossible rent rathor than depart from the old home. Sentiment frequently over-rides reason. 16,507. (2) The recent and continuing sales of large estates has greatly increased the feeling of insecurity. which is always" proKont in tho mind of farmers, such as I have described. Tho consequence is, that farmers, \vln-n given tho op|x>rtunity, liavo Ixmght their old homos, at prices which, in many instances, will cripple them financially for life. Rather than risk dispossession, farms have boon Wight by tho tenant* at from 30 to 40 years' purchase on their prrvinn^ louts. From £1,500 to £2,000 have been paid for farms renting under £50. At tho first figure given the interest payable on tho capital will be £75. To this must bo added the cost of repairs, tin- provision of new buildings, and other items formerly discharged by the landlord out of his £50 rent. 16,608. (3) Tho high prices paid for land is also connected with tho few cottages yet standing, whoro the farmer can houso his labourer. A cottage with just enough land to keep two rows, situate far from any village or convenience, and which for years had been rented at £12 a year, was sold a few weeks ago for £1,030. There was nothing in the situation of the cottage, nor the circumstance*! of the sale, to Farmers' Union Advisory Committee for Wales, Examined. justify such a price. Farmers are precluded from charging more than a few shillings a week as Tent for cottages on their farms. The high price paid for such cottages by outsiders — whether with or without land— will materially add to the difficulties of tho labour situation. Tho ties between farmer and labourer will be considerably weakened by the im- possibility of housing the labourers on .or near the farm It is to the advantage of both farmer and labourer that a portion of the wages of tho latter should be paid in kind. In this way the la.bc.ur.-r gets his milk, his potatoes, and his other vegetables at wholesale prices, and the farmer gete a sale to: his produce, or a portion of it, with the least possible cost and trouble. 15,509. (4) Insecurity of tenure is a- prime factor in those coses of bad farming, which are sometimes ni"t with. The farmer who docs not know how long it will l>e before ho is served with a notice to quit cannot put his capital nor his energy into tho farm. Kxery farmer must look ahead, not for one y« ar. but several, before he can cultivate his land to the best advantage, but it is impossible to do thi.s unless there is a certainty in his mind that ho will be allowed to reap the results of his forethought. Under those conditions the farm does not got the liest out of the farmer, and tho farmer d«»'s not got tho best out of his farm. The sUito of farm buildings is, generally speaking, deplorable. Nothing has been dono during the. last fivo years, and tho cost of repair at tho present timo is prohibitive. The stooping accommodation for farm lalxmrors who live in and this is tho practice in nearly all parts of Wales. especially with regard to teamsmen — is of a primitive description, tho so-called bedrooms being situated over stables, or other oiit-huldiiigs. This is not OOB ducivo to tho physical and moral welfare of the community. [This rom/./'/'x tin i ri>l< nr, in chief.] 15,610. Mr. Green: I take it that the Welsh farmers fool that there is no security in guaranteed prices, unless they have security of tenure?— No. Security of tenure is the prime factor in the whole matter; but T might say that guaranteed prices will help to tide over the present difficulty, to some extent. K. .Ml. Without security of tenure gnarai, prices would not. give you much security, would they-' — No, thoy would not give tho necessary satisfaction and cnnfidot l.r>.512. You are still liable to be turned out of your farm, even if you had planned your crops for four or five years? — Yes. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 71 UK (.Vtober, 1919.] MR. THOMAS WILLIAMS. [Continued. 15.513. Are the Welsh landowners large land- owners or small landowners? — In comparison the majority are small landowners, but there are here and there certain large landowners. 15.514. I suppose you feel the great danger is of farmers having to lock up their available trading capital in purchasing land, and the productive user of the land will be let down in consequence? — There is that tendency, especially with the very high prices paid now, that the farmer will not have sufficient capital to buy the farm and also to stock it. 15.515. So nationally this continual buying up of farms by farmers will be a bad thing? — I might say that in my view it is the best means of security of tanure and the only satisfactory one possible, but the difficulty is with the money. That I think could be got over by Land Banks, or the Government sup- plying the farmer with the money at a moderate rate of interest. The difficulty is in getting suffi- cient money to purchase the farm, and also do the stocking. But that is the only proper means, the security of tenure, for the farmer to buy his own farm. 16.516. The sleeping accommodation, as you men- tion here, in Wales, is very bad, generally speaking, for labourers, is it not? — It is put down here, but I would like to qualify that. I would not say it is generally the case that waggoners have to sleep in outbuildings; but it is often the case of a small farmer in Wales, with a large family, that the accom- modation is very inadequate to accommodate these labourers in addition. But they often do live amongst the family themselves because of lack of housing accommodation. 1C.517. Do you think that farming could be im- proved in Wales where there is a very heavy rain- fall, by following out the system of continuous cropping to a large extent? — Of course the very heavy rainfall in Wales is a serious matter; and we had an instance of it last year, when the greater part of our crops was completely destroyed. But I cannot say that continuous cropping has been a success. It has been tried to some small extent, but I should not say it has been a very great success. In my view we do not get enough sunshine to make it a success with continuous green crops. 15.518. What do you really mean, in Wales, when you use the term "security of tenure"? Have you any Bill sketched out, or any detailed plan of security of tenure, because it is a very loose phrase, is it not? — Yes, I quite agree. It is altogether a difficult problem; but, as I said before, I have come to the conclusion that there is no security that will be satisfactory to both owner and tenant, and the only conclusion I have come to is that we must have some system of purchasing the farms. 15.519. But surely tenant farmers mean something by security of tenure otherwise than by purchasing farms, do they not?— Of course, many theories have liccn put forward, but so far nothing has been satis- factory. li',,520. Not in your opinion? — No. l">.">21. Do you suffer much from game? — In years gone by there has been a great deal of damage done by garni; ; lint since the Cultivation Orders during the war, game have not been preserved to anything like tin; extent they were formerly. I should say, on the whole, the damage from game is not now very great. 15.522. There is still danger that it may be great? — There is, in certain districts where Cultivation Orders have been carried out on land adjoining '•i. There is, of course, at present ^naterial damage done; but nothing in comparison with what was the case years ago. 15.523. Mostly from rabbits?— No, I should not say the greater damage is from rabbits. The greater damage in the corn, in my view, is from pheasants. That is where the farmer has done his duty and kept the rabbits down; but there is also damage from rahbiti. 1C.624. What is your experience of the working of the compulsory part of the Corn Production Act, Part IV, at the present time in Wales? Is it being at all effective? — It has been until now; but I might say the farmer in Wales has had such a dose of cultivation, that I think he is absolutely sick to death of it. To keep it up, or to maintain anything like the present quantity of cultivated land, I am afraid will be a great difficulty. There is a very strong feeling at the present time amongst the farmers that officials should be reduced as soon as possible, and that the farmer might have his chance to go his usual course. 15.525. So there is a tendency to ease down the compulsory part of the Act? — There is a distinct tendency. It is being done, I believe, as fast as possible; but I can say there has been a certain amount of unsuitable land ploughed up, which pro- bablj would be better laid down. But the present labour difficulty, the shortening of hours, is the main factor that causes uneasiness in the mind of the farmer at the present time. That induces him to lay the ground down as soon as possible, and I do not think any guaranteed price for corn will prevent that course to a great extent. 15.526. You do not think the guaranteed price will be of much help to Welsh farmers? — I think it is a means of satisfaction; but, the climate being so bad, and with the difficulty of working with the labour shortage, and a lot of the land being unsuit- able for working by mechanical power, and all those things put together, I think the Welsh farmer will be better off, and I am quite satisfied nothing will prevent him laying down certain more of the land to grass. I do not say he will lay all down that has been ploughed up under the Cultivation Orders, but he will lay down considerable portions of trouble- some and heavy land. 15.527. Have you, in the Welsh Farmers' Union, any fixed programme for a guaranteed price? Have you any suggested figure? — Do you mean for corn or meat? 1^,528. Corn? — No. We have not gone into the matter up to the present time; but I might say, as far as wheat is concerned, tho present price, which is something like 71s. a quarter, does not meet tho case at all. Wo never have a very big yield of wheat per acre. We grow tho straw, and get a fair quantity of straw, but we do not get a high yield ; a.nd when we compare that with the price of fattening cake, which is about one-third higher, the tendency is to use this wheat for stock, instead of the very high priced cake. It is an absolutely impossible condition, and the price we get for our wheat is absurd, and amounts to no paying price per acre, considering our very low yield. 15.529. What do you consider a paying price per acre? — It is rather difficult to say olfhand, as con- ditions vary in various parts; but I should say the wheat, to be anything like a paying price and an encouragement to grow, should be £5. 15.530. Do you think tho taxpayers of this country would submit to a proposition like that? — I do not suggest they should; but the fact remains that, if we must have wheat grown on this class of land, the only way to do it is for the farmer to get a paying price for it. 15.531. Are you a member of the Welsh Farmers' Union? — No, I am not a member of the Welsh Farmers' Union. I am the Chairman of the Advisory Council of the National Farmers' Union in Wales, which is by far the strongest body of organised agriculturists in Wales. There is, I might say, in the Welsh speaking districts of Wales what is called a Welsh Union that has sprung up ; but that organisa- tion is comparatively small, and it does not represent much of the best districts of Wales. 15.532. Did your Society have a Conference at Cardiff some little time ago?— Yes, we had, at the Royal Show in June. 16,688. And you did not suggest guaranteed prices at that Conference, did you? — No. It was not for the purpose of going into that matter at all. 15.534. So that you have not outlined any pro- gramme for guaranteed prices? — No. 15.535. Is it your personal opinion that it should be £5? Yes, I should say, taking Wales as a whole, if we have to encourage a fair area of wheat. E 4, 71' ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. MK. THOMAS WILLIAMB. [Contiinifil. 16,536. Mr. Tkomai Htnderivn : I wiis not quite clear whom you represent exactly. Is it the Knglu>h Farmers' I* 111011!' — There m no such organisation as that. 15,637. The National Farmers' Union?— Yen 16,538. And you are Chairman of the Advisory Committ.v for Wale*?— Yes. 15,639. How many members do you represent? — I do not leally know, hut we repn-Kcnt, I should say, three-fourths of the farmers <»t Wales— quite that. 15.540. And the other fourth is represented by the native Welsh I'nion? — Yet). I do not know the figures, but I do not think they represent a fourth. 15.541. And you are giving evidence officially on behalf of the '.Notional Farmers' I'mon!-' -Yes, of this representative body, the National Farmers' t'nion of Kngland and Wales. 15.542. \Yith regard to this point of sentiment overriding reason, in paragraph 3 you refer to a cottage which had been rented for years at £12 a year, which had sold recently for 86 years' purchase. May I ask you who bought the cottage ? — I do not know. 15.543. You do not know for what purpose it was bought?— No, hut I can personally (i'V(> you similar instances, if you like. I have not the 'particulars in rt-gard to this item, but they can be procured. I should say it is a common occurrence for very excessive prices to be paid for certain small holdings, largely on account of the great shortage of housing. There might be retired farmers and others who are most anxious for houses to live in ; end when some of these small farms come into competition, the result is that some people who have made a bit of money will bid, and, of course, will give more than the present tenant can afford to pay, largely because of the scarcity of housing accommodation. 15.544. Then in paragraph 2 you refer to farms of a rent under £5(1 wiling at from £1500 to £2000. Are those bought by farmers ?— Yee. 15,5I">. Hy tenants, as a rule? — Yes, the tenant, as a rule, is the highest bidder. I could give you • case in point that occurred the other day. Tin- County Council, buying land for small holdings, decided to bid for a certain farm, and the tenant was most anxious to secure it. It had been valued by the Government valuers; but after that it went to £300 more than it was valued at by the Govern- ment, ;iiid ili,' tenant secured it. That was a farm rented at £220, which sold for £8,000. But I might say that figures like these are fairly common. I do not say it is the general rule, but they are fairly common. 15,546. And the usual buyer is the tenant farmer? — Yes, more often than not. " 15,54". How does ho make up the purchase price? Is it from his previous profits, or what? "Where does he get the money to buy it? — I do not suggest ho get* the money at all ; and in most cases, I should •ay he has to borrow as much as he possibly can. 15,648. On mortgage of the farm? — Yes, certainly. 15.549. Is that the common rule? — He has to mort- gage or borrow the money in some other way. Some- times he gets the money through the banks or through a friend ; but it is more often than not by a mort- gage on the farm. 15.550. Then you are giving evidence to the effect that farmers of Wales are so anxious to get their own farms, that they are willing to incur serious financial risk to get "tin-in:- Yes, I say it is a risk, and a very serious financial risk to get farms at present prices. 15.551. And yet, on your own showing, they are evidently anxious to do it?— They are anxious not to go out of their homes, because in many cases they have difficulty in getting any convenient place to live in. if they once lose the farm. The County Council is now in the market for the land, and n tain number of farmers will be dispossessed. Those farmers come into the market, and they are com- petitor* sometimes against a sitting tenant. -'•2. Then do other farmers compete for these- holdings when they are put up for sale?— Yea, some- times I.1..T53. And run up the pn. , -..nietime*. 15.554. IB it not open to another interpretation ; that the farmers are so convinced the speculation is a good one, that they are willing to pay high pri-os for these farms? — 1 do not think BO. 15.555. Is that not a possible interpretation f M\ own view is that tlu-y realise they are running a grave risk, eap8. I would suggest, even in Wales, the farmer would choose the lessor of the tw.> <-\iU and stay? — It is rather difficult to say which it is. Some do choose the other and go out. 15.559. But the majority stay and buy?— Yea, I should say the majority d*o. 15.560. With regard to your answer to Mr. Green on the question of officials, I gather from what you state, you are not very fond of officials in Wales? — 1 might say, personally, I have had a good deal to do with them, and I have found they work very well, and the farmers accepted it with very good grace during the stress of the war. But now it is difficult to persuade the farmer of the great neces- sity of carrying on this corn production with high cultivation to the extent it has been done. The farmer is certainly very dead against carrying on the present system with all these officials and the inspection of land. 15.561. That is to say, the farmer wants to be left alone, and do the best he can with his own holding? — ^ e-.. there is that feeling. 1.5,562. That is to say, he wants to get back to a state of comparative freedom ? — Yes.' 15.563. I suppose you would admit that if you do get a guarantee, it will necessarily be accom- panied by some form of supervision or control? — Yes. I do not see why it should not l>e accompanied by some sort of control without all the present (jtiantity of officials ; at least. I hope HO. 15.564. If the Welsh farmers had to choose between pcrfi-ct treislom. or at least a-s perfect as one can get it in this world, and a guarantee accompanied by supervision, which do you think thev would prefer? — It would largely depend on the extent of supervision I should say it might be possible to have satisfactory prices fixed, without all that amount of supervision and inspection that has been going on. 15.f»65. Do you think that would sufficiently safe- guard the public interests?. The public is to bo asked to provide the guarantee. Do you not think the public will have the right to have a very effective con- trol and supervision over your industry? — Yes. I have said before I agree that some amount of control will have to be accepted. 15.566. It must be an effective control, I would suggest? — Yes, of course, it will he effective; but it might be that, without the present number ot officials. 15.567. There is a large number of officials in Wales?— Yes, I think that is general. lOj.W?. What do you think they would prefer — a ici tain number of officials plus a certain amount of control, plus a guarantee, or the return to freedom !- The reeling is certainly very strong for freedom. il9. I think you admitted, in answer to a cpies- tion by Mr. Green, that the guarantee in Wales, at "iny rate, would be chiefly effective as a sort of satisfaction to the farmer. You say that your par- ticular circumstance* in Wales do not lead you to put your land under whc:ii \o. Having regard to the -very wet climate' and the labour difficulty, and the shortage of cottages, and all that, I do not think the Welsh farmer will prow corn very extensively. 1 do not think it would be advisable. * He can better devote his attention to the rearing of stock in the national interest. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 28 October, 1919.J . THOMAS WILLIAMS. [Continued. 15.570. So, of course, a guarantee could not touch that, unless it were extended to meat? — Yes; but I presume it would be extended to meat, or I hope, if there was a guarantee at all, it would be extended to meat as well. 15.571. That is to say, if the guarantee policy is adopted, you want in the interests of Wales to have a guarantee for meat? — Yes, I should say so. 15.572. Mr. Prosstr Jonrs: What acreage do you farm:' Five hundred. 15.573. How much of that would be under the plough? l (in- hundred acres of corn and the usual amount of roots this year. Last year it was slightly more. 15.574. What do you mean by the usual amount of roots? — About 20 acres of roots and green crop. 15. 575. How many men do you employ? — Nine. Mine is usually grass of the feeding nature, and a good deal of the land floods. But I have farmed near you in Radnorshire, five small hill farms, for fifteen years. 15.576. What acreage did you have under the plough prior to the war? — Eighty, including roots. 15.577. Do you admit that production has been in- creased through the interference of control? — Yes, most distim tl\ . 15.578. And you agree it is desirable to continue that — to have that upward tendency? — It is rather difficult to say it is desirable to continue the increase in Wales that I am talking about; but the low-lying ground is suitable, and that part of the land wnere the fields are large, and they can be done with mechanical power, and so done cheaper than on the troublesome parts of Wales. But I do not say it is advisable tc keep up the full amount of cultivation there has been during the war in Wales, because of the conditions I have previously stated. 15.579. Corn can be produced cheaper on a large farm than on a small farm; is that your view? — Yes. 15.580. Owing to the larger fields'?— Yes. 15.581. How far is machinery used in your district? — Just where I live it is rather extensively used now ; but throughout Wales the fields are so small, and it is so troublesome, that machinery cannot be used to the best advantage as it can under more suitable conditions. 15.582. How do the farmers generally take the new machinery. Do they favour or not the introduction of machinery? — Yes, I think there is an increasing feeling now of favour towards the introduction of machinery where possible. 15.588. DOM that tend to reduce the cost of til- liny;:' Ye-; where it can IK- used to advantage, I take it it will tend to reduce the cost of tilling. That, of course, 1ms been very expensive owing to the high cost of fuel, the initial high cost, and the up- keep, which T think have been found very expensive. I have noticed that when the Government took over the tractors from the Agricultural Executive Com- mittees, they offered them to certain individuals in the districts, machinists, to encourage them to do work for the farmers on their own ; but they found it necessary to offer them an additional 10 per cent. on what they could reasonably expect to get from the farmer, to encourage that being done. 15.584. You told us you have nine men working the farm; how do they take to machinery? I take it they are the men responsible for working it? — Yes. I find some of the men are very adaptable to machi- nery. 1 personally have not found any difficulty under that head. 15,5*5. Then taking the efficiency of your men on the whole, how do you find them? Do they give th" i-atne results as they did previous to 1914, say? \<>. I eannot quite say that they do; and since the \var we have lost many of our best men, and they are not replaced to the same extent. 15.586. Then you told us that one element that disturbed farmers very much was the question of the hours and wages? — Yes. 15.58". Is it your desire as farmers to revert to the old conditions) of employment — long hours, low wag"s, and so forth? — Certainly not. We agree that K»O'| wages are necessary and should be paid to the labourer. But when you come to the question of hours where men outside are employed, of course that i* n trouble : but talking of Wales, where they are usually lodged in the house, it is a very serious matter. When these men work short hours, it costs the same to keep them, and they are really more expensive than the rate of wages paid to the men living out. 15.588. You told us there is a shortage of labour in your district. Is it your experience that con- ditions must be improved in order to secure addi- tional labour? Hours have been reduced in all industries, and the farm labourer looks for the better conditions? — I do not think I have said that there was a shortage of labour in my district. 15.589. I understood you to say that there was a shortage of Labour owing to lack of accommo- dation?— I believe there is sufficient labour; but unless the men are practical and good, they are con- sidered— especially some of these young men — not to be worth the money; and in consequence of that they are not sought after, and the farmer will pre- ferably go short of labour before employing these inexperienced young men at the full rate. That, in my opinion, is the main difficulty; and that is a matter that will send the young men from the farms in Wales, that is, the young inexperienced men. Now, when they have a schooling up to a later age, they do not gain the necessary experience by the time they are 21. I personally have had experience of that class of man very considerably, and also of married men living out, and I am quite of the opinion that the man with experience, on the whole, is worth very much more than a young man who has not had very much experience by the time he is 21. The result will be that we shall lose a very great number of these young men, and a greater number than formerly, I believe, from the countryside. 15.590. Do I gather from that that you are opposed to further education for these young lads? — No, cer- tainly not. I thoroughly believe in education. 15591. Will you tell us what other industries are near to you in your district, where these young men could take up other employment? — Of course, they go quite out of the district. They go to the industrial l>:n t- of Wales, and also tr England. 15.592. With regard to the condition of the land in your district, has it improved since the war, or has it deteriorated? — It has deteriorated, and that, in my view, is a very serious matter. The store of fertility is being taken out of the land ; and of course that is a loss in landlords' capital, and the tenant to keep up that, will have to replace it. I should say without a doubt it has deteriorated to a very con- siderable extent. The \a.i\ 1 is more foul than it was formerly, and very much less manure has been used. 15.593. You give us an instance here of where a man had bought his holding for over £1,000, which amounted to 80 odd years' purchase. Is it not the case that these people cripple themselves in finding this money for holdings? — Yes. 15.594. Mr. Lennard : 1 think I understood you to say, in answer to Mr. T. Henderson, that if guaran- teed prices were continued for corn in normal times, you consider there also should be a guaranteed price for meht. Should I be right in concluding that you think it would be unfair to the farming community in general if guaranteed prices were fixed for corn only, and nothing was done for meat? — Yes, I should say so. In years gone by, the foreign competition kept our meat at such a low level, and that was in our part of the country the farmers' sheet anchor; and that was more the cause of the farmers' policy and inability to meet the conditions than high rents. 15.595. If the Government were to fix guaranteed prices for corn only, we should soon have a demand from farmers that guaranteed prices should also fce fixed for meat, I understand ? — There would be a demand if it were required. Of course, if meat kept up at a paying price without it, the farmer would not want any of this control at all. But the only difference is that the farmer will go on growing stock, because he can do it without so much labour; but he will not grow the corn without being assured of a paying price for it, owing to the difficulty of labour and the cost of labour. 71 ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. October, Mi; THOMAS WILLIAMS. [Continued, K>. But limn- tin' liss. you tliink it would l>e unfair not to have a gii.ir.mtci-d price for moat, if you hare a guaranteed price for corn? — Well, I nhould say it would he a sat isfaetion nt the present time. 15.597. Are there any other agricultural products for which you think guaranteed prices should be fixed if guaranteed prices art- continued for corn? — I do nut know. Of course I have not considered that matter, whether it is advisable to have a guar. price for everything. It ia rather difficult to say, but it might be necessary to have a guaranteed price. Of course I should say that the guaranteed price for corn is the main thing. 15.598. I think I understood you to say just now, that on your class of land it would be necessary to have a price of 100s. a quarter if wheat production was to be remunerative? — Yes; I am giving a sort of estimate, seeing the very low yield that is produced in Wales on the nlu.l. I'i,"i09. So that in Wales a guaranteed' price for wheat approximately the same as that of this year would be very little good to you? — No good at all. 15,600. Would it surprise you to know that if you bad no guaranteed price and no Government inter- • e with your wheat growing, you would at this moment be able to sell your wheat at something over 90s. a quarter? — I should expect that. 15.600A. Mr. Xirholls: How long have you been holding your farm? — I have been where I am at pre- sent 10 years. I have been farming nil my life. I hare farmed myself for a quarter of a century; but previously I was farming high farms, to begin with a small farm, and then I also farmed five small farms to the extent of some 700 acres. 1VU01. Do you own any? — No. 15.602. HOW many farms have you now? — Only one large farm at present. 15.603. But I understood, in answer to Mr. Piosser Jones, you said you had gome in his district also? — No. I did farm formerly five small farms at the 'same time for a number of years. 15.604. But you are now confined to the 500 acres? — That is so. ;<>j. 100 of which would be cereal growing? — That is so. 15.606. Is this Welsh land really suitable for cereal growing, or would you consider, from the national point of view, that it would be better not to attempt it? — No, I do not say altogether. The land varies so much. Some of it is fairly adaptable for cereal growing; but on the whole the yield is much too low to grow, unless a very high price is paid for the corn. 15.607. What you feel is that if the Government come along and say, " We want so much cereal grown," you would say, " You must give us a guaran- tee that we are going to live by this business "? — 15.IKK That is really your position ?— That is so. 16,609. Is it strong heavy land — three-horse land' — It varies very much. 1'i.iJlO. How many horses do you have on yourself, Mile, for a single plough? — Two. 1'i.iJlJ. I notice you refer to Wales as being prin- cipally a small-holding country. You say in the first paragraph tho large majority are small holders. Is that ranging between five and fifty acres? — Yes. !'.,i;iL'. And I think you intimate here that they work long hours and work very hard, the whole family. What I wanted to ask you was, whether then- were many applicants for land among returned «r.ldicrs in Wales? — Yes, a considerable number. ':l. Would you not have thought that those men, who bad been away and got in touch with other lite, «ould have been rather inclined to fight shy of long hours and hard work, and would have ih-. ov. i. .1 something more interesting and less 1 tliink the original idea was that all ^ were going to have land for nothing, or were going to have a great bargain over the matter, when a great number of these applications came in. 15,614. When you sift them down and the men now know what they have got to pay y still applicants? — I do not know that it has gone that far; but there are a number of cases where these men are married, and they want to come ba. number of them, to where they lived formerly. The housing is very short; but what they usually want is a small holding of grass land without much (•illimitable land. 15,610. What do they do then— dairying .,r sheep? —Yes, it would be to a great extent dairying, I should 15.616. With reference to theeo smallholders that are already there, are ninny of them holders of their own plots? No. comparatively few. 15.617. Would they be old' tenants, mon of long Ma mling who have gone through the difficult ye.. Yes, some of them. 15.618. I suppose you would consider that that was one reason why these very high prices are being paid for holdings; that, although men really do not consider it is economically worth it, they have lived for many years in the locality, and have brought their families up, and do not know anything (•]»• lmt farming, and ar«> inclined to give much too much ior a farm because they want to retain their position there?— That is so. 15.619. I mean, it means ruin to a man to have to clear off not knowing what he is going to do ami ho has not saved anything? — Yes; the position is so un- certain that ho will take some risks 15.620. It is not because they know it is worth it, or because they have got the money ; but they do not know really where else to go? — Yes, quite; that is very often the case. 15.621. You also say the cottages are very bad. Is there any movement on the part of the Government to put up cottages on theso plots for smallholders? Is that an attraction to the men who are coming back from the war? — Yes, I think so. 16.622. Are the Government moving in the matter at all?— Very slowly, I am afraid. They propose doing. 15.623. They are giving an assurance that .-ome- thing is going to be done. That would really encourage a man to come? — Yes, quite. 15.624. I am rather interested, in your rcfercm e in paragraph 3, to what you say about "It is to tin- advantage of both farmer and labourer that a portion of the wages of the latter should be paid in kind."?— 1 would like to qualify that, and to say it is an advantage to the labourer; but generally when it comes to milk and other small matters, it is not an advantage to the farmer to supply that thing in kind at wholesale prices in consequence of the extra trouble it entails in doing this. I do not consider it i advantage to tho farmer. I might say in addition that it is the tendency, and will bo the tendency if labour will claim too high wages and too short b. to wipe off the perquisites altogether, which I do not think will bo in the interests of the labourer. Tlieio are evor so many things he gels at present that would be of considerable value if he had to go to the market to purchase them. l">.(i'2"). Take milk. It is »n advantage to the farmer that his workpeople and their families, should have good food. I mean ho wants a fit manP Yes I.ri.(i26. And it is an advantage to have milk in the family?— Yes. .15,627. It is not much loss to the farmer if tin- man's wife fetches the. milk to the house. I mean, it may l>e an advantage to be able to go to the house and get good milk at wholsesalo prices; but, I tliink, really, the farmer ouglir, to feel he is doing a good stroke for himself in getting a good article into his workmen a.s well as ho would be in getting good corn into his animals? — Yes, I quite agree with that, so far ; but you will realise, if there are .1 dozen work- men's wi\es coming to tin- hon.se for milk, there must be someone employed to attend to that particular work ; so that if it is only sold at wholesale prices, you will see it does n >t pay tho farmer to do that from that point of view. 15,628. But surely it if a matter for arrangement. If he has a do7.cn families that are coming to the house for milk, he knows pretty well when they an MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 75 28 October, 1919.] MR. THOMAS WILLIAMS. [Continued. coming, and it would not be much trouble for an arrangement to be made to have the jugs all ready which belong to the people, and for the maid in. 5 minutes to put what is necessary into them and leave, them in a row. It is not like having to take coppers or something like that. It is a deduction every week ; and is not like children coming for a pennyworth or threehalfpennies' worth of milk? — It is a weekly arrangement w-hich sounds very well in theory, but I am afraid it would not work out so comfortably as you suggest. 15.629. Why not?- First of all, if you want these little details, the women will come to" the house one after the other, and somebody has to attend to the door all the time. You will never get them to come all at the same time to attend to these little things. 15.630. I quite agree, unless you have a definite rule, a table or a signboard, and you make them produce their own jugs, and they bring them in turn, and you say " Your milk will be ready at a certain time," and let it stand there. I should not have anybody waiting for them. It is the same amount every time they come, and it is paid for at the end of the week.. There are lots of people, even in the case of the milk carrier that comes round, who are not up when the milkman comes, and they leave the jug out and the milkman puts the milk in? — But he does not do that if he is only getting wholesale prices for it. 15.631. No, but this is on the premises. The milk is there, and it is an advantage both ways? — I do not agree with you, at all, that it is an advantage both ways. 15.632. You do not agree that it is an advantage for the farmer to see that the whole of his people on the farm are well fed and are kept fit? — I do not dispute that part of the matter, but it does not appear to be material. The men should be well fed, of course; but it is not up to the farmer to feed them — not the men who receive what is due to them in money. It is not due to the farmer to feed them. ].">..'t7 Some of these cottages you referred to are n>]'] at a very high price, and then you say they can only rhnrge so much rent for them because that amount is fixed:1 -Tho farmer can only charge that. 1 •">.';.'«. No matter what he gives for the cottage, he can only ehargo that rent. Surely, if it is not an advantage, to him to have the cottage on his farm, and the man who lives in it tied to him, he would not go and pay the price the house is worth. I mean he would let it go? — The agricultural labourer as a rule does not buy the cottages. 15.639. I quite agree, but the farmer does? — If he buys the farm, he usually buys the cottage with it. 15.640. Do you not think it is far better to let a man live in a house and pay him his wages and let him pay rent for the house without making a deduc- tion from his wages at all, and say, "You have so much wages; you have to pay for what you have." The principle that you suggest here is the advantage that he should be paid part in kind, which would include the cottage, potatoes, milk, and those sort of things? — Of course there is a fixed figure on cottages now, and that I understand is usually de- ducted out of the wages when paid to the men. There is very little difference in principle whether the man receives the whole amount and pays the 3s. or what- ever it is back to the farmer. 1 do not see much in that point at all. 15.641. I should not have raised it, only you say it is an advantage? — It is an advantage for the farmer of course to have his cottages on the farm. 15.642. Then with regard to the sleeping accommo- dation. Have you any of this particular kind which you mention in the last paragraph on your own farm? — No. I would like to qualify that. I do not think it is the general rule that men sleep over stables. They are mostly crowded in the small farm- houses with tho family. 15.643. You also intimate that there have not been any repairs done lately? — Yes, that has been im- possible. It has been useless expecting repairs during the years of the war. 15.644. Is that because they could not get them done or because of the prices? — Partly both; but there were no men of that class available for repair- ing buildings. 15.645. Mr. Bobbins : In paragraph 4 you say : " Insecurity of tenure is a prime factor in those cases of bad farming which are sometimes met with." Have you given sufficient thought to this subject to be able to indicate to us any scheme whereby this evil could be removed, having regard to the just claims of all parties concerned? — No. 15.646. It seems to be a burning question in Wales? — It is, and outside Wales too. 1 have not gone into the matter really sufficiently to put anything before you. I have never thought of it in that way; but, as I said before, the best security of tenure is some system whereby the farmer can hold his own land. There is a distinct tendency in that direction with us. Land is going into the hands of the farmer at a very rapid rate. During the last twelve months enormous quantities of land have come under the hammer, and in the majority of cases the farmer has bought his own land. I do think we must agree that that will be a tendency, if the farmer can manage it, towards better cultivation; and the farm should be looked after better generally in the majority of cases if it can be had at a reasonable figure. 15.647. You think that the majority of Welsh farmers favour the system of occupying ownership as opposed to tenancy with reasonable security? — Of course, if we could get a reasonable system of security to satisfy tho farmer, tho farmer on most estates would be quite satisfied ; but that has been the diffi- culty. There has been nothing suggested to meet our views so far, and I am afraid we shall have to fall back on something else. 15.648. Does leasing obtain to any extent in Wales? —No, leasing has been done to a very small extent. 15.649. They are principally yearly agreements? — Yes, quite ; or half yearly. 15,650; You do not consider that under a system of occupying ownership the farmer might be crippled for capital? — There is that difficulty, unless some provision is made to meet it. 15.651. To give him credit? — Yes. 15.652. Are you able to say from your knowledge of Welsh farmers, whether on the whole they would prefer to be left to work out their own salvation, or would prefer to have a system of Government guarantees coupled, as it would have to be, with a system of control and interference with the method of con- ducting their business? — Generally, I should say the ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 88 Odofer, 1919.] MR. THOMAS WILLIAMS. [<':>,itinued. \\Vlsh farmers prefer being absolutely free; but I might say that, of course, the present times ai uncertain, thut it would be a satisfaction if lie cul- tivated land with a sort of guarantee to be given lor H lew vears until tilings appeared to be more sotil..l But generally the WcNh farmer is dead against any interference with his work. 15,633. Would he want this guarantee if the Govern- ment gave him to understand at once, that they did not propose to interfere with whatever method of conducting his business he might choose? — I r.ither think there would be some satisfaction for the piesent in a guaranteed price; because it is thrust on to the Welsh farmer that he will have to keep up the acreage of cultivation, and as long as he feel* in that position, I think ho will want some sort of guarantee. 15.654. A fixed guarantee, or a guarantee on a gliding scale? — A fixed guarantee. 15.655. You think he has a strong sporting in- ctinct, and he would like to take his chance? — Yes. 15,656.1. Mr. Smith : You mentioned in one of your answers Uie very low yield of wheat from the Welsh farms: what would be your average yield?— I cannot say; I have not the figures definitely. 15.656. Viewing it .from the standpoint of the average of the country, would you say it is low? — I should say so. 15.657. Could you give us any opinion as to how you could meet the position as between these low- y folding soils and tie higher-yielding soils with regard to the £5 a quarter? — Of course, the present system is payment on the acre. I do not say that u very satisfactory. The only solution for the matter in my opinion, is for the land that is not adaptable to go to grass, and to concentrate on the land that is more suitable. 15.658. That means, in your opinion, it is ex- ceedingly difficult by means of guarantees, to adjust the position as between a lower and higher-yielding •oil? — That is so. 15.659. You say that farmers are taking a big risk in the purchasing of their farms, and that the reason they are doing it is because they have no desire to leave the industry. Would that not lie what one might term a sentimental reason? — Yes, you might call it a sentimental reason ; but sentiment is often very strong where generations of farmers have occu- pied the same place. 15,660! Is it not exceeding dangerous for any sec- tion of the community to base their future prospects upon what, after all, is sentiment, however strong it may be? — Yes, I am sure it is dangerous and un- certain. 15.661. Do you really suggest that these farmers are taking a very big risk because of a desire from that point of view to keep on their farms, and that there is not in their minds some confidence that the future will be all right from a farming point of view? — It is rather difficult to say. We have often found the best and most intelligent sons as they grow up have gone away to some other industry, and the farmer who is left lias nothing else before him. There is nothing else he could go to that he would be adaptable for after having spent years of his life there; so if he changed at all, the only pros- pect for him is to change from one farm to another. 15.662. I suggest to you that if that is the only thing he lias before him in regard to the future, there is not much chance of his even keeping on the fiirm unless the industry as such can be made suc- il. There is a practical side? — Yea. 15.663. And therefore it may be a very short- sighted policy, if that in the whole basis upon which they are rc-tniL" I might nay, of course he >s build- ing hopea on the future of 'agriculture still being kept up 15.664. I suggest to you that that phase of it is rather prominent in his mind, that he has confidence in the future:--- Well, lie has hope. I do not know to what extent we should describe it as eonfiil' but no douht he has hope of being able to make a living. 15.665. A farmer is a practical man, is he not? — He is supposed to be. 15.666. Would you agree that in borrowing the money to purchase farms he is taking even a greater risk than il lit was using his own money? The fact that he has to pay interest every year is a greater difficulty than if 'he merely had an obligation to himseli and not to an outsider?— Certainly. 16.667. Therefore the risk is very great"? — Yes, if he has to borrow money lie has a chance of becoming a bankrupt, whereas if he has money of his own to pay he has a prospect at least of going on. 15.668. I understand you to say a number of these farmers were adopting that method in the purchase of their farms? — Borrowing the money? 15.669. Yes?— That is so. 15.670. Therefore, unless the future of the industry is to some extent encouraging to thorn, their position is very shaky indeed? — Yes. 15.671. Do you think men would be prepared to run all that risk and place themselves under the influence of an outsider, merely because of a senti- mental desire to maintain their position in farming, apart altogether from the future? — I suggest they have no choice in the matter. If they go out of their farm they have nowhere to go to. They are living in the present, and doing the best they can under difficult circumstances. 15.672. But if their farming does not succeed they will have to go out in any event? — Yes, some would. 15.673. And if they are selling now and going out they would be going out on what might be termed advantageous circumstances by virtue of the pi — No, at the present time they would not. I might say the farmer who breeds store stock in Wales, especially in my district, is in the position of not being able to sell his stock at any price at all because of the scarcity of keep, so he would not be in a fair position of going out now, as he, could not make what the stock was worth pre-war, especially if it is store cattle. 15.674. That is rather an exception to the general rule of the country, is it not? — I do not know that it is. The Welsh farmers especially breed yoiin:; stock and sell them when they are young as certain other farmers in England do. When they are sold they are sold at a very bad price. I saw a lot of rattle offered hv auction the other day and no one would buy them — they would not take them at any price hecanse of the scarcity of feeding stuffs. These Welsh farmers are bound to let their stock go or they would die of starvation — which they will do in many cases undoubtedly. Then when the Spring comes they will want to buy and probably they will have in buy at a very high cost. That is the difficulty so there is in inducement to the Welsh farmer to sell out at the present time. 15.675. Have you any difficulty in retaining labour - — The situation" with regard to labour is better HUH since the war. A certain number of men have conn« back, but we find a good deal in Wales that there are a number of young men who have not had sufficient experience and the fanner is not anxious to employ them at the full rate of wage. 15,670. Has there been in Wales during normal times any tendency for labour to drift from the farms into other industries? — Yes, I should say so. ir>.78. Having regard to that fac.t do you agree ilia I the conditions of labour ought to be made an good ;i> possible- as an inducement for labour to stay on the farms? Quite, but the conditions of agriculture must Ito good to meet the demands of labour. I."i.ft79. Taking the question by itself apart from other questions it would bo to the advantage of the industry to l>o able to retain good labour on the farms ?- -Quite. 15,680. I put that to you because of the question ! K\ Mr. Nicholls in regard to facilitating cir- fiimstancc* and supplying milk and farm produce to the labourers. 1 wondered whether you had looked Bt it from that point of view— from the point of view of facilitating the opportunities of good food getting into the labourer's cotta;/'1 whether that might help MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 77 28 October, 1919.] MR. THOMAS WILLIAMS. . [Continued. the industry to retain its labour. Good food and fresh milk and things of that description would in themselves be a direct inducement possibly for the labourers to stay on the farms, would it not:' — ( 'ertainly ; I quite agree with that. 15,681. Therefore, 1 suggest to you it might be to the advantage of the farmers to facilitate circum- stances by supplying milk and farm produce to the labourer rather than to restrict supplies? — I think the farmer is prepared to do that provided the demands made by labour are not too great in regard to the actual cash. 15.082. I was speaking of the purchase of milk from the farm I' — I do not think there is any objection on the part of the farmer to supplying that. 15.683. I thought you were looking at it more from the point of view of administration and that you had overlooked the other advantages? — No, I only put per cent.? Yr,. quite, I have been for these last 10 years farming a large (arm. |.">f>". You refer to financial matters. After deducting reasonable interest tor his capital and so on you would agree I take it that this really is profit to the farmer from the working of the farm? — Yes. 15,689. In addition to what you have already allowed in referring to the wages of the labourers? — Yes. l"i,090. I was not quite clear as to your reply with regard to sleeping accommodation for farm labourers, and particularly to teamsmen living in what some of us c-all " bothies," and other sleeping accommodation over the stables. Have you many of those men on your farm? — No, my men live in cottages; I have no men living in bothies. 15,691. Are there many living in such places in Wales according to your experience? — No, that is not my experience. I believe in some cases they do live over stables, but it is very rarely. The men are usually crowded in the house with the family in the smaller fnrras. 15,002. Might I ask how that statement comes to be in your /IM'TM. It is very definite and clear here? That is so, Imt it is not my experience. I do not know of it happening to any extent. I have known of certain cases of labourers sleeping over the stables especially where there are big houses and mansions. I believe in some of those oases the grooms have been living over the stables, but generally my own ex- perience- and it is rather extensive over various parts of Wales — is that they live in the farmhouse. l">,')!i:t. I understood that this statement was put in by you from your experience. This is your own statement is it not? — I think I have explained that. I do not know whether you would like me to explain it again. I did explain at the beginning that this statement was prepared by our Secretary. I am responsible for the whole thing, but I had not an opportunity of revising this so as to bring it into line with my actual experience in the matter. liimiin : Mr. Williams added the word " often " before. Tin- Wit MIX: Yes. l.'liPS.v Mr. WnU,;-,: To get back to financial matters, do you know if there is any balan c she«-t in existence so far as the farms in your part of Wales are ".m. rued? — It is very rare for balance to be kept. There are certain cases, but it mostly applies to home farms, where there is a clerical staff kept and often where pedigree stock are kept. Some of those farmers do issue a balance sheet and some small farmers also produce some form of balance sheet, but they are very few. Balance sheets are mostly produced by the best type of man ; a man who would make rather more than ordinary profit. So that the very few cases in which balance sheets could be pro- duced, I do not think would be of much value to the Commission. 15.694. So far as your knowledge goes the average farmer in Wales does not keep accounts? — No. 15.695. But in the case of home farms and so on accounts are kept? — Yes. 15.696. Do you think it would be possible to get for the information of the Commission any figures or balance sheets that would be helpful? — They would not give a fair indication of the position if you got the few there are, because if they are provided by a farmer they are provided by a man who is usually of exceptional ability, and who probably has made more profit than the ordinary farmer. The ordinary farmer does not keep balance sheets at all. He works long hours and when the evening comes I suppose he does not fancy sitting down and using the pen. 15.697. You state here that " Reluctance to leave the old family homestead has been the cause of thousands of farmers continuing to slave and toil on unproductive farms." Do you mean that thousands of fanners in Wales have been engaged on unproductive farming? — Yes. 15.698. You do mean that? — Yes, absolutely, but I do not say those conditions apply to the same extent at the present time. Of course things are better now than they used to be, but when I first remember conditions this statement is absolutely correct. 15.699. To what period of years do you refer? I can understand occasionally a loss being sustained, but this refers not to an exceptional case but to thousands of farmers over a period of years. It states that it has caused thousands of farmers to slave and toil on unproductive farms? — It was a general rule when I remember first of all. Of course as I say, conditions have gradually improved and it does not apply to-day to the same extent. 15.700. I think you will agree that no business can be run on losses? — I do not mean that they wor» regularly sustaining a financial loss every year, but they did in those times and under those conditions struggle hard to get ends to meet — to carry along. 15.701. It would not be altogether correct to say that farming continuously was unproductive? — Of course that means working hard on unproductive land — poor land that did not produce any great wealth for the labour expended upon it, and we have very much of that description of land. 15.702. At any rate it produced a sufficient return to enable these people to continue farming? — Yes, they struggled through those times. 15.703. So in that sense the farms were not unpro- ductive ?- -They were productive to a degree. The word unproductive is used as expressing that they did not produce abundance like the best land does. 15.704. They did not produce sufficient? — That is it. 1.5,705. They thought they ought to have had more, but they had a fair return nevertheless to enable them to continue. In reply to Mr. Prosser Jones, you stated that the land was in a very bad con- dition and less fertile. If that statement is true how much in your opinion will it take to restore that land to a condition of fertility? — That is a big problem. I would not like to say. 15.706. How much per acre would you suggest? — I do not think I am in a position to give an estimate per acre — not on the whole thing — it varies so very con- siderably. 15.707. Y'ou have no idea? — It is rather difficult to give an estimate without considering the matter carefully. It is difficult to answer a question like that as to how much the whole thing would take per acre. 15.708. I should have thought that was a matter which you would have gone into? — I am afraid I have not. ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 1 1. in.] MR. THOMAS WILLIAMS. [COIII: !"•:•'•'. You ii.no mado the statement thut laud • il«- mm. What. 1 \\:uit to know i-. il thai >i:iti->ii< true, liow much it will t;. bring it back to a proper state <•: I quit«< appreciate tho question. It is an important iju. but it us Ji question that is rather dill'u nil to answer without considering the Hut I do not think •ny ono will dispute tlmt it is an actual fart that it has depr :iO. That is jour statement, hut \on cannot give .v idea how 'much tin- cost will |K> to bring tin- land back to it* proper state?— I would not like to -lima!*' without having gone into it. 1.1,711. In regard to Mr. Smith's qin-tion dealing with tho yiold, can you not give us any idea as to tin- \ lold.'say, for cereals per m-n> in your part of tho country r— Of course, it varies so much. 1-711'. Take, your own farm you arc bound to have knowledge of \our own farm. Give us the yield per acre of your own farm? I grow 38 bushels of wheat, but iny land is very good land. 1.1.713. That is the yield <.ii your farm?— That was the yiold last year; it will be 'less this year. 15,714. Have you any particulars of any other farms in your neighbourhood? — Several of the best farms yield that, Imt that is not any indication of the conditions generally 'n Wales. Just there the laud i- ver.v productive — very good land. 1.1. How does that compare with the yield, say, in 191 I: It >s equally as good.* 1.1.71(5. You mean the yield this year is equally as good as it was in I'.M I P The yiold last year; I should not say it is as good this year. 15.717. On tho question of guarantees, do you really need a guarantee. ...ay. of 100s. a quarter of wheat in the case of land which yields ,'i>* bushels an acre?— . I gave you last year's . hich was an exceptional year. I do not want tho Com- mission to take that 'as apply inn t<> Wales generally; that only applies to a special case. 15.718. Have you nothing further to say on that?— No. I not think so. 15,71!'. Have you any sugestions to mako to the Commisiion further thaii that contained in this state- ment hot or Take the question of transport, for exampler' —Yes, I think something could be done as far as transport is concerned which might bo a con- siderable help, and I would suggest that there would be a greater advantage by increasing road transport than railway transport In various parts of Wales the County Authorities have boon pushing on the matter of railway transit. 1 .1.720. Would not road transport bo more adapt- able to tho condition of affairs in Wales than rail- way transit, because of tho nature of the ''011111 Yea, that is my view most distinctly — I am positive of that— and 'if something was done to encourage that it would be a great help I am sure. 15.721. Is there any co-operation amongst the smaller farmers, particularly in Wales? — Yes. There has I" ' ial move on during the last year or two and it is spreading very rapidly, and I believe it will i 't with OMUM0raM0 success. In dairying, especially, the co-operative movement, is most strong, and in a general way it is taken up, too— particularly in regard to tho purchasing of feeding stuffs and to some extent as regards sales, too. 1.1.71>1>. Buying and Rolling? — Yes. 1.V7-J.T You think it would be a good thing if that prim iplo were extended? — Yes. In the county I live in wo have formed a very substantial organisation whi'h has risen to verv considerable dimensions in a very short time, and it appears to bo goin with great success. In other parts of Wales, also, the same movement is taking place at the present time. 15,7 oiild extend that principle to other things in connection with the industry? — Yes, quite, linve nothing else to suggest? — No, I do not think I have. 1.1 7iv.. \>'. /'..'I'/ki.i: With reference to what you •aid about the cereal production. I want to ask you whether the land which produced 38 bushels in I'M I and 1918 is the same land to which you refer when i tie witness subsequently stated that tho an to Q. 1.1 71. I should ),.-: " It is higher than 101 1 " you say that wheat cannot I,, produced at leas than 100s. a quartoi I- This would HUH refer to some of the now land. • 1.1.7J7. I wish to ask whether the two answers refer to the same olass of lai: 'iot altogether. 1'.. 7-.1-. You do not say that HK)s. a quarter is -ary to pay the cost of wheat grown on land- which is capable of producing 38 bushels an acre? — No, certainly not : I mean on tho poor and un- suitable land on which there is so much corn grown. 1.1.71"). You would regard 100s. as a figure which would lardy lie attained during normal conditions according to tho world price? — -Yes. 15.730. So that really in order to produce wheat on that poor land tin-re would require to be a perpetual subsidy? — Yes, quite to produce it under present conditions and labour conditions successfully. On that unsuitable land there would need to be a perpetual subsidy. 15.731. You do' not advocate the perpetual subsidy do you? — No, I do not advocate the growing of wheat on that land at all. 15.732. You think that land is unsuitable for wheat p reduction ? — Qu i te . 15.733. Is -t equally unsuitable for oat produc- tion?— Some of it might be used for oat production, but it does not produce such great yields. In many cases the farmer feeds it to his stock ; it is useful in that way. 15.734. Tlio land is capable of growing oats profitably for use on tho farm? — Yes, that is so. 1 .1.73o! Although not producing a good grinding sample?— > M.7.''.ti. I'roduotion would be increased on the whole by cultivating that land for oats, would it not?— Quite. 11,737. You would think it is a mistake, would you not, to do anything which would tend to divert that land from oat production to wheat production? Yi I 1 -hotild say SO. 1.1.7,'N. You have spoken of a guarantee for other produce besides cereals. You are aware of the machinery, of course, under the Corn Production Act for payment at a certain rate per aero? — Ye-. 1.1. 739. You could not adapt machinery of that kirn' could you, to meat or milk? — No, I am afraid it would he rather difficult. 1.1.7)0. Therefore, guarantees for meat or milk would entail the guarantee of a market also? — I e\pect it would. M.7II. Therefore, tho Covornmcnt would in cer- tain eventualities need he become a purchaser? — That might be M>. '42. Would that not inevitably lead to a fixed price to the (iovernmont and the abolition of all free markets? — It would have that tendency. 1-1.71:!. You say in your first paragraph that "The majority of Welsh farmers are in reality agricultural labourers "?— Yes. 1.1.714. You refer I think to tie fact that a very large proportion of the farms in Wales are small farms and that, therefore, a < < n-idcralilo part of tho agricultural labour is performed by tho farmers and their families, is that so?— Quite. 15,74.1. There must bo many eases in whic'> there is mi labour other than that of the farmer and his family? -Yes, a great number. 1.1. 7 Hi. In those cases do the farmers pav wages to their famili.. \<>t u-ually : it has nfll been the custom. 1.1.717 In exceptional eases it is done? — Yes. 1«. Hut usually and normally no wages are paid? No. nothing at all. ]:, 7 litod to these farmers' children - N • not as a rule. 1.1.7-Ki. So that they lack one il, ' ic of the acricultural labourer — they have no wages? — Yes, that is so. I.-, 7 farmers pav for their labour only the bare cost of their children's maintennnce?--YTos. 15,752. Have they grown verv wealthy?— No. never. T have, known any number of cases where the sons of th. is have worked until middlo age with- out any wnees at all or anything and there was prar- tically nothing left for them afterwards. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 79 28 October, 1919.] MR. THOMAS WILLIAMS. [Continued. 1-3,753. So that production on these farms is pro- duced practically by sweated I..bour, is it not? — You might call it sweated labour. 10.754. That is unpaid labour or much underpaid labour:1 — Yes, that has been the case. 15.755. Arc many of these farms dairy farms? — They were not dairy farms in those times, but tlie tendency now is to make them into dairy farms where suitable. 15.756. Does that form of unpaid labour still sur- vive?— Yes. 15.757. So that there is a great deal of production from these farms at costs much below those which would obtain if the labour were paid? — Quite. 15.758. When you use the word "unproductive" farms, you mean farms that would not pay their way if the labour were paid for? — Yes. 15.759. Do the families of these farmers have any restriction of hours? — No, they usually work very long hours. 15.760. At all seasons of the jear? — Yes, usually. 15.761. So that that is an additional burden laid upon these farms? — It is. 10.762. Again reducing the cost of their produc- tion?—Yes. 15.763. You said that the cost of production was greater on small than on large farms. Does what you have said now not modify that in respect of dairying, for example, where there is no use of large mechanical implements? — Yes, it might do. 15.764. You mean that but for that cheap labour their cost of production would l>e Hgher, because they cannot afford to employ implements? — Quite. 15;765. Have you ever considered how far the em- ployment of implements can be facilitated by co- operation ?— It can be. 15.766. Are you aware of what is practised in that respect by the smallholders in Ireland? — Yes. I do not say it is done very extensively so far as the implements are concerned in Wales; there are diffi culties about that. 15.767. Naturally, because people want to reap and bind all on the same day? — All at the same time. l."i,768. But, in regard to some implements, you recognise tho importance of co-operation?- — Yes, and there is an increasing tendency to do that where it l"i.7(iO. You have spoken a good deal of tho import- ance of security of tenure, but I gather you do not put bpforo us any plan by which security of tenure is to bo secured except thnt you advocate the pur- chase of their holdings by t!-e tenants ?— That, I should put in the fore-front. 1-~>.770. If land purchase by the tenants were to become general, something would need to be done for their protection by legislation, would it not? — Yes. 16.771. Otherwise the price of land would be even IMMI-I- i-\:i^i;i-rated than it is at the present? — Quito. 15.772. So that that would involve some kind of Purchase Bill or scheme? — Yes 15.773. You have no other suggestions on that sub- ject?— No, I have not gone into that matter at pre- sent. 15.774. You have spoken of tho practice in Wales. By whom is the fixed equipment of the farms sup- plied in Wales? — Are you referring to implements and machinery? 15.775. The buildings? — The landlord supplies them. 15.776. Always? — Yes. Sometimes the tenant farmer will add to them for his own convenience. 15.777. Under the Agricultural Holdings Act? — Yes. 15.778. Speaking broadly, the rule is that the farm is equipped as a farm by the landlord? — Yes, and maintained. 15.779. He spends what requires to be spent on repairs? — Yes, of the structure. That is the general rule. 15.780. The equipment of these small farms is a expensive matter in proportion to their rental? —It is. 15.781. So that a considerable part of the rental is interest on expenditure? — Yes, that is partly the reason why BO many of these small farms have been put together in Wales in past years. 15.782. Because it was not possible to make them yield a rent adequate to the cost of maintaining their buildings? — That is so. 15.783. You say that the present state of the farm buildings is deplorable? — I should say they are bad. 15.784. I was quoting your own word. You use the word "deplorable" in your second paragraph? — That word is perhaps too strong. 15.785. Are they inadequate or are they out of repair? — Both, but generally this has reference to the bad state of repair, because nothing could be done to them for some years past. 15.786. In the case of dairy farms, are they properly equipped with cow houses? — That is a very great difficulty. The cow buildings are mostly bad, and not intended to meet the present-day require- ments. 15.787. They are merely adapted from feeding- houses to cow-houses? — Yes. 15.788. You have a wet climate, have you not? — Yes, very. 15.789. Are you equipped with hay sheds and corn sheds, at all? — Yes, to some evicnt we are 15.790. There is one point with regard to land pur- chase that I did not understand. You say the County Councils are buying land in Wales? — Yes, for small holdings. 15.791. Do they pay higher prices for land than can be afforded by ordinary tenants? — Not in all cases. 15.792. Are they keen competitors? — They are, but the County Councils do not always bid against the sitting tenant if they can avoid it. 15.793. You say you have no leases, speaking generally? — No, it is not often there are leases. 15.794. Is that because the tenants do not wish them or is it because the proprietors are not willing to grant them? — On the whole I do not think either party is .anxious for leases. 15.795. You are aware, I hare, no doubt, that the system in Scotland is a leasehold system over long periods? — Yes. 15.796. And that that is a system which Scotch farmers would under no conditions give up. Is that within your knowledge? — Yes, I have heard of that. 15.797. Can you explain why it is that the system to which Scotch farmers attach so much importance is so unpopular in Wales? — I am afraid I cannot exactly explain it satisfactorily. 16.798. What is the objection to a lease. It does give, at all events for a period security of tenure? —Yes. 15.799. A period perhaps of 14 years or 19 years? —Yes. 15.800. Why does that degree of security not com- mend itself to Welsh farmers? — Even if it is a period of 14 years the farmer is working up the farm only to a certain pitch; he has no permanent security. 15.801. He has a 14 years' security? — Yes, but what he puts into it he wants to be assured that if ho does not himself, his descendants will reap the full benefit of it. 15.802. That is to say the objection to the lease is that it induces him to spend more upon improve- ments and that the Agricultural Holdings Act does not secure him adequately, by way of compensation, for those improvements? — Yes, quite. 15.803. So that a leasehold system with adequate amendment of the Agricultural Holdings Act would seem to you to serve the purpose? — It would go a good way to serve the purpose. 15.804. You gave some answers that I did not understand about the relative rates of pay of skilled labour and unskilled labour. How does that arise? Why is it that unskilled labour is paid so nearly at the same rate as skilled labour? Is 'it due to the Wages Board? — Yes. 15.805. Apart from that would you not lose them from the industry if you did not pay young men on a scale sufficient to keep them from being attracted by other industries? — Yes, I am afraid we would lose more of them. ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 88 Odobtr, 1'Jl'J.j MK. THOMAS WILLIAMS. \Cantinnfil. 15,806. Really, it is more a question of economic competition in tho cane of those young men than of interference by tho Wages Board which make* their pay too high? — Yes, that is to be considered. That is the fact, but we are losing them in any case. I". -"7 l>. > you think that the prospect of better wages an lli- \ I.. ' .iim> older would attract them morn to agriculture? — I should say so. 15,80-. Mr. Anker NinimoiM: 1 take it that Wales would not be regarded as a corn-growing area at all?-- No, it is nut. 15.809. What would you say »nuld be the arable proportion as between grass and arable, taking 50 acre farms right through. How much arable land do you get in every 50 acres? — I could only say roughly. 15.810. That is what I want?— I should say 8. 15.811. The agricultural industry in Wales has been i h jelly the raising of young stork with a certain amount of dairy farming, is it not?— That is so. 15.812. And the dairy farming is on the increase? — Yes. l.'i.-l.'i. Kithcr from your own experience or from what you have heard would you say that Wales suffered during those bad times of the 'eighties and 'nineties to anything like the extent England suffered' Yes, I should say they did — I should say they suffered worse perhaps. 15.814. Although they are not corn growers? — They Riilferod because of the very bad prices they received for the stock they raised, but since then there has been a gradual improvement. 15.815. Roughly what would your rents be — may I ask what your own rent is for the 500 acres you farm - -£700 for the 500 acre*. 15.816. Would the rents of the smaller holdings be about that rate or less or what? — Taking the average, it would be lees. 16.817. Have you any sheep-farming in Wales? — Yes, sheep-farming is carried on very extensively in the mountains. 15.818. Would you be inclined to agree that' perhaps no class of men on ftio, land taking the last "XI years h:i~ worked much harder than the smallholder? — That is absolutely the case. 15.819. They have had the hardest battle of all?— Yes. 15.820. Would you say to-day that the smallholder is anything like so well off as the man who is regularly employed at a fixed wage on the farm ? — Yes, I should say he would be to-day perhaps as well off, but ho has not always been. The difficulty is that he is in :m uncertain position, whereas the wage earner is sure to get so much each year. This year tho small farmer will be far worse off than his labouring man because he will not really, in many cases, be able to make ends meet. 15.H21. The corn he grew under ordinary conditions was grown almost entirely for food for his cattle? — Yes. I.V.-ijfJ. He did not grow corn to sell?— No, and he usually purchased a lot of feeding stuffs in addition to raising all his own corn. 15.827. I will not repeat questions that have already boon put to you, but do you think if to-day- leases were offered to the tenants in Wales they would be readily taken up?— No, I do not think it would meet the case so far an the farming world is con- cerned. 15.828. You prefer as you have already said tin- occupying ownership?— Yes, if the money could be got. lo .-'/'. With Sim.- ciid for purchasing:-— Yes. l-V-:«i. If the State found money for that the State would have to have a considerable voice in deciding what was the value of the holding?— The holdings could go »t a fair value. 15,831. That would mean a Land Court to M-ttle value* — it would mean some form of a Land Court? —Yes. !•"• .«2. If that were M> would you agree if a man (•ought his farm with State-aided purchase money . that ho should he debarred from wiling it at a big profit?— That is a question I woi-ld not like to answer at present. 15.833. May I put it in this way : have you not had considerate -xjiei K-IU • in \\ 'ales ae wo have had in Kngland where owners of properties in order to meet old tenants have sold their holdings to the tenants at a low price in order to respond to the pathetic appeals that the occupiers did not want to be disturbed from their homes and that within a very short time those occupiers having Unight at tin- low prices had IMVII tempted to sell at MM higher prices which prevailed and had cleared out?'— Yes, there have been such cases. I have known of cases where, landlords have sold the farms to the tenants at less than they would really ivuli.se in competition at auction, but of course if a Land Court is accepted it must be accepted ell round if anv one want* to sell. 15.834. You agree it would be extremely difficult to administer a differential guarantee as between one district and another? — That is a. very difficult matter. 16.835. Practically impossible?— Yes— that is the main trouble. 16.836. In ordinary normal times tin- market price has been universal generally speaking all over the country ? — Yes. 15.837. Therefore, if any guarantee were given it would have to lie more or less of a universal charac- ter?— It would. Of course- the |xx>r land that, does not produce its crop would have to be rented accord- ingly. 15.838. If the Government decided to guarantee do you consider — 1 want you just to think this over before you answer it — that in the national interests it would bo a right thing for the fanners of this country to nsk that a profit, should he guaranteed? — To ask that a reasonable return should IM- secured for their labour. 15.839. That return would mean a profit, would it not? — It might not necessarily mean a profit. 15,8-10. Oo you not recognise that if the State did such a thing the farmer would have to be under very severe control by the State? — That is just the point the Welsh farmer objects to — too much control. 15,841. He would rather be free without a guarantee than have a big guarantee with strict control? — Yes. I think if tin's control is going to be carried on and be permanent that some guarantee just for the present emergency would have the effect of pacifying his mind. 15,84'_'. On the question of game, did I understand you to say that the pheasants do more barm than rabbits in your district? — I would not like i that is general. I personally have not had very- wide experience of a tiling like that. 15.843. Wales is a pretty good ..porting country. is it not? — Yes. pretty good. Pheasant^ do con- siderable damage, but on the best managed farm the rabbits are pretty well kept down by the farmer himself. He exercises his rights on the besf managed farms. The' main trouble now is that hiudl >-iU olten lent the shoot to a separate tenant, thus there are two tenants on the same farm. 15.844. You were asked a question about cottages. What is your opinion with regard to the nece-sity of there being a certain number of cottages tied to the farm? — I am very definite on thai that it is important that a certain number of cottages should be tied to tho farms. 1">>|.">. Would you not say cottages are just as essential as barns and cow-houses and stables- They are. !"i.-lii. Mr. Ovrrninn : You farm ">00 acres of land?— Y 15,847. You say this year you have 120 arres under the p'ough? — Yes. approximately. 16,84». In 1914 you had 80 acres under the plough? —Yes. 15. 8)!'. So that you have ploughed up an additional 10 acres?— That is so. 15,8oO. Was that done by request of the War Agricultural Committee, or under an Order? — It was done at the request of the War Agricultural Com- mittee. I was a member of the Committee and I did the full quarter as requested to do. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 81 28 October, 1919.] MR. THOMAS WILLIAMS. [Continued. 15,851. In answer to Mr. Smith you said that last year you grew 38 bushels of wheat per acre. Can you tell us what your average is on the class of land you farm— taking the last 10 years? — I can only give you an estimate. 15,a52. Give us an estimate?— About 30. Last year was a most exceptional yield. 15.853. The Commission may have understood that you generally grow 38 bushels an acre? — No. 15.854. Chairman : You said in reply to a ques- tion that your yield was 38 bushels in 1918 and practically the same in 1914 ?_I am sorry. That does not bear out my recollection. Last year was a most extraordinary yield; I have never had any- thing like it. 15.855. That is what you did say to the best of my recollection. I am afraid you will have to correct your evidence in some respects ?— Yes, it must be a misunderstanding. 15.856. Mr. Overman: You say you think your average for the last 10 years is not more than ) busjiels?-— I should say approximately 30 bushels. 15.857. What can you grow of oats on your farm? I do not personally grow oats extensively: I grow wheat and barley chiefly. 15.858. No oats?— Yes, I do grow oats. I should say the oat yield would be about i'2 bushels per aero. 15.859. With reference to the sales of these small farms which have been taking place in Wales, the County Councils you say have been large purchasers all through:'— Yes. I.">.^>0. Where the County Councils have been the purchasers in Wai, >s U it not the fact that they are merely displacing one smallholder to put in another? There is unfortunately too mu^h of that being done. 1-").>'11. The County Connci's ar«» to a great extent to blame for the enhanced prices these pcorer men are forced to pay?- Of course thi> County Council am urged to do that by the Board of Agriculture; they are just carrying out an Order. !•". ->':'!. Are agr.cult tirists represented to pny ex- tent on the Welsh County Councils? — Yes, but not a majority. In a gcxxl many part* of Wales the in- dustrial workers have a bfg voice on the County Council. Th»re is a very strong feeling I may say amongst farmers against these small holdings being bought by the County Coum-iK and in many cases there is more or lefts a contract that the 'sitting tenant shall remain on as a smallholder, but if he remains on under those circumstances he remains on at a considerably increased rent by the time the property has been adapted as a small holding. 15,863. That places him at a great disadvantage?— Quito. I">.-i>l. Mr. Itnti'hf.lor: Has farming been a profit- able business in Wales since 1914? — I should say so. 15,665. During the years since 1914, should I be right in .saying that the crop of 1918 has been the most profitable? — It rather depends upon the dis- trict. Perhaps in some of the earlier districts where the corn was SK ured before the bad weather set in, I should say it was the most profitable year, but taking Wales on the whole in the higher parts, a very groat quantity of the crops was absolutely spoilt by the bad weather, and 1918 probably turned out to be the least profitable year in those districts where, the weather was very bad. It varies very much. l-").-()6. 1918, taking -it on the average, would show the biggest vield ? — Yes, the biggest I ever remember. 7 What, was the condition before 1914. Was there a profit in farming or a bare living or what? — Conditions had gradually improved for some years previous to 1911, and I do not think on the whole ther<- was very much to complain of in just the latter !•{, taking" the whole thing together. 1.'>.*W. Take your own case. As regards the crop of 1'iH) von have a pretty fair idea now how that crop is going to turn out. Would you say it was considerably l«*s than 1918?— Yes, very much less. 15,869. 'Was it grown at a greater expense? — Yes. •~n. Do you consider that for the past few von have been taking more out of the land whero it has been cultivated than has been put back into the land in the way of manure? — Yes. 26370 15.871. Did you use a considerable quantity of manures in Wales? — Yes, there has been a good deal of slag used, but during the war we could not get this high grade slag because of the restrictions of the department. The result was that very much less was used. 15.872. Do you use a considerable quantity of farmyard manure? — Yes, that is really the main stay so far as manure is concerned. 15.873. Has the value of that manure decreased through the want of artificial feeding stuffs? — Yes. 15.874. So that though the quantity used may have been the same the value of the manure has been very much less? — Yes. 15.875. Do you consider that in the next few years iu the case of cultivated land in Wales you will require to put back into the land a lot of the fer- tility you have taken out of it in the past few years? —Yes. 15.876. Otherwise your land will not give you even a reasonable crop ? — That is so, but I may say we are depending to a certain extent on some of the newly ploughed up land. The best old pastures will go on for two or three years without any manure at all. 15.877. I would like if ycu could give us any particulars in regard to the cottage and land you refer to in paragraph 3 of your evidence. Have you no particulars you can give us with regard to that. It seems so very expensive for a cottage with just enough land to keep two cows? — I have an instance in my mind of a case close to me where a cottage with enough buildings to keep just two or three cows and 9 acres of land was sold for £1,900. 15.878. What was the rent of that? — I do not know the rent, but an ordinary rental for it would be approximately £30. 15.879. Is there any reason why such prices should be given? — Yes. As I said before one reason is partly want of housing accommodation. Some persons like to come into the country to live and there is a very great scarcity of houses. 15.880. How many rooms would there bo in that cotta.ge? — It would be what is commonly called more than a cottage. You might call it a cottage ; it would be something like four rooms up and four rooms down. We call it a cottage, but it is rather larger than some of the ordinary cottages on the farms. 15.881. In the past, before these sales began to take place, what class of people would occupy such cottages? — They are usually men that do work besides; they might be road men or anything like that. 15.882. They are working men actually — men who labour? — Usually, not in all cases. 15.883. They with their families would actually work? — Yes, certainly; they would not be spending all their time on such a holding as that — not the man. 15.884. Mr. Cautley : I notice you say that Wales is pre-eminentlv a country of smallholdings and that 70 per cent, of the farms in Wales are under 100 acres? — Yes, I believe even more than that. 15.885. Could you tell mo at all how many are under 50 acres? — I have not the figures. 15.886. Mr. Edwards : This figure of 70 per cent, of farms under 100 acres is wrong. It either ought to read 70 per cent, under 50 acres or 87 per cent, under 100 acres. Either the 70 per cent, or the 100 acres is wrong. I am quoting from the official returns? — I have no reason to believe that that is not right. 15.887. Mr. Cautley : In Wales on the farms under 50 acres would the farmer employ any outside labour? — He would in some cases. 15.888. Ho would employ a man? — In some cases he would employ a man if he did not have any help from his sons — if he had no sons — or anything like that. In some cases he would employ a man and in some cases he would employ a man part time on 50 acres. 15.889. Is it usual on a farm of 50 acres or under for the farmer to work it himself together with his sons and not pay any wages at all?--Ycs, that would be the usual thing to do. 15.890. That would be the case, in 70 per cent, of the farms. They are not then affected verv much by the minimum charge?— Not those very small holdings of course. 15.891. That is 70 per cent, of the whole?-Jt is 70 per cent, of the number, but not the acreage. ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 18 Ociobfr, 1919.] M«. THOMAS WILLIAMS. [Continued. 15,899. I agree. That u a ver\ ditii r.-ni matter But so far as a farm which consist* of between M and 100 acre* they'would certainly employ outside labour, would they:'— Yes. 15.893. \ou am aware, I suppose, that the av< weekly wage now is 37s. <«1. for the whole of Wales?— Yet. 16.894. That is for a week of CO hours in the summer and a week of 48 hours in tho win;- I am not quite sure whether that applies to the whole of Wales, but I presume it does. 15.895. Yea, I have the official figures boi.-re in.-. What wen- the average number of bourn worked in Wales before the ('-urn Production Act nun,- in at all? — The recognised usual hours were from ti to (i with half an hour in the morning ami an hour for the mid-day meal. 15.896. How many hours a week would that be: — .!ly have not worked it out. l.V-<97. That is 10} hours a day?— Yes. ~98. Did they work a full 'day on Saturday - Yes. 15.899. That would be 63 in the summer? — Yes. 15.900. So to the 50 hours to get the same length of work you would have to add on 13 hours for the week P— Yea. 15.901. 13 hours at lOd. is 10s. 10d.?— Yes. 15.902. If you add 13s. lOd. on to the 37s. 6d. that is what a farmer to-day has to pay his man for the same hours that his man worko 1 before the Corn Pro- durtion Act, making 48s. 4d. altogether? — Yes. 15.903. I find by the figures that the average total earnings of the man for Wales according to the Board of Trade in 1907 was 18s. a week including extras and for tho Central Land Association 1912-13 20s 7.1 a week?— Ye*. 15.904. If that is correct the wages to-day are con- siderably more than double? — They are. 15.905. Speaking off-hand it is getting on to nearly 150 per cent, increase? — Yes. 15.906. Is it possible in your view that the farmer can continue to pay these increased wages where he employs outside labour unless he has some guarantee for tho price of the cereals he is growing? — He will do it with less confidence than if he knew what the future was likely to bring forth. 15.907. Tfiat is hardly an answer to the question I put. If wages have gone up from 20s. 7d. a week to 48s. 4d. a week will the farmer bo likely to be able to grow corn if there is no guarantee of the prices that he is to receive for hi* produce?— I presume you mean under present conditions and if present prires prevail. 15.908. Not if present prices prevail at all, but what we may expect in the future with free competi- tion? That is problematical. If present prires are not so high in the future he will not be able to go on without a guarantee. "(9. Do vou mean that if he hns present prices he will be able to pay the present rate of wages :mossiblo for him to pay the present rate of wagon. 1.1911. Do von share tho view that I hold that in thr future, whether near or further off. the com l>et it ion of world prices and world supplies will send prices down0 Thnt in tho focliiur of uneasiness which exist* in tho minds of tho Welsh fnrmor nt the !<• time thnt when prices come down the difficulty will be in bringing tho priro of labour down with them l.ri.!>12. Have vou anv nugtostion to put before the' Commission of what ought to IK- done' You moan to keep the nriro of wage* up' 15.013 No. to i-nnhle trio farmer to t>av tho present r»te of wages nnd. .if rniirse. to keep the wages up nlso You in Wales are subject to the Corn Prn dnetion Act? To*. l/i.914. T'nder tho Corn Production Art wage* are fixed nuitr irrespective of the selling prii •• -if corn or anything grown on the farm?— Ten I. '>.'.'!"). As long as that system continues have you any suggestion to make as to how the farmer can lie put in a position to pay the wages so fixed?— I think we have gone over that partly. Our main trouble in the past has been foreign competition which has kept MIII- produce at such alow price. K..!H(i. You can assume that that will continue io think, as I understand, that a guarantee is essential?— Yes. 15.917. If you have such a large number of farmers who are smallholders and who are not paying wages and who. therfore. do not suffer in their expenditure from paying the minimum rate of wage* might it not I*- to their advantage that there should NO no guarantee — or would it be to their advantage?- If a farmer and his son are working a farm they expect some return for their labour; they like to feel they arc secured. 15.918. I suppose if there was a guarantee of roioal prices the smallholder would get the full licm-fit because he would get the guaranteed price:- Quite. 15.919. The only question is whether it would be necessary for them to have it? — Yes. 15.920. .What is your view about it?- -I think if it is necessary for one it is necessary for all. 15.921. You think it would be advisable?— Yes. 15.922. Would there be any difficulty in having two classes of farmer alongside each other under thus,. conditions — one man who is not bound to pay tln> minimum wage and the other who ix'r No. I do not think so. The farmer's son if he worked without an actual fixed wage under present conditions \umld certainly expect to receive some-thing for his labour nt some time or other. 15.923. He would expect to receive it, but he is not entitled legally, as far as I can gather, to get it. because there is no contract of service? — Quito, but he would expect it. At the present time I think the feeling is that he would more or less claim it. li there was a prospect of sinking his money in the capital for the time being and having it later on that would be an inducement for him to go on. '-4. Have you considered at all the effect of having these two systems going on alongside each other, the smallholder who is not bound to pay the fixed rate of wages, and another farmer, who is also perhaps a small farmer, who is bound to pay tho fixed minimum rate of wages? — I do not consider from the economic point of view that there are two systems at all. In the one rase the farmer pays out wages every week or year as the case might be and in the other he reserves the farm for his son until such time as tin- son requires it to farm for himself. That is the only difference in my view 16,925. You consider there is no difficulty in having the two systems alongside each other:- A- I -.ay I do not consider them ns two systems. l"i. !>•.'(;. Supposing tin- future has in store for us a Is hour week with no overtime or a very limited am-. iin( Of overtime to lx> worked what do you sayP — That in my view would be absolutely fatal. 15,987, Fatal to farming? -Yes. 1.">.!P28. First of all will you give me tin- reason why you think a 48 hour week would he fatal with i In- very limited amount of overtime which I under- stand will be allowed? Of course it would ii.-vd in many rasm practically two staffs of men. Tin-re is the milking industry which is a growing industry in Wales; it would In- i|iiite impossible to carry that industry out satisfactorily under the •(* hours. ''-.'!). Tho men who milked the row in the morn- ing could not milk it in tho evening? — No, and in addition to that there are tho very difficult climatic conditions we hav <« .leal with in Wnlos which would render the work impossible I'siinlly our men do tho work now nnd wo do not find very murh difficulty with it when the sun is shining, aiid in Wales they are not proasod very hnrd when the is un- ••u i table and if such a system as n IS hour week were established it would 1«- filial. |.">. !»:«). Farming could not continue? — 1 do not think it could with success and nothing would send land out of cultivation more quickly in Wales than a > "dnetion of the present hours. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 83 28 October, 1919.] MR. THOMAS WILLIAMS. {Continued. 15.931. Do I understand that one of the reasons which causes you to come to that conclusion is that Wales is a particularly wet country and you have to take advantage of every opportunity of sunshine that you get to carry on your work ? — Yes, that is so, and my own experience is that the men themselves realise it, and I do not think they want any altera- tion. That is absolutely my experience in the matter — there is so much give and take between the men and the farmer in Wales. I am positive the men are not looking for any further reduction of hours in Wales. 15.932. If such a reduction did come about would that really create unfairness between the small- holder, the man who worked his farm not being sub- ject to paying the minimum wage and working re- stricted hours and the man who was subject to doing so? — It would give a preference to the man who worked his holding himself in that case. 15.933. He and his family could work whenever the sun was shining, whereas the man with the hired labour could not? — Yes, in my view it would give a preference to the man who worked his farm with his family. 15.934. Mr. Duncan: On that point of the limita- tion of hours, what have you in view when you speak of the difficulty of a 48 hours week with a limited amount of overtime? — Of course, if this comes about I presume it is intended that overtime should be worked only by special permission, and our difficulty is to get special permits when the sun comes out at one part of the day. !.">.! '35. Do you know if any proposals have actually been made of this nature? — Of a 48 hours week ? " 15.936. Yes? — I presunm MMIH- IH ads <>f Labour Organisations have suggested that this -18 hours should be inrlmli •!>44. It would create other difficulties, would it not if we left agriculture out of legislation? — I do not know that it would be less satisfactory. 1-5.945. But you have not read the terms of the Bill? — I know it is not included in the Bill at all. 15.946. You have not read the terms rf the Bill which it is proposed to apply to agriculture? — All I cjn say in regard to that is that I believe the diffi- culties of farmers who employ labour as far as hours aro concerned are very serious at present, and if anv further alteration is made in that direction it will Tily have a damaging effect on increased food production. I •">.'' 17. The question put to you was have you read tin- terms of the Bill0 No, 1 have said so before. 1'i.dlS. With regard to the question of wages in W;I|CK are the wages which are actually paid to the workmen the rates fixed by the Agricultural Wages TJnurd or are higher rates paid?— I do not quite follow your question. 26370 15.949. There are minimum rates fixed by the Agricultural Wages Board. Are these rates actually paid or are higher rates paid? — Usually they are tho rates paid ; there might be higher rates paid in some cases. 15.950. Is there any different rate paid by farmers in those districts which are nearer to the industrial areas? — There might be. 15.951. Is it in the districts nearer to the industrial areas that higher rates are paid? — It has been so 1 believe, but since the higher rates which have been fixed recently have been in operation I do not think there would be very much difference, but there has been a difference. 15.952. Speaking generally the agricultural work- men in Wales are paid the rates fixed by the Wages Board? — Yes, I should say so. 15.953. I think you said in reply to one of the Commissioners that it was the practice on the small farms where employed workmen were not engaged for the members of the family not to be paid actual wages? — That is so. 15.954. In those cases are the returns on the farming operations retained as a family fund from which afterwards the sons or daughters are set up?— During the years I remember in too many cases there was no fund at all : there was just enough to make a com- fortable living without any sinking fund or anv wages that would be due to them. 15.955. What happened to the sons and daughters of those families? — In a good many cases the sons left the farm and went to some other work. 15.956. The parents were not able to set them up? — In a great number of cases the sons of small farmers have gone into service on larger farms. 15.957. And earned wages there? — Yes. 15.958. You say a good deal in your evidence about the attachment of the farmers in Wales to the land. Is it the case that you have farms continuing for any long time in the possession of the same family? — Yes, it is quite a common thing for generations of families to farm the same land. 1-6,959. Judged by the actual results it would seem as if the family fund had been sufficient to retain the family in farming? — It would retain the family for the farmer's lifetime, and by a struggle it often happens that ono of the sons would be able to carry it on in some way or another. That has been the general history. 15.960. Do you find that many of the smaller holders are able to get on in their holdings and to go on in that way? For instance, you have stated yourself that you started in a smallholding and are now farm- ing a 500 acre farm? — Yea. 15.961. Is your case unusual in Wales? — Yes, I should Bay so. I belong to long generations of farmers. My father was a farmer before me, other- wise I should not have been able to do what I have. 15.962. During your time you developed from the smallholding to the largo farm? — Yes, but I do not say my case is an actual or fair illustration of things generally. My father farmed extensively. I have not made all I have got quite by the sweat of my brow. 15,963! It is not usual, then, for the smallholders to go up the ladder?— Oh, yes, smallholders do rise gradually, but in past vears there was not so much of it has been the case in more recent years. 15.964. From what year would you date the improve- ment?— When I remember first of all, when I began to farm, it was a struggle for existence 25 years ago, but since then conditions have gradually improved and small farmers in many cases have gone up, but it has been those men who have worked hard and for long hours and applied themselves to their industry in everv possible way. and saved every penny that could be saved who have gone up. 15.965. There has been an improvement during the past 25 years leaving out of account the war con- ditions?- Yes. there has. 15.966. I think you stated that farmers in Wales did not keep accounts? — Quite. 15.967. Do you mean by that that they are not able to tell the results of their farming? — They know their results too well, and always have. F3 84 ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 28 October, 1919.] Mt. THOMAS WILLIAMS. 15,968. Without keeping accounts? — Ye*; I should say they knew the result. A farmer in a small way would know the result; but he is not in the habit <>f pi.tting «l«i»n cvei\ ]««'imy 'made and every penny expended as every week is going on. 15,068. But would most of thorn be able to present an income ami expenditure account, leaving out of account what you may call the personal expenditure? Would they know what the result of tin- funning is? — They know too well the result after the year is completed. CO. How is it, if they do not keep any income and expenditure account, that they can tell the results of the farming? — They take into consideration the value of their stock ; but as tin- st.« k fluctuates from year to year so much according to the seasons and the conditions, that is not usually taken into con- sideration. If there is any balance at the bank ••< any money in their pocket, they know how much that is, and usually it has been very easily counted. 1~>.!'~1. I think you stated in reply to one of t)u< Commissioners, that there is ;i very strong objec- tion on the part of the farmers in Wales to officials. What officials had you in view when you were making that .statement? — I do not know that I had any particular set of officials in view ; but during the whole of the Corn Production Act the whole thing has been ruled by officials. It must necessarily have been to have done what was done. Now the farmers think that conditions are different, and that should as far as possible be abolished and a return made as far as possible to the old order of things. 1-V.C'J. Were these officials appointed by the Board of Agriculture, or were they appointed by tho War Executive Committees?— Partly ; and partly by the Board of Agriculture on their own in some cases, especially in regard to the recent inspection. I think perhaps that has aroused as much feeling as anything about prices; but a great number of officials has been appointed hy the Agricultural Executive Committees at the direction of the Board to carry out Cultivation Orders. 15.973. How many officials do you have in a county appointed by your War Executive Committee? — It is rather difficult to estimate, but they have been re- duced. There are not so many as there were at one time. 15.974. Are you referring to officials appointed by the Food Ministry?— Yes; the whole thing— that included. •75. 3/r. Dallas: Yon say in your statement Uiat it is to the advantage of the labourer and the farmer that part of the wages should be paid in kind. I suppose you are aware that this was the customary method of paying workers in most of the industries in the country at one time? — Quite. 15,976. And that tin- workers have gradually got rid of it because they did not want it? — I do not know about most industries. I would not like to say that; hut it is a long time hack that that was so. 1">.!»77. It prevailed in other industries, to put it in th.it way? — I do not know even that. 15.978. Do you not find thnt the labourers object to it t«>-day ?— No. I find that the farm labourer is very reluctant to lose any of the' usual |>eri|iiisit««. 16.979. He would rather have the money, would lie not. than the perquisites? — I do not think so. I think he is very anxious to claim the perquisites, especially Miino TIM!. want payment in kind, hut want • ' >ant to he able to determine in their own way how they will *pcnd the money they have* T cannot, quite fay that in my experience. I think myself that labourer* would prefer doing with less money and not losing these main perquisites. 15.982. Supposing the labourer got his wages in full in money and lie named to buy potatoes or milk or vegetables, he would still got them at the whole- sale prices or the cost, as you suggest, would he nut - — He has been, of course. I believe in most cases he does not pay more than wholesale prices for anything he gets from the farmer. 15.983. But supposing a man was paid his whole wages in money and then hi- wanted milk or potatoes from the farmer, he could go and buy them, could he not? — Yes, of course. 15.984. Would not that be H much more satisfa. relationship between the workman and his employer!' — I do not know; hut clearly in my view he is not anxious to encourage that. 15.985. You know that the Wages Board have Limited the number of perquisites that are legal as deductions from tho wages? — \. 15.986. Do you think that has been an advantage or a disadvantage? — Tho main items of food which he draws from the farm are still allowed. I.V!'-1?. Is it not a I act that ll -nK two things to bo allowed to be deducted from his wages, namely, milk and potatoes? — Yes; those are the main items. 15,988. In many other districts other things were deducted from his wages?.- The only question which is debarred which has affected the situation is the question of drink-— boor or cider. To my knowledge, that is the only item of importance that has In -i n debarred. _ 15,989. Of course, the practice varies very con- siderably in different parts of the country? — l" think that is so. 15.990. You answered one of the Commissioners this morning to the effect that it was just as neces- sary to have the tied cottage, or it was very i sary to have it for the labourers. Would you rnind telling me whnt you mean by the tied cottage, and what yon mean hy what you say?- I am not sure I mentioned the tied cottage; bm we all know what it means in principle. What it really is. is that the cottage is let with the farm also at an inclusive rent. 15.991. You do not mean anything outside of that? — No. 15.992. For instance, in Oxfordshire and in other parts of the country, farmers within recent- have been buying up or renting all n the village, and therefore when a man conies to get employment from any one of them he must live in ono of these tied cottages? — I have not any personal experience or knowledge of that being done to any it in Wales. 15.993. You do not think that would be an advan- tage, do you?— It depends; but it is necessary fur the farming operations on any farm of any si/ have cottages which tho farmer can claim. 15.994. Why? — He cannot get his labour very well done without. '-">. So long as the cottages were in tbe close vicinity of the farm, would it make any ditTci- whether they were own. d by the farmer or by tin- Parish Council- It is in my view a .satisfaction t<> the f armor and a convenience to him, to be aspired of having cottages where he can put the labourers in who do the work. •''•. Y\ hen a man has to live in his emplo, cottage, he is under rather a larger obligation than when be is in the- cottage with ,-omeh-dv eh*. Do \"U agree with that- That might bo so! 97. Then-fore, the man d at any time. It not nocossarily hind him to remain 'there. 15,99S And if he changes his situation, he must his bom. (,)lllte. l\"!>0. Which is rather a disability, is it not?— Yes ; but it does not ofti n happen in my experience now. I'sunlly the be*t man remains on. 16,000. Yes; but evrn hetwion the best man and the bc«t employer, there comes a time when they want a change? — Yes. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 85 28 October, 1919.] MR. THOMAS WILLIAMS. [Continued. 16,001. And it is rather a handicap to a man at the same time ho changes the employment he must also change his home-' — 1 might say 1 am looking at the matter more from the point of view of food production. If I were not assured of cottages, I should not risk the farm. I would not take the farm at all. lti,002. Supposing in your district there were plenty of cottages but not owned by you or your fellow farmers, would that not be just as useful to you?— Of course, if cottages were very plentiful, it would make a great difference; but the contrary is the fact. 1G,003. So that the thing really is you want plenty of cottages, not necessarily tied cottages? — That would relieve the situation; but it is preferred to have cottages let with the farm from the point of view of tho satisfaction of the farmers, and especially from the point of view of food production. 16,004. You have not at the back of your mind, have you, any idea that if you get men to live in the farmer's cottages you can therefore hold them better? You have a stronger hold over them than if they do not live in the farmer's .cottage, have you not?— I have not personally found any difficulty "in regard to that. 16,00-3. You put security of tenure down as the prime factor that is necessary to-day to assist agri- culture. You think that stands easily in front of any other remedy : that if you give the farmer security of tenure, it will solve most of the difficult problems of production ? — Yes, I think it is a matter of great importance. 16,006. Are you in favour of a free market for agricultural produce with no Government control or supervision? — No. I have just stated that I thought for the present emergency it is advisable to have a certain guarantee which will mean a certain measure of control ; but the feeling is that we hope it will not i>e necessary fo>- either to last long. • lti,007. 1 was just going to ask you, have you any idea in your own mind as to the term that that might last? — We might say five years. 16,008. And then at the end of the five years, you think that there should be a return to a state of fn- . ilnin!- It is to be hoped so. We would at least know that the position would be cleared up. 16,000. You are not in favour, are you, of the farmer being subsidised by the taxpayers of the country? — It would be a very regrettable state of affairs. 16.010. I take it that Welsh people are pretty much like Scotch people and prefer to be independent:' —Yes, that is so. 16.011. Mr. AMy: I should like to know what is the attitude of the Welsh farmers towards the present control of butter prices:' — Butter and milk have been a very serious problem with us. I happen to be Chairman of our Local Food Committee, and have had some experience. The feeling in regard to butter in Wales ih that th"rc will soon be none, because th(> prices arc absolutely silly. I believe the Govern- ment specially discourages the production of home- made butter, and they encourage milk and cheese at the expense of butter. I do not quite know the reason why. I think it is a mistake, really, for the butter to go out; but as the collectors of milk come round tho butter goes out. It has gone out very rapidly during the last two or three years and in another two or three years like this we shall expect to see practically no home-made butter made on tho farms. M.OI2. Do you regard the production of butter at many of the outlying Welsh farms as an essential part of the product? — I think it is an advantage- on a lot of outlying farms. They are not in touch with tho sale of milk, and have difficulties in selling it. For that reason, I think it is not quite fair that the price of butter should be so bad. Those small farmers have depended, to some extent, on making n small 'ju.'ititity of butter, after rearing their stock. What is left over from that they make into hui- shape »t )•: 1 ilo not think I quit«> follow your qut~.ti.ni. 16.038. Do you realise that the pri being paid by tho farmers. The value of the land would probably drop H^.iin, and some who had bought at present prices Mould probably lose. But who were forcing up the piice of land? Simply the farmers themselves; and the only conclusion one could draw was that prices were going up amongst farmers themselves because they had a good deal of money at hand. Well, the prico would not go up if they had to borrow money. But suppose tho Government said they would provide cheap money, would not the price paid for farms go nji higher and higher? If the tenant could go with i nmeiit money in his pocket he would bid and bid, and he (Sir Daniel) did not know what the price would go to. The only thing that seemed to check farmers buying land was the fact that it was their cuii money." What have you to say to that? — I do not agree with Sir Daniel at all. I know any num- ber of cases where they have not one-third of the money ; and I know hardly one, or very few, where MINUTES OF EVIDENCE, 87 28 October, 1919.] MR. THOMAS WILLIAMS. [Continued. the farmer lias sufficient money to buy his farm. I know of some who have bought large farms without any money at all at a big price. 16.049. I agree with you : I could bring instances of exactly the same thing. You said that the climate of Wales is really not suitable for the growth of corn. Do you believe that the land of Wales would be much more efficiently used for other kinds of farming rather than corn growing? — Yes. I do not think Wales is adaptable for corn growing, and not exten- sively enough, except as far as oats and that sort of thing are concerned for the stock. There are some spots in Wales where it is all right; but, taking the thing as a whole, it is not adaptable for extensive corn growing. 16.050. So that you think that if the Government should now adopt a policy something similar to that of the Executive Committees and compel farmers to plough up a certain area of their land whether they wish it or not, as far as Wales is concerned, it would lead to disaster in farming? — Yes; I think it would be very regrettable to ask for any more land to be ploughed up in Wales, and 1 do think that certain of the land which has been ploughed up is unsuit- able. Although I was one who made the Orders, I thought then and think now most distinctly, that a good proportion of the land had better go back to grass even if the corn prices are kept up. 16.051. You said £5 per quarter. I suppose you did not mean for a moment that such a thing would be guaranteed. You simply said that in your opinion the land which you were on in Wales, could not be cultivated under that figure under present condi- tions ? — Yes. 16.052. Chairman: You said the poor land? — Yes. 16.053. Mr. Edwards : Referring to unproductive forms of labour, is not it a fact that on these small holdings, farms up to 100 acres, say, of necessity the farmers live on their labour and not on their profit P — That is so; that has been the case. 16.054. Our friends here who represent the hired labour, make a great point of the fact that the living wage must at all events be guaranteed to them. Does it not follow that these small holders require a guarantee of their living wage quite as much as the labouring man? — Yes. I have just tried to urge it on one of your Commissioners when he asked me the same question, that it was as much due to the man who himself and his sons worked on the farm, that he should get a living wage, as well as the employee on the farm should get a living wage. The whole thing is quite the same in my view, and it should be the same from the labour point of view. I do not see why any leader of labour can urge that an employee on a small farm should bo assured of a good wage, whereas the farmer who is really the workman with his son should not get it equally as well; and to provide that they should get it the con- ditions of agriculture must be satisfactory. 16.055. Just a further word about the guarantee. Under the conditions of Wales with its climate and its suitability for dairy farming and sheep farming and the rearing of stock, do you think the mere guarantee on wheat and oats, for instance, would be a great encouragement of itself to farming in Wales? — No. To have a guarantee does not meet the case. because many of the high farmers do not grow much at all and cannot grow corn for sale. What they mainly want is to have a satisfactory price for the stock; but the small amount of cultivation does help to keep the head of stock, although the money is principally made from the stock raised or from the milk sold. It is mainly from the stock raised in most parts of Wales. 16.056. What is the tendency in Montgomeryshire, the county you come from, as regards the land get- ting back to grass? — It is getting back rapidly. The only difficulty has been getting the land clean. Undoubtedly, I am afraid, it is a fact that a lot of this land that is put down is not quite in the condi- tion that it ought to be seeded down. The great difficulty has been in securing a satisfactory supply of good seed to lay this land back. Farmers are at present paying, and have for this last year paid high prices for seed to get it back in preference to keep- ing it under the plough, mainly because they are frightened of the labour conditions. 16.057. Assuming that the Government should guarantee a certain figure, or that this Commission would recommend to the Government a certain figure, and it was adopted as a minimum guarantee, would that tend to assist this tendency to put the land down to grass, do you think? — You mean a guarantee? 16.058. Yes, for wheat and oats? — Yeg. I think temporarily it might allay the feeling, but there will be a good deal going back to grass in any case. No guarantee will prevent a certain amount of it going back to grans in my opinion, because I think it is desirable in the national interests for a certain pro- portion of unsuitable land to go back. 16.059. You spoke about give and take as regards the labourer and the farmer. I suppose you will agree with mo that the cleavage between the working man and the farmer is not so wide in Wales as it is in some other parts of the country? — No. I think that is the case On a good many of the small farms in Wales the farmer and his men sleep together some- times. However, if they do not do that, they often live at the same table and they work together, and, as a rule, they get on very smoothly together. 16.060. Anl it is, or was, the common practice if the labourer wanted a holiday to go to a fair or to an Eisteddfod or to meetings of that kind, which we have very often in Wales, to ask the farmer for the day off and to get it?- Yes. That is a point which I am glad you have raised, because now with the shorter work- ing days and the half-holiday the farmer rather feels that the men should not have the usual amount of days. But it has been the practice for a long time, and I believe it is still kept up a good deal, that the men should get these special days off during the year. They do not like to forego those special days, and in most cases I do not think there are any deductions made when the men go in for a full day in addition to the time they are entitled to.. That is, as a general rule. lfi,061. In order to put the matter quite clearlv before the Commission, you said that in your part it is not the practice for the men to sleep out. I do not suppose vou will dispute it if I tell you that that is very generally the practice in the County of Anglesey, where I come from ? — That is so. The Chnirmnn : Thank you very much for your evidence. (The Witness withdrew.) 2<;:t70 F 4 sx ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 29 Orfofer, UM'.».] Ms. li <;. li. .wi ; : I'.O.A. NINETEENTH DAY. \Vl PM-DAY, OrroltKli 1'illll, I'.tl'.l. Sin \VII,I,I.\M IIAKCI.AV I'KAT (Chairman). DR. C. M. DOIi.l \-. (Mi.. MK. HKNHY OVKKMAN, OH I. . MB. A. W. A.- HUT, MR. A. BATCHELOH, MK. (JKOIUiK DALLAS, MR. J. F. DUNCAN, MK. F. E. GREEN, MK. T. HENDERSON, MK. T. PROSSER JOV MK. l(. V. U.N.NAIU). MK. OKOUGK NK'.HOI.I.-. Mn. K. H. l'Ai;l\KI!. Mi:. \V. U. SMITH, M.JV. MR. R. B. WAI.KKK. Mr. H. <;. 11 DWELL, F.C.A., Director of the Agricultural Costings Committee, recalled and further examined. 16.062. Chairman : You have already put in your Interim Report made some time ago,* and now you put in Supplementary Notes to your Interim Heport; the Third and Finn! Instalment of the Report on Farm Accounts, a Report on Certain Farm Accounts vitli relative tables, and an Appendix containing the financial results of certain farms over a series of . yearet?- N 16.063. Will you allow mo to put those in as part .,i your evidence;- — Yes. 16.064. 1 understand that you and the Secretaries are to collate and consider these somewhat detailed statements with the view of consolidating certain of them into Tables which may be published with our •:.'llee? Yes. |t..ipi;.Y H/. Hull-In li>r : Iii paragraph 7I> you give particulars <p farms. and Ica-t in the ca*e of dairy farms?— Yea. •hat go to show that in tho past milk production lia< not been as profitable as corn and p farming?— That is so with regard to the com- paratively small number of accounts that are repre- sented. •f Vol. III., Minutes of Evidence (Cmd. 391), and Appendix IV. to this volume. t 'Hie Supplementary Noton and tiie Third nnd Final In-ialment of tie Report together with tl..- Ul.low and Api-endix thereto are printed in Appendix I BMM*d Final Report. 16,073. Do you consider that tho fact that milk pi ices have hceii controlled has had any effect in keeping the profits from being higher in dairy- farming? — 1 do not think I have any definite in- formation on that. 10.07-1. Iii paragraph 8 you say that the profit pur acre and the capital per acre is greatest on tie/ smallest holdings, that is, from one acre to 100 16.075. You also note that no charge is included amongst the expenses for the personal services of the occupier? — Yes. 10.076. Does that really account for that?— Yes, to 11 large extent. 16.077. In other words, the smallest holdings are pretty generally wrought by farmers themsehcs with their families instead of with hired labour? — That is so. 16.078. In cases where they are wrought by the fanner and his family they have not included wages to themselves or their families? — That is so. 16.079. In general, so far as you have had an op- portunity of doing so, would you say that the ac- counts show that the profits for the 1918 crop are higher than th.y were in previous years? — I have not much information to express an opinion upon. Quite a number of the farmers, in sending in these accounts, have said that the year 11)18 was an ex- ceptionally favourable year. 16.080. Did they state that one of the principal reasons was bocauso of the very large yields per acre of the various crops? — Yes. Iii.OSl. And that in most instance- the harvest was got in in perfect weather? — Yes. Ki.iiv-j. Did they make any remark to tho eff«M-t that comparing it with the present crop of JiiP.i they did not expect the present crop to turn out so well ? — Yes, they frequently said that. 16.083. Were t he-re any special remarks to the effect that they had been taking out reserves from the land which had been put in in previous years in the way of fertility? — Yes, a small number said hut in nearly every case they sent specific figures with regard to that which are dealt with in a special paragraph of the report. 16.084. You have not eliminated these reserves from the profits, have you? — No, wo have not. 16.085. In an ordinary commercial business con- "•'" »"iil. I these reserves have been put to a special account - Yes. in properly kept accounts they would. All reference* in (hi- examination are to the Knial Heport (sre Appendix V.). MINUTES 'OF EVIDENCE. 89 29 October, 1919.] MR. H. G. HOWELL, F.C.A. [Continued. 16.086. Because of the fact that a proper system of farming would be for the next few years to put back those reserves into the land? — That is so. 16.087. So that to that extent the profits shown for the past few years would be inflated? — Yes. 16.088. And you would expect that for the coming few years the reverse would he the position? — If they in that period built up the fertility again, yes. 16.089. To put back the land into the condition in which it was, say, in 1914? — Yes. 16.090. In general is there anything to show from the accounts placed before you that farming has not been a profitable concern for the past four or five years? — I do not think I have evidence as to that. 16.091. On the figures produced to you would you consider that the farmer had only been getting a reasonable return on the capital invested from the profits that are shown in the accounts? — Are you speaking of the particular year covered by these accounts? 16.092. Yes? — It depends somewhat upon what one's personal view of a reasonable return is. 16.093. Taking a- business which is subject to all the risks and fluctuations of markets, such as the farming business is, would you consider that the profits realised in farming are more than reasonable? — All over I notice they work out at 11 per cent, on the capital taking all the accounts combined. 16.094. Would you not expect in any ordinary com- mercial business a figure of at least 11 per cent. ? — • Yes, I think so, and as far as I can gather this does not seem an unreasonable remuneration for the capital and the services of the occupiers. 16.095. That 11 per cent, includes the interest on capital, management, and profit? — That is so, and for the most part any labour contributed by the family and the services of the occupiers. 16.096. Is there anything in the papers which have been put before you to show why the profits on the Scottish farms are higher than on the English ? — No; I have tried to investigate that myself. From tho accounts only, it is rather a difficult matter, and I have not been able to get out anything at all definite with regard to that. 16.097. Is there anything to show that the equip- ment and buildings on the Scottish farms are better than on the Knglish farms? — I have no information as to that. 16.098. Is there anything to show that the land gets more put into it in the way of manures in Scotland compared with England? — No, I have not tested that; I do not think 1 could do it if I wunte I to. 16.099. There is nothing shown from the ex- ponditure of manures which would bring to your attention the fact that probably in Scotland the land had bn-n better. manured? — No, I do not think so — for one thing the expenditure on manures would be for the artificials only ; you would have no informa- tion as to the natural manures. 10.100. In regard to the home farms do you know wli'-thor these were ran as commercial concerns or simply as adjuncts to the residences of the proprie- tors?— They soom to bo split up; some apparently are run as <*imm«rcial concerns. 16.101. Where they are run as commercial concerns do thoy compare- favourably with the tenant farmers' nits? — Even then the returns generally are not so good as tenant farmers' accounts. 16.102. Has anything been placed l>efore you which enables you to express any opinion as to why that is? — No; I have no specific evidence with regard to that so far as I know. lfi.103. Might it not be that in the case of home farms every item of expenditure, labour and other- wise, is accounted -for, whereas in the case of an ordinary tenant farm some of these items are either intentionally or inadvertently omitted? — Ncr, I do not think that would account for it. 16,104. Might it amount for a part of it?- T do not IM bow even a tenant farmer could omit expenditure of that kind unless he at the same time omitted equivalent receipts. 16.105. What I refer to is the fact that he may have omitted it because he did the work himself IH some instances? — I see what you mean — yes, that might be the case. 10.106. In practically every instance of a home farm there would be no labour of any kind done by the proprietor? — I have no evidence as to that. 16.107. Whereas in the case of tenant farmers there would be a considerable proportion of the farmer's own labour? — That would be very likely, yes. 16.108. Do you know if in a considerable number of the accounts placed before you these accounts were also used in regard to satisfying surveyors of income tax with regard to profits? — I would not say a considerable number, but quite a number were so used. 16.109. Of course that would be in cases where they showed less than double rent? — Possibly, yes. 16.110. Taken all over, what is the average in England with regard to whether they are over or under double rent in the case of profit? You have a Table showing that? — Yes. The general result is that the profits are not equal to double rent if I remember rightly in England. 16.111. In Scotland I think they are. I think your Interim Report is to that effect? — Yes, in Scotland they are more than double the rent. 16.112. In England they are under it? — Yes. 16.113. You make the remark that a general perusal of the accounts submitted to you indicates that the industry is capable of improvement? — Yes. 16.114. There is no doubt in regard to that? — No doubt. 16.115. Are the accounts themselves made up at any period of the year? — Yes, practically at all periods of the year. 16.116. Some of these accounts must entail con- siderable valuations whilst others entail very little? —Yes. 16.117. In Scotland, for instance, if you were to take the balance sheets and accounts made up, say, at the end of August you would have the whole crop of the previous year in cash previous to that date? — Yes. 16.118. And you would have no crop of that parti- cular year anywhere except in the fields? — Yes. 16.119. So that in that case the valuation could be conducted on an acreage basis which would fluctuate much less than taking an assumed yield? — Quite likely" 16.120. I see you have a considerable number of accounts ending in October and November and December, and March and April, and May? — Yes. 16.121. Practically every month of the year? — Yes. 16.122. In manv of these instances the valuations would show part of the old crop and part of the new crop in hand ? — Yes, that is so. 16.123. Do you know if these valuations were made in any very accurate manner or were they done in a rough and ready fashion ? — I know that out of the total of 400 accounts which we were able to tabulate, in 150 cases the valuations were made by licensed valuers and in 250 cases they were not. 16.124. Could you tell me offhand whether in the cases where the accounts were clone by licensed valuers as compared with those that were not the results varied to any great extent — whether in general one set of accounts showed a higher or a lower profit? — I would not like to say as to that. 16.125. Mr. Ashby : Following the last question of Mr. Batchelor as to how many of the accounts showed valuations by licensed valuers, have you any idea how the figures that are shown in paragraph 2 were arrived at — how many of the valuers valued at market value? — Practically all of them, I think, valued at market value. 16.126. You said 160 accounts showed valuations by licensed valuers? — Yes. 16.127. Is that somewhat comparable to the first item in this paragraph where you have 148 on the basis of market value? — To a large extent that would be so, I think. 90 ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 29 (Motor, ME. II. i. H li>, US. In the samu paragraph it U ruUnT ranking. is it not, that the average amount of depr.-i -lation written otf implement* there, is almost exactly 10 \>cr cent. P — It u> so, yes. 16.129. So that, although you have these big varia- tion* between 5 per cent, and 15 per cent tin- a< mal average U somewhat about the figure which i- generaJly reckoned? — Yes, that is so. 10.130. In paragraph 3 in the case of the valua- tions of live stock at the beginning and end of the year tin- deferences are very slight, are they notP — They are not great, certain! >. 10.131. Tin- difference of less than £3 10s. per head on a horse is very small? — Yes. 16.132. Especially on a starting figure of £67? — Yes: 16.133. The differences are ne\vr MTV big; they are less than £4 even in tho case of dairy cows?— Yes, that is so. 16.134. Does it not strike you there that the dairy cows are still V.TV much undervalued? — Yes, it looks like that. 16.135. Your average is less than £27 10s. and tli.> average price of fair quality dairy cows is far above that?— Yes. 16.136. So that in that case they are quite safe valuations even with these additions? — Yes, that is so. 16.137. The same is true of sheep too, is it not. more or less? — Yes, so far as I know. 16.138. The increase there is only Is. 7d.? — Yes. 16.139. In the case of pigs it is a minus difference? —Yes. 16.140. Referring to the numbers of live stock at ili.- beginning and the end of the year, have you made any attempt to find out whether the amount of live stock on these farms is at all comparable with the general amount 67 live stock on farms in England, and Wales, and Scotland ? — No, 1 have not done that. 16.141. Could you state briefly at some time the acreage of these 216 farms and the 2o farms? — It would involve a fair amount of trouble ; it would mean going into each of these accounts separately and getting at the figures. !•'>. 142. If you could do that it would give us the best opportunity there is of telling how representative these farms are as a whole. I am not sure if it could be done, but it would be useful if we could got a state- ment of the proportion of arable on these farms and the number of live stock of each class per 100 acres. We could then easily work it out for Kngland and Wales as a whole and for Scotland as a whole, and we should be able to tell how far these farms are representative in that way? — Yes. 16.143. You have not tried to do that?— No, I havo not.* 16.144. You have the types of farms dealt with in various sizes? — Yes. 16.145. Did you anywhere put all together, all tho dairy farms under tenant farmers, and homo farms, and so on, so as to get an average figure of profit for all dairy farms? — Yes, vou will find that in Table 16 with regard to 36 dairy farms. 16.146. What is the first figure of profit for mixed farms? — £1 7s. 2d. per acre profit for the mixed farms. 16.147. In the case of the farm-, you have got. the corn and sheep farms are rather better than any of the rest?— Yes, that is so. 16.148. That is rather striking in view of some previous evidence w<> have had here? The dairy farms come out at £1 7n. 4d. per acre you will notice. 16.149. Mr. Duncan: Do these Tables .1. and B.F.f refer to the same farm accounts? — Yes. they refer i.> the same accounts. 16.150. Is thero not SOP I notice in Table .1. that tenant farmers in Scotland show a profit on tho mixed farm of l(5s. 3d p. Yes. 16.151. The mixed farm in Tal.lc U.K. showed a profit of £2 7». 4d. Can vou toll me tho reason for that difference :•- That arose in this way: there was a big farm of 13.0m acres, of which certain parti- culars had to eome in after I had suhmitted thes« Supplementary Notes. When those particulars came * This is now shown in Table 2, Appendix V. t Provisional tables and not included in tho Final Report in I found that the account could not be used .itoly und so 1 threw it out. That quite altered the protit per acre. Tin- collect figure is £'J 7s. -Id. lii.l.'ij. I think you said in answer to Mr. liatchelor that the rate of profit on t!.. cental worked out roughly at about 11 per cent. ? — Yes. 16,153. I suppose that is taking the capital on inn us being the valuation? — Practically it is the valuation. 16,15-4. You have no evidence before you either on these accounts or anything else to show that that is the actual capital put into tho farm? — No, we en- deavoured as far as we could to get at the actual capital in the farm. 10.155. But you simply had to take the figures as Divert you in the valuation by the farmer;' — No, we asked each farmer, besides the figure in the valuation, to render figures of any Further capital or assets he had sunk in his farm. In only a small number of cases did they give that information. 16.156. In comparing the return on capital it is rather a different position if you take that figure as shown in the farmers' accounts from what would be the case in a return on capital in a joint stock com- pany in which there is a definite capital on which to base the return? — That is so. 16.157. These things would not be strictly com- Pjarable? — Not with quite accurately kept accounts, no. 16.158. Mr. Green: I do not want to ask you the questions over again that Mr. Ashby put to you. I only just want to clear the tiling up in my own mind. We have had the most striking evidence here about the losses on sheep farms. I see in paragraph !) you say that the highest profits are on corn and sheep farms — £1 14s. 2d. per acre. That is so, is it not? Yes. 16.159. Have you been able to analyse any of these accounts which have been submitted to the Commis- sion by members of the National Farmers' Union with regard to sheep farms? — No. 16.160. Do they appear in any of your accounts? —No, not so far as I know. We have endeavoured to keep quite apart from the Farmers' Union Accounte. 16.161. All your accounts are apart from the Farmers' Union?— Yes. We have not very many sheep accounts, you will notice — they are quite few. 16.162. I do not know whether you have -ecu those accounts in the evidence which has been presented to the Commission by the Farmers' Union? — No, I have not. 16.163. Then it is not fair to ask you about that. Somebody has asked you about the small farms show- ing a higher profit than the large farms? — Yes. 16.164. That is accounted for liy the home labour, is it not!-' To n largo extent, I should say, yes. 16,lli-V You ruughlv put the largo farms as farms of over 1,000 acre* I >i 16.166. Have you analysed further whether tho farms of ovor 2,000 acres are more profitable than farms of ovor 1,000 acres? — Yes, I think I have done that. I would render tho figures to you if they are at all useful. 16.167. Can you tell us, roughly speaking, what tho result \\;i^- No, I do not remember the result. 16.168. Mr. Thtiiiins Hi mil r. tn n : Mr. liatcholor asked you if you did not think that the percentage of profit shown here is not somewhat inflated, because of the lack of a reserve account having been kept by farmers!- x 16,1(!!'. In how many caws was it distinctly stated that there had hecn an i-xhaiistion of fertility? — In something like 1'70 cases. I have a special paragraph dealing with iliat point as regards fertility. It is paragraph 11 l_'">.'t cases gave that, information. 16,170. It is i|uito, possible that the others may have omittod it through inadvertence? — I do not know why they omitted it. Hi. 1 71. From a study of these accounts, has any impro-sion heeii made on your mind regarding the adequacy of tho capital ou farms at present?— From a perusal of the accounts I do not think one could form any opinion as to that. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 91 29 October, 1J19.] MR. H. G. HOWELL, F.C.A. [Continued. 16.172. You say that the rate of profit rather tends to fall? — Yes, as the holdings get bigger. 16.173. But according to the amount of capital also, do you not? — I do not remember saying that. 16.174. You cannot say whether there is any con- nection between the capital invested and the rate of profit per acre? — They do not follow together in any way in these accounts. 16.175. Mr. Prosser Jones: You told us on a pre- vious occasion that you had sent out 1,000 schedules? — 1,000 or thereabouts. 16.176. Have you sent out any since that, or are these returns compiled from those you sent out originally? — They are. 16.177. Less than half responded to your appeal? —Yes. 16.178. The highest proportion is from England? — I cannot say what the proportion is, but the largest number is from England. 16.179. Am I right in saying that you had returns from 40 counties in England, eight in Wales, and 14 in Scotland?— Yes. 16.180. Can you tell us how far the small farms are represented in these figures? — I cannot tell you that offhand. 16.181. There are not many, I assume? — Not very many, comparatively speaking. 16.182. May I take it that the larger farmers are tho people who keep accounts? — I think that is so at present. 16.183. You have shown an average profit from the figures you have gone into of nearly 11 per cent, on all farms? — Yes. 16.184. Have you been able to find out how it is that the profits are less on home farms than they are on tenant farms? — No, I think one cannot gather that from a perusal of the accounts only. Of course, there is an absence of commercial incentive in the case of the home farms which is present in the case of tenant farms. That must be a big factor, I should think. 16.185. Am I right in assuming that in these home farms there are more men knocking about doing nothing than is the case on tenant farms, and does not that account for it to a certain extent? — I have no information as to that. 16.186. Mr. Parkfr: You tell us that with regard to 325 farms the average profit made is £1 7s. 2d.? -Yes. 16.187. That profit is made up of two elements, the first element being the surplus, if any, of income over expenditure? — Yes. 16.188. The second is th« increase, if any, in the closing valuation over the valuation at the beginning of the year?— Yes. 16.189. Except for the increase of the closing valuation over the valuation fit the beginning of the year there was no profit in the case of all these accounts? — Taking the whole of the accounts there was no profit except for the difference in the valua- tions. 16.190. The results you show with regard to the small tenant farm* of one acre up to 100 acres are very interesting. You show that on those farms the capital employed is larger than on the larger farms and that the profit is greater? — Yes, that is so. 16.191. That is in the case of tho tenants?— Yes. 16,102. Again you show that in the case of the owners of small farms from 1 to 100 acres the profit is less and the capital employed is more? — If it is in the report I agree. 16,193. That is a strong argument that ownership Ls not BO advantageous as the system of landlord and tenant? — Yes, that might be argued from these figure*. 16,1.04. Mr. Hmith: Do I understand that all these *«<>unU are for the year 1918? -They are for Michaelmas, 1918, or subsequently to that. 16,195. They cover practically what one may term the farming year of 1918? — Yes. 16.196. Did I understand you to say in reply to Mr. Batchelor that the comparatively good results which are shown here are due to the very favourable year from the point of view of weather and the well gathering in of the harvest? — It was stated to be that in many cases. 16.197. You have no information, I suppose, as to how far that is actually tke case? — No. 16.198. You do not know that it was only those farmers who got an early harvest last year and got their corn up in good condition who were so success- ful, and that those who had a late harvest had to contend with very bad weather indeed? — While we had a comparatively large number of replies stating that it was a good harvest, I know in a much smaller number of cases it was stated on the contrary that the results were bad owing to the wet fall and bad harvesting. 16.199. Do you know that there were instances of corn growing in the field that could not be har- vested?— No, I do not know about that. 16.200. Therefore if it is correct that the year was not a good one from the point of view of harvesting, owing to the very wet weather that came on just at the harvest season, this year would not be exceptional in that respect? — If tfiat was the case, no. 16.201. Is there any information in any of these accounts to show the exact amount of money that lias been invested in farms to constitute capital — as a definite investment? — 1 am not quite sure that I have your meaning. 16.202. In ordinary business the capital account represents the money that has actually been invested in the business. I wonder how far that can be ascer- tained so far as farming is concerned. I am rather anxious to know exactly how the amount of the capital is reached — whether there is any information which will show us what is actually invested as a cash investment? — I cannot say from these figures how much cash is represented. The total figure of capital is made up almost entirely of the total amount of the valuations plus cash at the bank and amounts owing to the farm and sundries like that. 16.203. I rather gather from these figures that the average profit is higher in Scotland than it is in England and Wales-? — Yes, that is so. 16.204. Is there any explanation of that contained in these accounts which you have submitted? — I have tried if I can trace that in the accounts but I have not been able to arrive at any specific causes for that. Generally speaking, the receipts bear a higher ratio to the expenses, as one would naturally expect them to do, than in the case of the English farms, but to no particular item of expense or receipt can I trace the cause. 16.205. In regard to the accounts you had sub- mitted to you, would they fairly represent the country as a whole so far as areas and districts are concerned? — So far as areas are concerned the country would be fairly represented. 16.206. I suppose you would agree that the varia- tion in soils is such that if the returns were in any way limited or restricted you might get a very false result as compared with the actual position of the country as a whole? — You might certainly. It would all depend upon the particular weather conditions of a particular year. 16.207. And also upon the quality of the soil? — Weather conditions would operate differently on different classes of soil. 16.208. In these farm accounts that you had sub- mitted to you are there any for South Lincolnshire? — I believe none. I have tried to ascertain and I cannot find any. 16.209. That is rather remarkable, is it not, because South Lincolnshire is looked upon as being one of the best farming districts in the country? — I would not be certain about it because when I looked through the accounts I did it more from the point of view of the people who had promised in their letters to give evidence, so I will not be certain as to South Lincolnshiie. 92 ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 29 October, 1919.] Mi 11 (}. HOWKLL, F.C.A. [Continued. 16.210. At the moment you could not say what the position is so far as the profits in South Lincolnshire are concerned P — No, I cannot say as to that. 16.211. Have you heard that th<< profits in that area are retry high indeed? — I have heard that, but I hare no information beyond that casual informa- tion. 16.212. If we were to get information which would reflect an average position i«r tin' country it would lx> ecrential that these farms should be included as well a* some of tin- others? — Yes, I agree. I ii"ti. ,• that we hav<> had 11 accounts {nun Lincolnshire. That in shown in Tublo No. 1. Kloven accounts is quite a high average for any county. 16,21.'). Of course Lincolnshire is a very large county ? — Yes. 16.214. You hare not heard, I suppose, of farmers in that district having made statements that the industry has been so prosperous that they are making an income now of £20,000 a year? — I have not heard that. 16.215. You, of course, have to rely upon purely voluntary returns from farmers? — Yes. 16.216. Would it be a fair assumption to say there would be a tendency on the part of farmers who have made large profits not to send in returns, and for others who have done only moderately well to send them in? — I would not like to express an opinion as to that. 16.217. If there was an absence of returns from a place like South Lincolnshire, that would rather bear out that assumption, would it not?— If that were so, 16,218. South Lincolnshire is spoken of as the garden nl Knirland, so far as farming is concerned? — Mind you. I wish to say that at present I do not know vln'tli.T thi'if are accounts from South Lincolnshire or not. 16,21!>. I understood you to say that the possibility of some of the smaller farms showing a higher rate of profit was due to the fait that the lalxiur had |nu- liahly not liven i harmed up to the fnrm?- V 16.220. Is there any information to show «hether the produce of the farm which is consumed in the '..ild i- charged up? — I think in the majority of cases it is not in the accounts — I mean the farm has rot had credit for the produce consumed in tin- hoiise- hold. 16.221. On some farms that would represent a fairly substantial amount? — It would, no doubt. 16.222. And would have to be set off against the fact of labour probably not having been charged? — Yes. 16.223. From your knowledge of accounts, K1'1"'- rally speaking, household consumption of farm pro- duce is not entered up? — That is so. In e:n h case we tried to get it entered up as a separate credit to the farm, hut we could only get it in a very few 16.224. Dr. Douglas: In connection with < growing, have you any figures that would serve as data for ascertaining what proportion of the cost of production is referable to the different elements of production — labour, manure, seeds, and so on? — Not fiom these accounts only. 16.225. I know it does not appear in these accounts, but otherwise have you any such data? — No, I have not. (The Witneis withdrew.) ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. APPENDICES TO VOLUME IV LIST OK A PP EN DICKS. 1 Statements handed in by Representatives of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland in connection with their evidence given on 15th October, 1919 : — (a) By Mr. J. Allison, Junr., Chartered Accountant... :'• (6) By Mr. W. D. McNicol 9 (r) By Mr. John Stewart 10 (d) By Mr. Gilbert Davidson 10 2. Accounts and Costings Return handed in by Mr. E. M. Nunneley as evidence-in-chief in connection with his evidence given on 21st October, 1919 ... 11 3. Accounts and Costings Return handed in by Mr. H. H. Potts as evidence-in-chief in connection with his evidence given on 21st October, 1919 ... ... ... 14 4. Interim Report submitted by Mr. H. G. Howell, F.C.A., Director of Agricultural Costs, in connection with his evidence given on 23rd September, 1919 ... ... ... 16 5. Final Report submitted by Mr. H. G. Howell. F.C.A., Director of Agricultural Costs, in connection with his evidence given on 29th October, 1919 -1 APPENDIX No. I. Evidence-in chief of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland in connection with the evidence given by Representatives of the Union on 15th October, 1919. A. Evidence in-chief handed in by Mr. J. ALLISON, Jr., Chartered Accountant. 1. I am a Chartered Accountant, being a member of he Institute of Accountants and Actuaries in Glasgow, and a partner in the firm of Craston, Thomson & Allison, C.A. in the course of my practice I have been responsible during the past year for the audit of the accounts of many firms, and as Auditor to the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, I was responsible for designing a simple system of accounts for use of farmers, and assisted the Union in introducing the same among its members. 2. Abtence of Accountn. — In this work I have come into touch with many farmers and I have come to the con- clusion that there are no accounts available from which the deductions as to costs of production can be made. Cost Accounts are unknown. In three farms where a costing system was introduced the same was discontinued during the war. Such accounts as are available are not prepared on any uniform plan, and in the absence of an audit cannot be used for the purposes of this Commission. It has not been possible to obtain accounts covering a period of years except in two instances given later. 3. Method of Enquiry. — The National Farmers' Union of Scotland appointed a Special Committee to inquire into the Costs of Production of food stuffs and I was appointed to collate the results obtained. The first step taken was to prepare Cost Statements for the various crops. These were circulated among representative farmers in all districts of Scotland, who were asked to give an estimate of the cost of production as experienced on their farms. It will, therefore, be noted that the figures given in the statements are prepared by experienced farmers, working independent of each other, and are bise-1 on their knowledge of the cost of each operation, the material required and the working costs applicable to each crop. The figures have been prepared under great difficulty. This is the harvest time and all farmers are very busy and the time granted by the Commission has been too short to allow the enquiry to be extensive enough to secure a proper average in each district, or in different types of farms. It has not been possible in the time available to enquire into many items in tha Costs submitted which might raise controversy. It has been felt by my Committee that the farmers approached have not grasped the purpose of the enquiry or owing to lack of experience in preparing these figures they have omitted to take into account factors which were given due consideration by other farmers The enquiry has been further complicated by the fact that it has not been possible to obtain costs from what might !>•• termed the less successful class of farmer. The figures, as already stated, have been obtained from the best class of agriculturist. This is sliown by the fact that in the returns for potatoes the average crop is given as H tons, whereas in the figures prepared by the Board of Agri- culture for Scotland for last year (not yet published) 6.44 is the average return in Scotland. It is further felt that in the case of the Turnip Crop no cost* have been given by those farmeri who had a poor return. It is well known that last year the crop was a failure. The returns sub- mitted are apparently from those farms which were successful with this crop, and it is submitted t Uit the figures do not represent the true cost of produ jtion. The farmer who -has been unsuccessful through causes beyond his control has a natural objection to giving figures show- ing the failure of his efforts. The costs submitted, therefore, must be considered with these facts in mind. 4. Statements. — The following statements are submitted herewith : — I.— Cost of Production of Potatoes. II.— „ Turnips. III.— Hay. IV.— Oats. V.— Barley. VI.— „ Wheat. VII.— „ Fat Cattle. VI [I.— , Store Cattle. IX. — Trading account and balance sheet of Arabia Farm of 500 acres. X. — Production Account of same. XI.— Production and Cost Statement of same, 5. Potato Costs. — The Units in the Crop Costs are : — Potatoes and Turnips, 1 ton ; Oats and Wheat, 1 quarter ; Hay, 1 cwt. — Cost per Acre. Production per Acre. Cost per Unit. Highest Lowest ... £ i. d. 53 9 0 37 4 4 Tons. 8 7* £ «. d. 6 15 7 4 19 2 It will be noted that the Board of Agriculture figures for the whole of Scotland show the return per acre for 1909 to 1918 to be 6'44. It has not been possible in the time available to enquire into the production per acre. 6. Turnip Costa. — — Coat per Acre. Production per Acre. Cost per Unit. £ t. d. Tons. £ *. d. Highest ... Lowest 20 5 6 23 11 6 10 30 207 15 8 The experience in Scotland was disastrous last year, and in many cases the crop was a total failure. 7. Iloy Costf— — Cost per acre. Production per acre. Cost per Unit. £ «. d. £ t. d. Highest ... 16 19 8 42 cwts. 773 jowest •12 17 3 5.-, „ 4 8 * This cost appears to my Committee to be exceptional. In their opinion the low cost is quite unusual, and a statement to reconcile this has been asked for and will be submitted 8. Oat* Costs— — Cost per acre. Production per acre. Cost per Unit. Highest Lowest ... 13 17 0 11 It 0 4 qre. 7 „ 393 1 13 5 9 Bui-lei/ Costs — Highest Lowest ... 13 10 5 5 3 3 4 qrs. 3 •2 6 3 4 2 10. Wheat Costs— Highest Lowest ... 18 11 19 HI 6 0 4J qrs. 5I >i 4 2 4 1 4 7 11. Ful Cattle— — Cost. Weight cwts. Cost per Unit. Highest Lowest ... £ «. d. 59 8 7j 37 1 0 Hi 10 £ >. d. 534 3 14 4 12. Fat Cattle— — Cost »f our. Cortfor flr»t year. Total , ,-• Hirhest . Lowert A •. .1. IS 10 9 13 15 6 £ t 4. 1.1 18 6 11 17 in « *. J. sa 9 3 S3 13 4 It was thought by my Committee that evidence regarding dairying might be left over meantime in view of tin. exhaiistnc rii'(iiirv recvntly made l>y the travelling Milk Commission and the Ministry of Food. For that reason I aubmit no evidence meantime on that branch of the industry. 13. Cott Account*. — While Coat Accounts are un- known in the industry I have felt it ni-ceesary to endeavour to support the above estimated figures by tbi> results shown in financial books, by reconciling the latter with the costs submitted. I am the auditor of a farmer who cultivates 500 acres. His books are kept in a modern donble entry system, and the account MI Unit ted herewith in Statement IX is a copy of the last account prepared by me. It is an audited statement and I am able to certify that it is a true and correct statement of his affairs as shown by liis books and the information given to me. From bis estimated costs of production as prepared by him on the same lines us th"- • appended. I have prepared a Production (or Cost) Account (Statement X) from which it will be seen that the total Costa of Production as given in his Estimates agrees with the total cost as per the financial books. It will further !•• found in the statements attached to Statement X that the principal item* in the financial books may be reconciled with the costs charge! against the various crops. From Statement XI it will )>e seen that the costs per unit and the production per acre has been as follows : — — Odd |.r Unit. Production per acre. Potatoes ... it i. a. 6 U 10 6J tons. H»y 7 4 33 cwts Turnip- ... 19 1 35 tons. Onto .. 3 n n f»i ors. Wheat 4 1 -1 44 qrs. 14. CnmpariniH with Kttimnlet. — By comparison of, wh»t might be called, these certified figures and the estimate* given in Statements I to VIII, I give the following figurei : — Q rtifii 1 liirim-. Lowest. AMMfc £ >. ,1 £ .. ./. f. -. d. Coat per aoru Production per acre ... Coat per Unit ... 12 4 5 tons r. ;i in 8 tons i; i:t 7 :t7 i i 7J tons 4 I'.i 2 Tumi jit. Cost per aoie Production p«r acre Cost per Unit •33 1' :i:. tons 0 P.I 1 -, i; |o ton* •1 o 7 n 1 1 •> :;<| tons i) !5 6 Hay. C -st per acre Production per acre ... Cost per Unit 1 2 'I 4 S3 cwts. 074 !.'• 19 8 42 cwts 7 7 :t 12 17 :i wt». n 4 - Oatt. Cost per aore Production per aero Cost per Unit 15 IS In 5J qr.f. 3 U 11 lit 17 0 4 qrs. ;t n :; 11 11 n 7 nr.-. 1 1:1 :• H'lira'. Cost per acre Production per acre ... C.st pur Unit 17 1 4 4J qr*. 4 1 2 is 1U 6 liqrs 444 11 i.i n irs. •l \ 7 * Only two acres are grown for a special purpose. It is admitted that the production per acre in the Oat crop was below the average. Tin- usual return is 6^ • [iiartfrs IKT acre and if this figure were taken the cost per i|ii:irter would IK- £'J '.!-. lil. in place of the above figure of £3 11». This farm in continuously cropped on a four course rotation. It in submitted that these, figures, which have been reconciled with the financial books go t'.ir to support the estimated costs of production of the five crops affected. NOTE : — I crave "the indulgence of the Commission towirds any errors which may appear in the evidence. A great mass of figures has had to be dealt will) in a short time, and I can hardly hope that accidental errors have been entirely avoided. STATKMKNT Xo. I. COST O? PRODUCTION OF POTATOES, 1918 CROP. No. Labour. Deduct Cleaning Carried Forward. Net Labour. Total Material. Total Oncost. Total Cost per A Production per Acre Owl l«-r Ton. C .. -/. £• *. ,i. £ /. -/. £ *. il. £ *. o 7 '2 2H P.I li 17 .1 7 i; 14 2 47 1 • 71 r, .- n 1 2S o ll 0 17 6 27 •-' ii 1 1 r. '.' 5 r> n in 1 1 :; !> .1 :< HI • 21 i:t o __ 21 1:1 ii 21 10 0 7 (i 0 it 0- g li i:t 7 7 17 12 o o 14 o Hi is ii 17 1.1 o :i 15 o :is s n 7 599 in 16 'J < ' o 7 n Hi 2 o 15 10 n .1 17 9 :i7 ;i ;i N 4 lo lit 11 21 2 ii n il s 20 1.1 111 17 1 6 8 17 9 Hi 1.1 1 •1 4 I- 12 17 4 6 o 7 ii 1.1 17 li is 12 i; 7 .1 il 12 1.1 n 7 r. 2 o II 27 1.1 S 0 |0 II 27 .1 N P.I in n 2 lo n 49 1 s i :t M 2i > fi 6 n fi 4 20 o 2 1.1 10 0 :t 1.1 r. :c.i 111 il o 10 27 211 n I n 11 lo 22 - 1.1 n c, n 10 o 1:1 HI n 10 1 P.I n 19 x :i o .1 4 19 2 11 Hi '2 r, 1 in 0 :i'.i 1.1 .1 7 .1 1:1 s 30 P.I 17 r, P.I 17 ii 16 5 0 2 1 4 .! 10 6 ii o 7J 31 16 6 6 o •; .. Hi o li Hi 1.1 n 250 :M o r, .1 7 0 1 H Ifi .1 :i o l:i o 1.1 12 :t 2« 17 ii 4 H n in 12 :i — — 1.1 .1 0 07n 14 is o L'I; 12 :t :i II c i .1 1 :i — — 2ii 1 1 •; 0 10 6 1 0 .. II 2 15 0 .Hi 17 0 7 2 1 II 1 080 14 7 ii 19 11 o .1 in o i;j r, 0 7 :u 1.1 in o - ii 1.1 2 o 21 10 0 :t in ii in 2 n — — 38 21 18 0 o S o 24 lo o P. :\ IN o 47 8 0 9 1 18 c, 39 14 1 o lo n 14 2 H 17 P.I ii 1 li — — ' 40 14 19 fi 056 14 14 o 17 •-' n 4 '.i n ;. n _ — 41 It 10 6 0 ft o 11 5 6 . Hi 2 r. :i 10 0 M 17 6 8 S 17 2 42 17 13 6 060 17 8 6 20 5 0 4 13 8 42 7 2 8 6 5 11 STATEMENT No. II. COST OF PRODCVriON OF TURNIPS, 1018 CROP. No. Net labour. Net manure. Total material. Total Oncost. Total cost per acre. Production per acre. Cost per ton. £ *. d. & t. d. £ i. d. £ ». d. £ t. d. Tors. £ .'. ./. 1 ... \-2 6 2 7 14 0 8 14 0 19- -8 4 :V> 8 6 27 1 2 6 2 11 8 11 7 15 0 8 16 0 3 13 9 2* 18 8 20 1 3 11 :i iti i<; t 4 12 0 530 4 11 3 26 10 7 20 1 6 5 4 Iti 12 JO 643 7 13 9 430 28 8 9 29 o 19 (i 6 916 3 12 0 4 10 0 6 14 1 20 5 7 24 0 Hi 10 7 7 LI 0 .'. 6 0 6 12 0 5 15 0 20 2 0 25 0 16 4 8 13 19 10 7 12 0 820 560 29 7 10 16 1 16 9 9 11 12 t; 4 15 0 576 300 20 0 0 15 1 6 8 10 ' 7 9 0 6 11 6 7 19 6 4 17 ii 20 5 6 10 207 11 12 0 0 700 7 12 0 3 10 0 23 2 0 18 158 26 12 4 i; 673 7 1 3 3 15 6 23 1 3 24 0 19 3 27 8 8 10 840 8 17 0 800 24 19 10 18 1 7 9 28 9 I« 2 7 12 0 840 4 10 0 22 10 2 20 1 2 6 29 18 8 6 700 7 12 0 2 11 o 2:» 11 6 30 0 15 8 30 1136 7 10 0 7 17 6 2 1 4 21 2 4 17 1 4 10 32 10 3 9 520 640 3 17 0 20 4 9 14 1 8 11 33 10 5 3 3 15 0 520 430 19 10 3 18 1 1 8 34 6 14 10 4 18 9 689 3 11 0 16 14 7 10 1 13 5 35 12 2 3 13 0 0 14 17 0 2 16 0 29 15 3 5 438 36 12 12 0 7 13 0 8 12 0 3 18 0 25 2 0 17 1 5 10 37 10 2 0 5 10 0 660 490 20 17 6 16 1 6 1 38 7 16 6 5 19 0 680 3 10 0 17 14 6 18 0 19 8 39 18 12 0 11 5 0 13 10 0 4 15 0 36 17 0 18 2 0 11 40 7 t! 9 3 10 0 4 12 6 4 13 8 18 12 11 IB 1 4 10 STATEMENT No. III. COST OF PRODUCTION OF HAY, 1918 CROP. No. Labour. Total material. Total Oncost. Total coat per acre. Deduct value of 2nd crop. Net coat of 1st crop per acre. Yield per acre in cwts. Cost per ton. £ t. d. £ t. d. £ $. d. £ t. d. £ *. rf. £ t. d. £ *. d. 1 4 7 4 6 18 1 16 14. 8 0 15 0 15 19 8 42 773 3 :. 14 9 5 14 4 3 16 6 15 5 7 200 13 5 7 40 676 4 6 « 6 • 4 l:t .; 5 1 0 16 1 0 200 14 1 0 40 702 2 1 0 490 500 11 10 0 — 11 10 0 40 5 9 0 7 3 1 0 600 393 12 10 3 2 ti 11 7 9 35 6 6 1 8 4 15 6 5 2 r, :t 15 0 13 13 0 10 0 12 3 0 40 609 9 2 18 0 7 4 f, 4 13 0 14 15 6 — 14 15 6 40 746 26 :i 17 3 .-. 4 6 3 15 6 12 17 3 12 17 3 65 4 8 1 27 3 11 0 4 18 6 3 15 0 12 4 6 0 0 1146 40 573 28 406 C, 4 0 4 10 0 14 14 6 7 6 13 7 0 45 .-. 11 1 29 2 5 6 li 16 0 2 11 0 11 12 6 10 0 10 0 6 35 594 32 7 1 6 4 10 0 3 18 0 16 0 6 0 0 15 0 6 46 6 8 36 279 790 2 11 0 12 7 9 — 12 7 9 35 709 36 :t 17 6 4 14 6 3 10 6 12 2 6 0 15 0 1176 32 7 1 2 37 430 :• in o 3 10 0 13 3 0 100 12 8 0 40 6 1 0 38 n r, <; 600 4 10 0 15 16 6 1 0 0 14 16 6 40 760 STATEMENT No. IV. COST OF PRODUCTION OF OATS, 1918 CROP. Labour. Total Material. Total Oncost. Total Cost per Acre. Deduct Value of Straw. Net Cost of Crop. Grain Return in Qrs. Cost per Qr. Quality of Land. County. £ /. d. £ i. d. £ i. d. £ *. ii. £ *. d. £ *. d. Qrs. £ ». d. 7 16 6 630 6 1 in 20 1 4 426 15 18 10 7 2 5 6i Free. Ayrshire. 780 6 9 (I 5 5 o 18 2 0 400 14 2 0 7 2 0 3 Sandy loam. Renfrew. 723 620 403 17 4 6 2 17 9 14 6 9 7 2 1 o Strong. Forfar. r, 16 10 696 498 16 16 0 400 12 16 0 7J 1 14 1 Good. Aberdeen. 743 6 18 0 2 15 o 16 17 3 3 15 0 13 2 3 6 238 Medium loam. Fife. 546 5 16 6 4 13 o 15 14 0 400 11 14 0 7 1 13 5 Black light land. Forfar. 686 4 16 0 1 11 0 12 15 6 300 9 15 6 4 2 8 10 Highland lea. Kintyre. 786 7 It o 1 11 0 16 13 6 300 13 13 6 7i 1 16 6 Highland. do. 440 7 12 0 234 13 19 4 '300 10 19 4 5} 1 19 9 Variable. Kincardine. 7 16 6 523 400 16 18 9 239 14 15 0 7 222 Strong loam. Haddington. 565 666 3 Hi o 15 8 0 3 10 0 11 18 0 5 277 — do. 976 4 18 0 330 17 8 6 3 11 6 13 17 0 4 393 Clay. Linlithgow. 7 1 9 420 450 15 6 0 260 14 0 0 7 200 Lea. Perth. 666 5 Hi '> 4 13 8 16 15 2 4 10 0 12 5 2 7 1 15 0 Mixed. Fife. 780 616 490 16 18 6 300 13 18 6 7 1 19 9 Medium. Perth. 8 STATEMENT No. V. Pi:<'invrn>\ OF BARLEY (1918) No. Labour. Tool. Material. Total Oiioort. Total Coat per Acre. Deduct Value of Straw. Net Coitof Crop. Grain Return inQra. Cost per Qr. Quality of Land. County. £A I tf« *. A • 680 660 20 16 8 2 in ii 9, O, 17 19 8 \fn. m *. " . 2 11 4( Strong Forfar. 11 6 IS 6 1 . 1 :i If. ii 12 5 S 2 0 ii I" 5 3 l| 232 Clay Renfrew. 16 648 860 2 11 16 6 S S i) <> IS 6 8 164 Mi-ilium loam Fife. SO 4 8 0 600 2 S 4 12 6 4 300 '.' r. 4 4 267 Variable bat Kincardine below average. SI 6 14 0 480 260 12 7 0 360 10 2 0 3* 324 — Berwick. 32 886 590 4 o ii 17 17 6 1 10 0 i<; 7 6 N 2 iy 6 l. £ i. ,/. •£ *. i. £ i. il. 7 10 0 12 1-' 6 476 2.1 Hi II :, M ii 20 0 o 61 :\ I n Loamy Renfrew. 7 12 6 9 11 0 4 16 0 21 19 (i 300 18 19 6 «* 4 4-4 Strong Forfar. 6 13 0 7 5 11 S 16 9 16 14 8 4 in '• 12 4 8 *1 2 14 4 llrtivy clay ... Fife. 6 1 6 826 4 16 0 18 0 0 3 18 o 14 2 0 3 10 6 Medium loamy Renfrew. 6 17 9 7 16 6 4 V 3 16 S :, say £4 14 3 6 5 2 16 8 Good Aberdeen. 6 1 9 8 16 6 2 15 0 17 13 3 4 10 (I i:i 3 3 4 3 5 10 Medium loamy Fife, 7 « 6 840 400 19 10 6 2 S 0 17 5 6 6J 3 5 '.1 Clay loam Haddington. 680 8 1 0 4 3 ii 18 13 . d. £ i. J. £ jr. d. £ *. rf. & i. d. £ /. d. £ *. 1 0 * O M Sundry Purch-vses, Coal, etc. 267 6 5 Add stock on 870 g in 1U nanci at 15/2/19— »t Rent, Taxes and Insurance 1,306 9 5 Produce ... 5,020 0 0 It Discount 16 17 1 Less Seeds 11 Interest on Overdraft 12 4 7 transferred 230 10 0 Depreciation ... ... ... •I 739 10 o Horse?, ko.. 1 1, 60.1 ffl 15% 211 0 o g q j 9 (; |0 Jfotor Plough, £300 ® 20% i!0 0 0 By Transfers — Implements. £H.> lux. fa 93 0 0 Value of Stable Manure . 50 o 0 15%. Allowances 200 o 1) 368 0 0 Food Consumed by Horses 1,654 10 0 1 OO4 10 0 It Balance — 10,672 I) 11 By Cultivations at close of year 847 10 Lei* Cultivations at begin- 0 Being Net Profit for year 908 10 2 of year 600 0 0 , — 247 10 0 £11,580 11 1 £11.530 11 1 STATEMENT No. l\—cnntinuftl. BALANCE SHEET AS AT I.ITH FEBRUARY, 1919. Liabilities. £ *. rf. £ t. il. £ i. d. I. Sundry Creditors — On Open Account 318 7 7 On back Overdraft 133 19 8 ._ 750 7 3 I. Sundry Debt- ors — On Open Ac- count II. Motor Plough- As at 16th February, 1918 Lea depreci- ation at 20% III. Implements, Horses, &c. — As at 16th February, 1918 Added during year Lax sales ... Depreciation @ 15% ... IV. Stockonhand— Manure Seeds Cultivations Stocks V. Cash on hand Asset t. & >. d. & i d. £ a. d. 1,229 15 9 300 0 0 • 60 0 0 II. Capital — Aa at 16th Feb. rnary, 1917 ... 11,754 3 1 Add Cash paid in 251 8 10 Profit for year 908 10 2 - - • 1 159 19 n , 1^911 " 1 Deduct Income Tax 614 19 1 Loss on realisa- tion of Invest- ment..., ... 19 9 6 Drawings 2,242 5 8 2 876 1 4 3 2,105 0 0 60 0 0 . ._ l A nq7 7 in 2,165 0 0 50 10 0 308 0 0 QKO in ft 1,473 5 0 230 10 0 847 10 0 4,789 10 0 172 14 4 £10,789 16 1 £10,789 15 8 28370 0 3 8 DB. PRODUCTION AOOOU.NT FOR T11K VKM! TO 15TH FEBRUABY, I'.'IC. BAT. 1\, '.;,:, If, Turnips. Date. Wheat. Total. To Laliour (including hone*) „ Seeds „ Manures, let* Residual Value*. „ Straw, etc .. Rent, TaxM and Insurance ., Mle Time „ Depreciation „ Management 691 14 6 S65 10 0 10 0 22 2 6 486 10 0 69 9 6 88 1 44 1,801 7 6 636 6 0 1,913 19 0 101 0 0 276 0 0 I-" 10 9 -'"-> 0 0 Ml 0 0 2« 1.1 (' 1 4 (i 39 8 0 BOO 5 10 0 2 13 6 I 0 0 2 II u .1 u 103 11 '. 300 0 ii •2 3 UN 54 1 744 17 fi »« 0 0 ir>I 10 0 277 0 0 74 9 9 Ml u u 50 10 0 I 7. i. 4.071' 17 « 1,567 13 u 2,729 18 6 128 2 6 l,:i|.1 u 'i 407 Hi u J.12 5 0 AM— Residual Valux of Manure*. etc , from previous crop in I'll 7 2,113 11 6 38* 19 6 5,216 3 3 86 lo r. 1,7.16 4 9 291 IS G 1.702 7 3 464 12 0 11,007 12 3 1,141 8 0 Deduct— Residual Value of Manures, eto., carried forward to 2,493 11 5 5,216 3 3 951 18 6 86 10 6 19 9 0 2.i US 1 3 2.1 tirt 19 3 12.149 0 3 971 7 6 2,498 11 0 4,264 4 9 67 1 6 2,018 1 3 2,166 19 3 Balance being Profit as per Cost Account TOTAL COST OK PRODUCTION 111,014 17 9 13 4 11,680 11 1 OB. By Sales of 1917 Crop (less Stock) „ Sales of 1918 Crop „ Stock on hand of 1918 Crop „ Transfer of Produce included per Contra „ Adjustment — Cultiration at 15th Feb., 1919 ... „ ., 1.1th Feb., 1918 ... £ t. 847 10 600 0 * ». d. 616 4 3 4,122 16 10 4,789 10 0 1,904 10 0 • 247 10 0 11,580 11 1 RECONCILIATION WITH TRADING ACCOUNT. Profit per Ti & i. d. •nding Account 908 10 2 £ Profit as per Cost Accounts *. £8 ... 22 0 Stniw, 1.1 Ibs. per day 2J tons fa' £4 ... 10 0 £ t. d. £ jr. d. ... 3.073 11 2 200 0 0 ... 1,634 10 0 l. 10 0 127 'i u JIM 7 11 i; 2 ROO 14 1 £3 16 11 744 17 Say half towards Stable, tic. 11 ... 872 8 10 LABOUR ui: 'DM n.i ATION HKTWKKS DO sm:r.T> AND riNAM i\i. IIC.OKS. 5,761 1 3 Dfilurt value of labour trans- ferred to Manure Account ... 902 15 0 i ana a Q COST SHUTS— £».<*. £ , ,/. 5 9 4,732 8 3 Idle Time 9 10% of labour ... Management Deficiency in Costs 125 18 0 STATEMENT No. XI. STATEMENT SHOWING TOTAL PRODUCTION AND COST PER ACRE FOR 1918. — Hay. Potatoes. Turnips. . Oats. Wheat. Total. 1 . Cost per Acre. £ «. 19 1 3 0 11 4 0 11J — Units ... 1 cwr. 1 ton. 1 ton. 1 quarter. 1 quarter. 2. Production per Crop. Acreage under cultivation ... 177 101 2 109 101 — Production p^r acre 33 2 35 51 44 — Total production 5,841 rq 70 .J72 424 — Actual quantity gold, con- sumed, or in stock ... 1,780 Mft) w 571 i 422 J — U. Evidence-in-chief handed in by Mr. W. D. McNicor,, Farmer, Castleton, North Berwick. I am a Tenant Farmer farming in East Lothian and ex-Chairman of Haddingtonshire Branch of National Farmers' Union of Scotland. In tendering evidence for this district to tho Commission there are two considera- tions I should like clearly understood: 1st. That it has been very hurridedly prepare and owing to tho limited time Available it has not been made so comprehensire or revised as it might have been. 2nd. That it applies to probably one of the most intensively farming districts in the Country, where the rotation of crops is very close. The bulk of the land being kept constantly under the plough and is n t rested by grazing or bare fallow, hence the provision for working plant, labour and upkeep is very heavy per acre and as very little bneding is carried on the winter feeding stock are bought in, necessitating a large capital outlay for store stock. The soil varies from very stiff clay to medium loam, the rainfall is low and the land sometimes ge's very hard and difficult to work. I append costs of production of cereal*, hay, potatoes and turnips which are the average figures prepared by several representat ve farmers of the district for year 11)18. I wonld point out that the land was easily prepared that spring owing to late frosts and expense of work- ing low. In regard to the turnip crop of 1918 it was in many casts a total failure owing to frost and fly ittacks fol- lowed by drought no return being got at all. In other cases the crop w.as only about half an average (say 12 tons) thus raising the cost of feeding stock during the winter of r.M8-l'.» and also the resultant factor that owing to the letter numbers we have not the quantity of farmyard manure available for this and next crop. The results of the War are very apparent in that hedges are overgrown, ditches and drains are needing cleaning, hoii'cs and buildings generally are out of repair and the land itself is dirty and out of condit on and will requin; 20370 extra labour and expense to put it into proper order again. The results have accumulated through shortage of labour and what could be got was not so efficient. The supply of casual labour for seasonal work is still defijieut. Certain artificial manures, such as potash, were not available and, of course, all were expensive, but were used as largely as possible to make up the shortage of manure. Transport by rail was difficult and slow. Tractors (Government and privately owned), were used to some extent, but were not an unqualified success and have not displaced horse labour to any great extent and in the opinion of many farmers there is much scope for Motor Road Haulage in Scotland if properly organised (co-operatively or otherwise) as it is largely independent of weather and soil conditions Labour has improved its conditions both in wages and working hours. Generally cash wages for men have risen from about 18s. 6rf. per week in 1913-14 to 42«. now and working hours are now 9 per day with a Saturday half-holiday as compared with 10 per day and no fixed holidays. Woman labour filled many gaps and I think some endeavour should be made to keep the Organisation known as the Women's Land Army going after 28th November (when, I believe it is to be demobilised) as it has done useful work and I understand that the feeling of many of the women m it is favourable to this. Any further reduction in working hours will, in my opinion, lower production and increase working costs. Generally speaking, we wish to be able to pay our workers a wage that will compete with other industries, but it must be remembered that we have a weather risk to contend with and if shorter working hours are made com- pulsory the tendency will be for land to go again out of cultivation. We find overtime work often given grudg- ingly by the workers. Rents have not altered except in cases of leases running out and where renewed have mostly been raised. In many cases landlords have been offering their land for sale and many farmers have been forced to buy to retain their holdings, thus reducing available working capital for the conduct of their farming operations. 93 1(1 Appondu to Evidence of Mr. \V. I>. M, V. Arfrafr <•/ CM Statement* for tkr I^Maiu. — AYerage Labour. Material. Oncost. Per Acre. Yield. Cwt. Per Ton. H.T ... Turmpn 1'otatow Wheat «. . d. 6 15 1 10 « 9 IS 4 4 6 11 8 £ ». d. 8 2 10 8 2 11 25 3 10 7 14 1 £ ,. d. :\ 10 9 389 406 3 19 3 £ *. d. i:> 8 8 •-M 12 10 44 8 6 1> 5 0 41J cwtt. 13] tons. 71 „ * *. ./. 7 8 4 1 11 6 :. 18 6 Straw 200 5|qrs. :< 0 6 1'. ir''-v 6 14 4 6 17 I1 350 16 5 0 16 16 6 Grain 4} qrs. 385 Straw 200 Oats .. 6 11 0 5 14 5 :i 18 0 14 10 6 16 3 5 Grain 6 qrs. 249 Straw 2 15 0 13 8 5 C. Evidenoe-in-chief handed in by Mr. JoiiN I am a farmer residing at Struthers, Cupar, Fife. Farming 1107 acres on mv own account, viz.. Stnitheiu 370 Struthen Barns 297 acres, ami Baltilly 240 acres, all in parish of Ceres. I am proprietor of the first two farms, Kininmonth 460 acres, also in the name parish, and since 1!>14 I also managed the farm of Pilmuir 430 acres Lundin-Links for a Trust Kstate. In response to an invitation to the Cupar Branch of the I'm ii t» prepare Cost Statements for various crops, a Committee of 12 membeis went into the matter and prepared estimates on potatoes, turnips, oats, barley, wheat, also on fat cattle and sheep. These calculations are based on the average cost of production and the estimated average yield per acre of the land in East Fife. Also on the average cost of beef and mutton. Evidence on these costings I am prepared to support, if desired. The general pre-war rotation of cropping in the district is one of seven or eight years, viz., oats, potatoes, wheat, turnips, barley an I hay. followed by one or two years' pasture. Un tip : nns there was less pasture, and in the upland or poorer farms a longer rotation of pasture. with considerable areas unit- |x-rmanent pasture. During the war a considerable part of the pasture land was brought under cultivation in response to the call for increased food production. Generally speaking farms have been greatly deteriorated through various causes, as follows : — (1) In consequence of old pastures being broken up and cross-cropped, a shorter rotation of cropping generally and residual mammal values used up. (2) Owing to shortage of the supply of feeding stuffs for fattening stock, the usual supply of rich farm-yard manure is not available lor the proper emichmetit of the soil. (3) Owing to hay an 1 straw being taken over by the military on farms where formerly used for feeding stock, less farm-yard manures were available for a largely increased area under nihivation. (4) By the general use of quick acting mania. - Dg quick results, leaving no residual value. (5) Owing to shortage of labour during the war. much of the land Tins been insufficiently wrought, and is dirty and in Kid condition. (Ii) Farm buildings, fences, drain*, ditches, r have deteriorated or require attention. Little has been done in repairs for the hist five years, owing to shortage and cost of labour and material. D. Kvidenec-in chief handed in liy Mr. I am a Tanner ami Licensed Valuator, farming at Burnhead, Hawick. I have also held other arable- and stock raising farms. I am largely employed in arbitration and valuation work in the South of Scotland and else- where. I am at present President of the Teviotdale Farmers' Club, a very old institution. The Club's trans- aetioim and average prices of stork dating back to 1859 are in much request for reference purposes. The question I am asked to speak to is the cost of fattening sheep. For that purpose I take the price of an average top down cross lamb in the beginning of August, 1918, at the average price of £212 «'• '?'«. Keep on gnu* forage and seeds up till 24th ' : j weeks @ 8rf. 0 8 0 Do. on whole turnips 4 weeks and nit do. 8 week* 0 18 0 STEWAHI, Struthers, Ceres, Cupar, Fifeshin-. Whether this increased area under cultivation continue or not is entirely an economic problem. At any rate, the rate of yield of crops per acre cannot be increased or even maintained without a large and available increase in suitable farm-yard manures and other fertilisers, (ienerally. the cumulative fertility of the soil has greatly deteriorated since 11)14. Outside suburban areas, win-re no manure is available, cropping cannot exist without stock-feeding to consume the straw, &c., and produce manure. Stock-feeders havej received the utmost dis- couragement under Government control. Very little concentrated feeding-stuffs can be "In and for what little is available the price is prohibitive. The price of the raw material in the shape of store cat tic and sheep is uncontrolled and leaves no margin of profi'. and frequently a considerable lobs to the feeder, as our costing can prove. In pre-war days our principal supply of store cattle was from Ireland. The best class suitable for short keep cannot now be obtained. These are now being sent over for slaughter (immature), and the Irish man subsidised at the expense of the Government or the Scottish feeder in respect of the freight and other expenses from Ireland, to the extent of it. to Gs. per cwt., live weight, being the difference in price between i and half fat Irish animals in pre-war times. Killing im- mature animals tends to keep available stores scarce and dear, and is a distinct loss to our food supplies. Fewer cattle and sheep are being fed, and there is little incentive to turn to cattle feeding for profit. To bring back the land to its utmost productive capa bilities, much requires to be done in cleaning, manuring, liming, and draining the land and in repairs and improve nients to buildings, fences, etc. This requires time and capital. Many farmers have been compelled either to buy or quit their farms, and are finding they are in a \cry much worse position financially as landlord. The cost of maintenance formerly borne by the proprietor is a serious item, while many farmers are seriously alarmed at the enormous increase in Bates and Taxes. For instance, the Educational Assessment of Ceres Parish for this year is £1,442, whereas last year under the old School Hoard the amount was £380, and about 8 or 10 years ago about £2."iO. Some other country (parishes I know are even in a very much worse position. These heavy burdens tend to hamper the development of the agricultural industry. I am prepared to give evidence in support of the fore- going statements. (in IU.KT DAVIMSON, Burnhead, Hawick. £ «. 2 0 Deduct residual mammal value of feeding-stuffs ... Total net cost ii APPENDIX No. II. ACCOUNTS AND COSTINGS RETURN. Handed in by Mr. E. M. NI'NNELEY, of Wellingborongh, as evidence-in-chief in connection with his evidence given at the instance of the Agricultural Costings Committee on 21st October, 1919. .1. NOTES ON 1918 ACCOUNTS. The Live Stock Sales included— Horses Cattle Sheep Pigs ... The Corn Sales included— Wheat Barley Oats Other Corn .. 152 0 1,785 4 1,236 13 97 9 (2) Has the general condition of the farm been lowered during the War in the following respects ? — If the figures 100 represented the standard of the Farm in 1914 what figure in your opinion would represent its standard now ? 3,271 7 8 1,260 4 9 214 19 9 43 15 0 903 15 0 2,422 14 6 " I think these figures for one year only aro not of much value as they vary very much from year to year. For instance, last year peas from 23 acre* made about i'645, nearly £30 per acre— my average for tho last 40 years would be about £5 per acre. " Last year I only sold a few oats for seeds, using 300 to 400 qrs. for feed, instead of my usual 20 to 30 qrs., and buying no much less Feeding Stuffs. "My bill for Steam and Tractor Ploughing, Cultivating, Ac., was exceptionally heavy, as I was rather short of horses and hired three tractors, one after the other, to try which was the best and which, if any, was worth buying." (Signed) E. M. Ni NNF.I.EY. 13. RETURN MADE TO THE AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEE, I'.U'.i. (1) Size of fur in — Arable ......... (Saofoin 12, Clover 24.) Pasture — Temporary ... — Permanent ... Orchardi, &c. ...... Downs and moorlands Woods, waste and roads ... 4361 acres. 361 260 1 10 Total 744 acres. Tyjie of soil- Heavy 186 acres. Medium 287 „ Light — „ Our heavy land is eery heavy. A good deal of what I have called medium would, I think, be put down as heavy by n any people. l/i, ir fin in i< n'nrkeil. No. of steam engines ... ... None. „ tractors „ „ horses 14 Steam engines hired when required. Tractors last year hired when required. Labour employed. No. of horsemen < cattlemen , shepherds general labourers . women ... ... ••• — boys 4 Women occasionally employed in summer time last year. Name of farmer — E. M. Nunneley & Son. Farm addresn— Pytchley Orange, Orlingbury, Wellingborough. County — Northamptonshire. Distance from nearest railway station — 21 to 31 miles. 2 2 1 10 1914. 1918/19. Hedges, fencings, ditching and 100 80 Foulness of the land 100 100 70 75 State of repair of equipment implements and 100 100 2i;:ivo (3) What i« your general system of fanning, and are there any special local conditions which influence the system of farming ? If go please gice particulars. We have farmed principally for corn growing, and . stock breeding and rearing. Heavy ploughed land and course system (3 years temporary pasture, 1 year dead fallow, 4 years corn) but the last 3 years have had no temporary pasture, but have grown more corn. Medium land 5 years course, roots 2 years corn, beans, peas or clover, corn. (4) State in ir/ii/t respect, if any, the cropping andjor *t:i<-kiny fur the year covered by your accounts tubmitted, was nut in accordance uith cuxtmnary practice in your system of fanning. We tried to grow more corn and, having no temporary pasture, and broken up about 100 acres grass, could not keep so much stock, especially breeding sheep. (5). General remarks — If the following, or other similar items, are included in the Accounts please state below the amount in each case and under what heading they are included. Such items might be new implements, etc., bought, or other outlay for improvements, etc. Sa'es of implements, etc. Interests paid on loans. Interest on own capital in- vested. A~ny special provision made in che accounts for depreciation. Income tax or tithes. Amounts taken out of the bank and invested out-ide. Personal expenses of self and family. Other similar items (if any). New implements bought are included in imple- ments. No sales of implements. No special outlay or improvements or provision for depreciation, except in implements, which is allowed for in valuation. No tithe paid. Half year's income tax is included in rent, rates, etc. No charge made for interest on our own capital or loans, or for our overtime or labour or personal expenses, all of which have to be paid for out of the profits— this is simply our farming balance sheet. If no figure appears in the accounts for the following items please state the approximate amount in each case. Rent and rates of farm house ... £40 Value of Farm Produce consumed by the household These are included in the accounts. Value of labour for the year contributed by wife or family — None, except by E. M. Nunneley and F. W. Nunneley, members of farm, whose labour is not charged for. (In the case of Home Farms). Value of supplies to and work done for estate owner Other similar items (if any) a 4 (1) PIMM lUte whether owner or occupier— i i, o>p • r (•2) If Occupier. Annual Rent piid ' If Owner, Annual Rent (if any) charged as mi expense in yn ur account*, £.. If n« rent a charged, pleasa state Annual or Rateable Value, f (3) Date to which account* are made up— December (4) If Account* audited, pleaae stile by whom — audited. (6) Whether Inventory made by Self or Profession*! Valuer -By Self. (7.) liifrnliiry nl Ilif Itii/iiniiii,/ iiinl /•,';»/ ';/' i K —If you are unable to fill in the details specified below, ahow under main headings in total only. - Number at Be- ginning. Number at Knd. Value at Beginning of Year. Value at Knd of Year. •'.•*— £. t. rf. *. rf. Horses 1.015 o 0 830 n n Cattle 71 78 1,3!>6 o 0 1.494 o o Dairy cow* . M 32 r,'.'-, o II 835 o o Sheep 478 421 1 ,510 15 II 1,292 o u Pigs... 7 19 39 n II 58 n o Other live stock poultry — — 3o n 0 37 lo n Total of live stock 4,718 15 0 4,566 10 0 Grain, Strata, and Root* — Giain and straw 1,868 in 0 L'.ITI 11 u Hay 445 o n :;j:i o o Roots H>7 n 0 120 0 0 NnHiIi-y Stuck* — Feeding stuff* Manures ... ll C 0 114 u u ~, . .!- / Other sundry stocks — EyllijllllfHt — Machinery 1 Implements } 69:i In Harness, wagons, loose tools, etc. J u n u Tenant flight— Tillages (including seeds and pastures) Standing crops Unexhausted manures and manorial values of cake. etc. Totals 3'.«i 15 ii 427 15 o s-i: in 1 1 |n| 111 0 8,823 5 0 '.I.V.I.; rieate »tatt the beaii of i-nlmilinn (e.g., whether market . cutt. in' nther /HIXI'X) (inti any whether the r i/U'iiinn WUt made on tlir tunif Imtin ul the beyimiing mill eml />f the year. Market valnen for live stock, but pat rather low, especially for stock that will not be sold soon (such as hones, breeding ewes, etc.), consuming values for hay, straw, etc., made on same basin both yeirs. (8) Any further remnrlf .i u. 1918. when conditions and prices were quite abnormal and from which ..«* year I think nn conclusions or estimates of any value ax to the future can be drawn. I have also drawn up and enclose a list of my profit* and looses in farming since 1878. I think the Brit 17 years of that time show best what is likely to happen in tin- f iitnr.-. as we cannot, I think, expect the prrtwiit lii'.-li prices of produce to continue, but shall probably have a far more rapid fall in prices than occurred from 1878 to 18'.i|. I also enclose some calculations I made last winter a* to the coat of cultivation of heavy laud and the probable produce therefrom, which may perhaps interest you. I have not filled up paragraph 5 of Schedule " H," aa I really cannot tee what my private accounts, debU, or investments have to do with my farm account*. Ac. Should vim think it worth while I should bo quite willing to appear as a witness before the •iiiuission to give any further information or cudcnec that I can. Yours truly, (Signed) E. XI. Ni \MI.EY. COSTS OP PRODUCTION— CHRISTMAS, 1918. Costa of cultivation on heavy land on farm of IIMI to 1,000 acres, half arable, ample machinery, Ac. Eight courses. (On larger farms costs might be slightly leas per acre ; on smaller farms considerably more). ll'.'i/'-K— Horsemen 6*., labourers 5«., boys 3x., per day; horses, 5». per day. A rise or fall of It. per day in wages would make a difference of about 5«. per acre per annum. JC «. (/. 1st year. — Falliue.— Ploughing three times. First by steam, 35s. per acre ; second and third by horses, 30». each time, 60*. ; scuffled twice by steam, 25«. ; twice by horses, 10«. : taxes, 7>. 6d. ; sundry expenses (maintenance of buildings, roads, yards, gates, fences, drains, Ac., trimming and cutting hedges, cleaning out ditches, &c., Ac.), Us. ; rent, .'.".«. ; rates, 5s. 8 17 >, 2nd year.— When!.— Seed 2j bushels @ 10«. (25*.) ; scuffling, 4s. ; drilling, ('>.-. : harrow- ing after, 2« ; spring crushing, 4*. ; harrow- ing, 2x. ; horse hoeing, --. ; docking and weeding, 7*. 6s. ; seed H ' I umbels @ 10*. (30s.) ; drilling and harrowing, 12x (>. I'M!. : mowing, 5s. : turning, carrying, stacking, threshing, Ac., 20s. ; sundries. lOx. ; rent, rates and taxes, 37.". I'M/. .. ... ... 500 If a good fallow is not made the first year tli • land should be plmi^hcd up as snim as cloxer is off and half fallowed — ibis would cost — twice ploughed, 70j. ; twice scuffled, lOx. = 80s. Allow for this licing done in every other course— the charge in each course • • would be 200 litli year.- and I'M/ ID 0 0 7th M:H /;-/»/-. Manuring (as aKove :trd . year). -I*.'. : once plough' drilling. .••• ('"I. : sun.l MX. : rent, rates anil . ('«/. ... 13 12 6- 8th year.— Wliait.— Ploughing, 3.r)». ; seed, 30«. ; drilluiL'. >V-i-., 12x. Gil. ; spring rolling and harrowing, 6x. ; horse hoeing. : docking and weeding, 7«. 6rf. ; harvestiog, 4c., 74s. ; rent, Ac., 37s. M. M 4 6 Total cost of eight year course .. £81 15 6 13 £ s. d. Produce in eiyht yetirs. — Wheat three years, 4 qrs. per a~re per annum @ 76*. £45 12«. ; straw @ 20x. per acre, £3 : beans, two years", 3 qrs. each year @ 80s., £24 ; bean straw, 10s. per acre each year, £1 ; oats, one year, 6 qrs. per acre @ 50s., £15 : straw, 20s. ; clover, 25 cwt. per acre @ £6 per ton, £7 10s. ; grazing, 10«. Total produce eight years 97 12 0 (Beans are at present £6 per qr. but with wheat at 76*. and oats at 50*. are not likely long to be worth more than 80s.) Deduct eight years' costs Eight years' profit ... 81 15 6 .. £15 16 6 This profit has to provide interest on capital (say £15 per acre), depreciation of machinery, remuneration for management, market expenses, <&c. Average annual profit per acre, £1 19s. 6d. NOTE. — Since the above calculations were made (at Christmas, 1918) wages have been raissd by 6«. &d. per week. This would add about 5s. per acre per annum to the cost of cultivation, audit is now proposed to reduce the hours of work during summ r by four per week ; as this would curtail the hours of horse labour too, it would probably add about another 5s. per acre psr annum. Sept. 29th, 1919. E. M. N. D. PROFIT AND Loss ACCOUNT, 1878 TO 1918 INCLUSIVE. 1878 to 18'J4. 18'J5 to 1»13. 1914 to 1918. Year. Profit. Loss. { Year. Profit. Year. Profit. 1878 ..-. £ 485 290 277 2 10 43 l.Vi 187 461 11.1 25J 42 4'.i 2ir, £ M r.i 2i> 1895... £ 60.5 694 1,108 . 1,01)5 NO 1,261 690 1,002 188 159 651 772 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 Total 5 years... Average— £1,9 £ 1,550 2,157 3,24<> 970 1,797 1879 1896 . isxn 1807 1881 lx- /, interest on capital. Nothing ha* been charged for my market expenses, nor for my time and labour, nor for those of my son who has bsen with me on the farm since 1*95. (Sgd.) E. M. NUNNELEY. K.— SUMMARY OF THE YEAR AND BALA'NCIC SIIEKT FOR FIVE F/IKI,Y TYPICAL YEARS— FOUR BEFORE THE WAR AND ONE (1918) UNDER WAR CONDITIONS. IV.. s 1903 1908. 1918 1918 (31st December.) 1898 1903 1908 1913 1918 By amount received for — * & £ £ £ £ £ £ . £ £ Corn sold 1,706 1,016 1,697 1,116 2,427 Valuation 1st January ... 6,378 — — — — Hay and Straw, etc. ... 23 4 7 81 — Live Stock — 3,456 3,779 4,239 4,718 Live Stock 2..V >'.i 2,306 2,071 2,397 3271 Deadstock — 3,111 3,769 3,071 4,104 Dairy Produce 67 68 56 71 172 Amount paid for — Eggs and Poultry . 66 66 87 27 288 Rent and rates 678 763 753 834 1,041 Sundries 80 ;i7 93 (',-, 34 Labour... 743 743 802 762 1,329 Accounts owing to Farm 7 25 12 — 20 Corn, Seeds etc., Man- 543 492 731 861 911 Valnation 31st December 6,627 — — — — ures, Cakes etc. Live Stock — 3,634 3,833 4,275 4,566 Live Stock 1,404 792 464 417 1,017 Tillages, Dead — 3,162 3.432 3,254 5,044 Implements 84 103 74 23 72 Sundries 69 88 188 202 628 Accounts owing by Farm 120 110 240 108 205 Profit on year 1,065 760 476 772 1,79 7 11,087 10,411 11,270 11,290 15,826 11,087 10,411 11,270 11,290 15,825 NOTK. — Dnring the first four of the above years the land occupied was 900 acres, 450 arable and 450 graes. In 1918, 470 arable, 270 grass. 1 1 APPENDIX No. III. Aiviir\T> AND COST1\ Return banded in by Mr. A. H. POM-, of Felling on Tyne, as evicUnoe-in-cbief in connection with his cvid.-nr, at the instance of tbe Agricultural Coatings Committee on 21st ( totomr, I'.'l '.'. i Agricnl A. RETURN MADK TO TIIK AI:I:H i i n I:M. ('•• COMMITTEE, 1?P. (1) Site of farm— Arable i-1.' "^s. Pasture — Temporary ... ., Permanent ... . ,. < >r<-hards, Ac — Downs and moorland Wood, waste, and roads ... „ Total acres. lloir farm it worknl. No. of steam engines „ tractors „ bones * Too wet and heavy. enqtloyed. No. of horsemen „ cattlemen ., shepherds .. general labourers „ women ... ... Nil* 4 Nil 1 Name of Farmer— A. H. Polls. Farm address — Tbe Learn, Felling-on-Tyne. County — Durham. Distance from nearest railway station, three miles. (2) Hus the general condition of the farm been lowered during the tear in the f allotting retjitcls f : — If the figures 100 represented the standard of the farm in 1'JH, what figure in your opinion would represent its standard now ? 1914. 1-J18-19. Hedges, fences, ditching and drainage ... KMI 60 Foulness of the land lm 100 State of fertility (shortage of manure)... State of repair of implement* and 100 100 80 100 equipment. (3) What it ynur general *y»tem of funning, 0 Totals 1,163 0 0 i,33s a 0 t Implements, etc. — These are added to, renewed, and kept in good repair, which allows for depreciation, aud difference in value (apart from war) is unappreciablo and therefore not accounted for. 15 state thi> busts of ralwitinit (e.g., irln'tln-r nmrki-t values, cust. in- iitln-r /«/.-•/«) »//n inmlil care to iitukc. It should be rioted that the past year must be regarded as a most exceptional year for strong clay land, owing to the great crops of grain (especially wheat) at a war price. For the previous year 1917/18 the farm profits were £355, and taking the average of the three previous parts (all war years) the amount per annum was £530. The small amount of stock is accounted for by the system of farming, see 3. Dr. B. PROFIT AND Loss ACCOUNT. Cr. 1918. £, a. d. 1919. H «. d. £ s. year to £1 ... year. SO 0 0 1,240 0 0 „ 3! By Book debts 53 2 0 ,, 31 ,, Annual receipts 3,645 17 6 1918. June 1 ., Creditors ' accounts... 68 17 3 fl.007 16 9 . 5,007 16 9 Profit as above 1,256 12 8 .! 0 8 Kent and rates of house 40 0 0 Produce consumed by household . ... 40 0 0 1,3 2 13 4 Dr. C. CASH BOOK. C, M "'' lli'i-ripti. Expenditure or 1'aymentt. June 1st, 1. Live Stock— £ *. il. £ i. <1. June 1st, 1. Livestock — £ *. < I « HI I*, to Horses 67 II 0 MaySist, Cattle it1.*! r, i; May31st, Cattle 250 10 0 mt. Sheep 829 8 2 1919. Sheep 719 18 9 Pigs 25 ft 0 i ooa A o Pigs 16 10 0 » nv-i 1 '* a 2. Dairy 15 0 0 2. Feeding stuffs 224 1 ^ 14 j !> 3. Corn — 3. Manures 74 6 7 Wheat 7^4 0 0 4. Seed 170 3 2 Barley — 6. Wages 463 0 2 Gate 4'.I'J 10 3 6. Rent 265 12 3 1 003 J,l «J 7. Rates — Annual total ... 39 0 0 4. Hay 520 11 10 8. Repairs and mainten- 26U 2 6 Straw 129 12 8 ance. «50 4 6 ,, 9. Sundry expenses — „ 5. Root* — Grazing out 10 8 0 Potatoes 215 14 0 Insurances 21 6 10 Turnip? I '."i 4 0 Postage, stationery 18 19 10 405 18 0 and personal ex- •• I). Cottage rent, old ma- terial and sundry penses. Licences (forage and 20 16 0 grazing 28 0 7 motor). Subscriptions :i 15 6 Income tax l(i II S ga «" Total expenditure 2.65 1 5 0 Balance — Receipts over 1,016 Hi 11 £3,645 17 6 £3,668 I 11 APPENDIX No. IV. INTKKIM REPORT submitted by M: II <• II l-Yllow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, 1). of Agricultural Costa in connection with his evidence given mi 'J.'.r.l September, 191'.'.* On 456 Farm Account* for the year ended Michaelmas, 1918 (or subsequently) submitted to the Agricultural Costing* Committee. • IE. — The figures should be regarded an interim figure* only. Certain additional information has mill to be received and the final corrected figure* will be presented in a later Report.) TABLE OF CONTENTS. Introduction Number of Account* receive! Financial Results of Account* Inventory and Valuation ... Capita] Profit Receipts or Income Payments or Expenditure Paragraph Paragraph 1 I: t '.' l! Wages 10 The Relation ,.f Kent Wages and Profits ... 11 4 The Grouping of Farms according to Size and 5 Type 12 6 Owner-Occupiers ... ... ... ... ... 1:1 7 Costs of Production 14 8 General lf> Paragraph 1. Gentlemen, The Accounts dealt with in this Report have been obtained by the Agricultural Costings Committee in accordance with your request, when I attended before your Commission on the 12th August last, that the Costings Committee should endeavour to obtain Accounts from those farmers with whom it was in touch, on the understanding that the information should be sub- mitted confidentially to the Costings Committee, and be forwarded anonymously to you. The Accounts have accordingly been obtained by the Costings Committee on these conditions. You desired the Agricultural Costings Committee to approach a limited number of farmers, i.r , those with whom the Costings Committee was in touch, and you wished those farmers to be excluded who had been, or would be, approached by the National Farmers' Union, in pursuance of your prior arrangement with them to submit similar information. Farmers were requested to furnish, in addition to a copy of their Accounts, certain essential information with regard to their farms. NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS RECEIVEH. As a result of the enquiries made by the Agricultural Costings Committee, 455 Statements of Accounts were received. It has been necessary in consequence of the guarantee of secrecy to abstract each account on to analysis sheets. For the purposes of this Report these accounts have lieen classified as follows : — — No. of Accounts received. Total Acreage. 1. Tenant Farmers— England anil Wales. 2. Tenant Farmers— Scotland 113 13 42,154 5,211 3. Owner Occupiers — England and Wales. 4. Owner Occupiers— .Scotland 85 10 38,295 5. Home and similar Farms — England and Wales. >'•. Home and similar Farms — Gotland. 7. Institution* and Co-opera- live >rms. 8. Market Garden*, &c. 9. Unsatisfactory lo. Not dealt with Total 75 8 44,723 8,463 304 12 11 146,428 Not ftatecl 827 11 67 .^ 4SS — A number of these statements of account includo more than one farm. The Accounts dealt with in this Report arc those in Classes 1 to 8 above and include 327 Accounts. The Accounts of the Co-operative Farms are in some respects not in quite the same category as other farms. Implements, &c., are I am informed purchased on more favourable terms, and the farm produce is sold in the majority of case* either to the Retailing and Distri- buting Departments of the Society or to the Co-operative Wholesale Society. I understand that, generally speaking, these sales of produce are made on an ordinary commercial market basis. A few of these Co-operative Farm Accounts have been tabulated (Class 7) and others remain to be dealt with, if necessary. With regard to the Accounts marked as " Unsatisfac- tory," it will be seen that the proportion of these accounts is somewhat high, and this indicates that there is room for improvement in the standard of account-keeping prevailing in the Industry generally. As to the Accounts " Not dealt with," in order to submit this Report in time it was necessary to limit the number scheduled to those received up to 6th inst. Tho number of Accounts shown as not dealt with are for that reason being tabulated on supplementary sheets and will if possible be included in a later report. Paragraph 3. l'is \M-I.\L RESULTS OF ACCOUNTS. The results shown by the aggregate number of Accounts dealt under Classes 1 to 6 (304 in number) are as follows :— £ *. d. Total Capital invested in Stock Equip- ment, &o. (Sw Table B) 1,742.000 0 0 Total Capital invested in Stock Equip- ment, &c. per acre ... ... ... 11 17 9 Total Pro6ts shown by the Accounts. (. Table C.) 190,562 0 0 Average Rate per cent, on the Capital in vested 10-9496 Average Profit per Acre 160 The profits shown above are arrived at as follows :— Per Acre. Total. £ *. il. Commencing Valuations (See Table A) Hi :' 2 l.l.so.27:t Total Expenditure (,s'.r Table K) sit :: I.:: , I.IVIK or Profit («« Table C) 1 6 0 190,562 £20 2 5 £2,91C>,678 T.nnl Income (tiff Table D) ... Kii.liir! Valuations (.Sw Table A) 1'er Acre. £ *. d. 8 10 8 11 II 9 Total. £ 1,697,841 C2,'.II6,678 • The examination of the witness has already been published in Vol. III. of the Minutes of Evidence [Cd. 391]. 17 Taking Groups Nos. 1 to 6 by classes, the following information has been obtained :— CAPITAL. PROFIT. No. of accounts. Acreage. Amount. Per acre. Amount. Rate per cent. Per acre. £ £ i. d. £ £ *. d. Tenant Farmers, England and Wales ... 113 42,154 513,928 12 3 10 69,242 13-396 1 12 10 „ „ Scotland 13 5,211 82,678 15 17 4 16.310 19-7% 327 Owner Occupiers, England and Wales ... 85 38,2!I5 £47,351 14 5 10 50,232 9-296 162 . „ ., Scotland 10 7,582 40,177 5 5 11 5,749 14-3% 15 0 Home and similar Farms, England and 75 44,723 520,811 ; 11 12 10 43,418 8-3ared with the number of holdings in the country, ami it is not possible to say from these limited figures whether the results shown are typical of the industry generally. The intention in tabulating these accounts was to arrive at the figure of profit on the basis detailed below and question 5 of Schedule B was designed in ord;r to enable this to be done. Only a comparatively small amount of information was obtained in reply to this question, and it is consequently impossible to say how far the special items detailed below have been adjusted in arriving at the figure of pro "it shown. As stated above the profit was to be arrived at after allowing all the usual and proper expenses including rent ami depreciation, but baton allowing anything to be included in the expenses for : — Interest on farmer's capital or on loans or over- drafts. Income Tax or tithes. Any charge for the farmer's own labour or management. Any charge for unpaid family labour. Private and personal expenses of the farmer or his family. A M v payments of a capital nature, or for improve- ments, &c. Any special writing down of implements &c., over and above the customary depreciation found to be necessary, and similar items. and after the farm had been credited with items such as: — Rant and rates of the farmhouse. Farm produce, fuel, .V-<-., consumed by the house- bold. Supplies to, or work don.- fur. the owner or the estate. So far as the required information eould IK? obtained from the accounts and from the replies to the sptfifir questions in Schedule " It." the profit has been arrived at on the above basis. It is probable that in many cases where farm accounts have in the past been prepared merely for the farmer's own use, it has not been found necessary to draw any strict line of demarcation in the account* with regard to these special items. This will also apply to the rent of the farmhouse and farm produce consumed by the house- hold, which may have been regarded as being roughly set off against the value of the unpaid labour supplied l>y tin- family to the farm. If it be the case that during the year under review, necessary work of hedging and ditching, repairs, \-e., has had to be deferred owing to lack of labour ami other causes, and if the standard of fertility of the land has decreased, then the profit shown will be to this extent in excess of its true figure, and future years will have to bear these expenses. The remarks in paragraph 4 above as to the basis of valuation adopted and the omission from the valuation in certain cases of tillages, stocks of feeding stuffs, &c., should also ba borne in mind when considering the surplus shown. In view of the fact that the accounts submitted rover only one financial year, only limited deduct ions must I..- drawn from the results shown, and it is m>i possible to draw any conclusions as to what the profits might be on these farms over a term of years. In some cases farmers, when sending their account*. submitted statements showing the profits or losses made over a term of years, an 1 stated they were not willing for the one year's" result to be considered by itself. The results shown by these statements will be submitted in due course to the Commission. In other cases farmers have sometimes commented that this year had been for them an exceptionally favourable one, while on the other hand others have stated that their profits were abnormally low for tho year. Among the reasons given for the favourable results are : — that good crops were obtained, or that owing to the requirements of the Food Production Department, a larger acreage of corn than usual was sown, which it was stated was done at the expense of future crops. As explaining the reduced profits, attention was called to the wet weather during harvest, the inferior quality of the labour during that year, li sses in cattle owing to tin- indifferent quality of feeding MutV*. and 1. .**,-* incurred through compulsory ploughing of pasture. •a'" />li 7. RF.CEIPTS on Ivn\ir. The chief items making up the total Receipts or Income are shown in the following Table : - TABLE D. Tenant Farmers. Owner Oc:i Corn. Hav. Straw, Hm.t-. fc •. :ii!i;.:io.-, LJT.748 119 68,.->7'.i I:-:. 1,088 :t7. 1 is 7ii7 Otli-r Il.-ceipU 'JO.'.' II 104 1,934 779 30.383 1,601 TiiTAI £l,24!i.336 \JM .'J57 311,359 807,019 23,r.97 The aggregate receipts amounted to £8 10*. »W. per acre. During the period covered by these accounts the prices of -i iiiiinlH-r of farm product.. w< re controlled. In many cases, only the cash actually received is shown in the accounts and no account has been taken of the debts ow in/ lo the farm at th« beginning and end of the year. 19 Paragraph 8. PAYMENTS OR EXPENDITURE. The chief items making up the total expenditure are shown in the following Table :— TABLE E. 1'iii/iiii'ntx amount has been taken of the amounts owing by the farm at the beginning and end of the year. Schedule A sent to the farmers asked that the wages shown in the accounts submitted should include the total amount of wages, board and allowances, but it is impossible to say to what extent this has been done The rates of wages paid in the industry have been in- creased since the period covered by these accounts. Where any charge appeared on the face of the accounts for the labour and wages of the farmer himself, the item has been eliminated. Paragrajih 11. THE RELATION OF RENTS, WAOES AND PROFITS. The following Table F shows the amounts of the above, and the rates per acre of each item. RENT. In many cases where the farm is owned, the owner has made an entry in the accounts charging the farm with a rent, and in order to reduce all the farms to a common basis, in the cases where the owner has not charged a rent against the profits, I have inserted such a charge, based on the annuil or rateable value'. The total rents paid on the various classes of farms are, as shown in Tabl.- F b.-low. illM,:',)4. Paragraph 1°. WAGES. The total wages paid on the various classes of farms are, as shown in Table F, £310,843. TABLE F. Rent, Wage* tnul Profits. Rent. Wages. Profit. Total. Per acre. Per acre. Per acre. Per acre. Tenant Farmers — £ £ x. y the price at winch farm produce, *••., U supplied to the owner, and by such factors as the ready supply of capital, the re<|uir.-im-iits of the estate and the tendency of the owner to specialise in certain cases. J'nrngrh 14. COSTS OK PRODUCTION. The Committee endeavoured to obtain Statements of Costa of Production from certain farmers who are keeping Cost Accounts. In some cases they had already given evidence before yonr Commission, and in the others they have failed to return their figures. In many cases they have only recently started to keep Cost Accounts, and their results for a complete year have not yet been ascertained. It i« regretted, therefore, that no Statement of Costs of Production can be submitted meantime. 15. (iKNKiiAL. The Costings Committee is not in a position to verify the accuracy of the accounts received. No examination or investigation of these accounts has been made by the Costings Committee, except that corrections of the profit l>:ive been made in respect of inadmissible items shown on the face of the accounts, or where similar information has been furnished in reply to Question 5 in Schedule B. They do not, therefore, accept any responsibility for the accounts dealt with. These have apparently been forwarded in good faith, and without ulterior motive, and purport to be copies of accounts which had already been prepared in the ordinary course at the end of the financial year Wore the Royal Commission was constituted. In a number of cases Schedul. s B and answers to questions have not yet licen returned. It is possible, t In-r.- foiv. ili.ii tln> results shown in this interim report may be iiiinliticd to some extent, but it is not anticipated that any material adjustment will have to In- made. The fact that only limited conclusions can be drawn from the financial results of one year emphasises the necessity for periodical returns of financial rewults Ua 6 tta Table. 3i 4 •>$ 6 Subject. Para. GROUPING OF RESULTS. Table. 3ULTS. Grouping of results — per class of/ 7 9 to IS occupier (tenants, owners, &c.): \ 7, 15 & 27 Capital 7a — Profit 7b — Scottish Accounts 7c — Grouping of results — per size of farm 8 14 Grouping of results— per type of farm 9 16,17 & 28 (mixed, dairy, ic.). Details of income — per acre and per 10 18 cent. Details of expenditure— per acre and 11 19 per cent. The relation of rent, wages, and 12 — profit* : . In percentages 12a 20 Per acre and per farm ... 12b 21 Relation to total expenditure 12c 22 Farm labour and equipment 13 — Grouped per type of farm— „ 23 mixed, dairy, &c. Grouped per class of occupier — „ 24 tenant?, owners, &c. Total numbers „ 25 Comparative condition of the farms 14 as to fertility, &c. Further accounts dealt with since 15 26 submission of Interim Report. Financial statements — for a ,'eries of 16 — years. 1.- FINAL REPORT. An Interim Report dealing with such information as had been then received was, owing to the. urgency of the matter, submitted on 17th September last.* The figures given in this Final Report differ in a few respects from those of the Interim Report, as additional information which wax pending at that dale has since been received, and a few accounts then dealt with have since proved unsatisfactory in certain respects and have had to he deleted from this report. Paragraph 1.— Accounts Generally. 1 (a) — Tuiiil iiiinihri- lit' . \< ;-iiinil.< received. The total number of accounts received was 470, repre- senting .r)43 farms, as follows : — Accounts. Farms. Received and tabulated at date of Ml 325 Interim Report. Accounts since received and tabu- 117 130 Uted. Market garden;, ic. 11 11 Total accounts tabulated 409 466 Incomplete accounts 67 77 Total accounts received 476 513 1 (b) — y umber of Accounts audited. Of the 301 accounts which are dealt with in detail in this report, about one-third (97) are stated to have been audited. The particulars are as follows : — Audited. Not Audited. To:al. Tenant farmers — England and Wales 26 83 ion Scotland 1 13 14 Owner occupiers — England and Wales 25 61 86 Scotland 5 5 10 Home farms — England and Wales ... j 39 35 74 Scotland ... 1 7 8 Tot-il 97 201 301 See Appendix No. IV. 1 (c) — County Distribution of Account*. It will be seen from Table 1 that of the 301 accounts — 257 came from England, 12 from Wales, and 32 from Scotland. Very few of the English counties are unrepresented, but there are a number of counties both in Wales and in Scotland from which no accounts have been received. The county sending the largest number of accounts i.s Sussex, with a total of 22 accounts. 126 accounts were submitted by tenant farmers, 98 by owner occupiers, and 77 came from home and similar farms. H Some of UMM accounts represent the working of more than one farm. It i» apparent that a comparatively larger number of account* nave been received from owner* and home farms than fn>m tenant farmers, having regard to the relative number of holding* in the country occupied by these three dame* respectively. 1 (d) -/*!/«/, /•„,.„„•„// Yf following datea : — September, 1918 ':»er mber December January. iarv March April June July Total 57 Accounts. BO 8 60 8 6 61 31 34 24 301 1 (e) — Whether tlieie Accouiili are repreientntirf. In order to test to some extent whether the 325 farms here dealt with are representative of the holdings in the country generally, it has been thought advisable to compare the number of live-stock carried per 10U acres on these 325 farms (291 in England and Wales, and 34 in Scotland), with the equivalent figures for the whole country as given •by the Board of Agriculture returns for 1918. The results of this comparison are shewn in Table 2. England and Wales. It will be observed from the Table that as regards England and follows :— Wales, the comparison works out as Number of Live-tlock per 100 acre* — England ami U'«/ 4-57 3-75 There is no great difference in the number of live- stock per 100 acres carried on these farms and on the holdings in the country generally. Scotland. With regard to Scotland (34 farms), there is a notice- able difference in the comparison, as follows : — Number of Lire-flock per 100 acre* — Sc/«it «f tl» ;,lf II 1! II Annual depreciation written off, percentage not stated ... 5 3 16 i 1 but Total .. 35 2 (b) — Tlie ttasit of Valuation anil its Bearing on the ProJUi. It will be seen (Table 13) that the increase in the amount of the closing valuation over the valuation at the beginning of the year (increase £212,724) more than accounts for the whole of the surplus or profit shown (profit £ 1 90,298), and the basis on which these valuations have been made (whether market value, cost price, &c.) is therefore of considerable importance in endeavouring to determine the amount of the true profit shown by these accounts. Paragraph :! of this report shows that the value per head of practically all the live-stock is greater at the end of the year than at the beginning ; though this fact alone does not necessarily imply that the closing values have been unduly inflated. It is, in fact, impossible from the information available in the accounts to state what is the amount of real jirofit shown. If for the name head of live-stock, e.g. working horses, breeding stock, &c., or for the same implements and machinery, an increased value has been taken at the end of the year, then to that extent a paper profit is included in the amount of profit shown. It may be that a comparison of the values per head at the beginning and end of the year (in paragraph 3) with the general movement of costs and of market prices during the year, may throw some light on this |n>int. If the same values per head adopted at the beginning of the year had again been taken in valuing the live-stock at the close of the year, then the t otal value of all live- stock in the 237 accounts dealt with in paragraph '.'< would have l>een about £075,000 instead of £710,302 ; a reduc- tion of say £35,000 on the V'.'J accounts. The correspond- ing reduction in the value of all live-stock of the whole 301 accounts would be say £45,000 ; and if this adjust- ment followed through to the profit, the profit would l>e reduced to the same extent. Thewi figures are put forward merely as an illustration, and it is not suggested that this would necessarily be a proper basis for the valuation. 23 2 (C)— Thf VnliKit'inii* (IritrniUii. Tables 3 and 4 show details of the valuations at the beginning and the end of the year, and the amounts per acre. The Scottish figures per acre are small, because of the relatively larger area of moorland and waste on some of these farms compared with the English farms. In considering the total amount of the valuations on the 325 farms, as shown in Table 4, it must be remembered that in a large number of cases some of the dead-stock items are omitted from the valuations. This point has lieen further dealt with in paragraph 4 («) of this report dealing with the amount of capital employed on the farms. 2 (d) — Valuations — Per Farm — Average of 325 Funnx. At the beginning of the year, the average amount of the valuations— per farm— was £4,553, running from £3,739 tenant farmers, England and Wales, to £5,343 home farms, England and Wales. At the end of the year the value of all the separate items in the valuation had gone up in the case of all the classes of farms. The total amount of the valuation — per farm — at the end of the year accordingly becomes £5,208 instead of £4,553 — live stock and stocks of grain, hay and straw showing the largest amount of increase. These results do not include the items of dead stock which were omitted in some of the valuations. Paragraph 3.— Live-stock— Numbers and Values. With a view to arriving at the average value per head of the live-stock valuation, farmers were requested to state the numbers and values, of each class of live-stock on the farm at the beginning and end of the year. The full information was submitted in 237 out of the 301 cases, and the following are the particulars of the numbers and values of live-stock as rendered in 237 accounts. Live-stock. Beginning of Year. End of Year. No. Value. Per Head. No. Value. Per Head. 2,824 10,659 2,915 50,618 3,537 £ 161,775 221,628 90,339 158,377 17,872 £ *. il. 57 5 8 20 15 10 30 19 10 327 5 1 1 2,925 11,596 2,«50 51,272 3,954 £ 177,775 260,075 90,148 164,478 18,446 £ *. d. 60 15 7 22 8 7 31 12 8 342 4 14 4 Cattle Dairy Cows Sheep Pigs Total 70,5.-,:? 649,991 — 72,597 710,922 — The values — per head — of all stock are increased at the end of the year, with the exception of pigs. part of this increased value arises in the case of the home farms. The numbers of stock are increased at the end of the year in all cases except dairy cows. The greater Paragraph 4.— Capital. The total amount of capital on 325 farms at the end of the year as shown by the accounts and schedules submitted and excluding the value of the land and buildings, wag £1,726,876. (See Table 7.) The average amount of capital }#r acre at the end of the year on the 325 farms was £12 6*. 6d. The average amount of capital per farm (the average acreage being 431 acres) was £5,313. The capital on the 325 farms was turned over during the year under review to the extent of 71 '84 per cent., the total income being £1,240,630 and the total capital £1,726,870. 4 (a) — Probable t ini "/ <•< rtuin itemt. In considering the total amount of capital employed on the farms at the end of the year, it must be borne in mind that in many of these valuations, no value was inserted opposite some of the dead-stock headings, as follows : — Tenant Right. — No amount inserted in 103 valuations. lni'l.-> nf Feeding Stuffs, Fertilisers, tf'C. — No amount inserted in 52 valuations. /H/i/i infills. \\'r.ling to amount, and shows the number of accounts falling within tho 'iniit ..f profit of each group. In analysing the accounts submitted, the figure of profit has been arrived at liefore deducting interest on capital. or any charge for the services of the farmer, or for the unpaid services of his family. Some general questions that arise in considering the amount of profit earned are discussed in paragraph >'< »l the interim rejwrt. I have investigated certain of the accounts which showed large profits to see if any special reasons were apparent on the face of the accounts. It is somewhat difficult, from the accounts only, to ascertain the real causes, but the following are some typical notes on the various accounts : — The following are some of the results : — 1. Dairy Farm- Home Farm— 383 acres— Profit £2,334. A largely increased value taken for the live stock ; profit also made on selling Jersey cows. •_'. Mixed Farm— Owner - Occupier— 1,002 acres- Profit £3,595. Profit said to be wholly due to increased acreage of corn ; there are also heavy sales of sheep and cattle. Mixed Farm—Owner - Occupier— 288 acres- Profit £2,115. Sales of milk and corn are heavy ; the valuation is on a moderate basis and there are no special reasons shown by the account!. 4. Mixed Farm — Owner - Occupier— 1,032 acres — Profit £4,022 Increased value of live stock ; the same number of horses are increased in value by £1,000 at the end of the year ; the rent is comparatively low : there is apparently a big profit on selling cattle. 5. Dairy Farm— Owner - Occupier— 400 acres- Profit £2.324. Receipts are mostly composed of dairy produce : the rent appears to be low. I'.. Mixed Farm— Tenant— .V.i.') acres— Profit £4,.T.M i. Heavy sales of corn and stock : apparently a large profit on cattle sales. 7. Mixed Farm— Tenant— 691 acres— Profit i'.'!.x4.',. Chief sales are of sheep, cattle and oats ; tin- valuation of the sheep per head in increased nt the end of the year. i". Sheep and Corn Farm— Tenant— 71 :.' acres Profit £3,46 1.' Tli- occupier stated that this was an excep- tionally good year. The following are the reasons given by the occupier for the profit :— (1) Very good harvest, 2 qrs. of corn mor<> per acre than the average for wheat, l.ar ley and oats. (2) Good turnip crops and consequently instead of selling sheep was enabled to keep them. (3) Small lalKMir bill because it was unolitam Ill.le. . did well and had very few lone*. I .'. I Was n liable to buy cake and feeding stuffs in anything like the usual quantities. 1». Sheep and Corn Farm— Tenant — I.OM acres- Profit £1 P and barlty are the chief sales ; the valua- tion of borm is increased at the end of the vear. in. Mixed Farm— Tenant— 310 acres— Profit £1. ••;.'. Chief sales are of c..ttl. and sheep, which appar- ently make a profit ; tho valuation is on1 a moderate liasiii. 1 1 . Mixed Farm— Tenant— 73'.l acres— 1'rolii £n. The dnof sales are cereals, sheep, ami milk. Crops were good. IJ Sheep and Corn Farm— Tenant— 788 acres- Profit £3,061. I'hieflya stock-raising fnrm (cattle and sheep); big increases in t)>> he end ,,t the year : implements and tenant rights admitted to I . vritien up at the end of the year owing to the dissolution of a partner •hip. 13. Mixed Farm— Tenant— :W4 acres— Profit £1."'.'.'.. Chief sales are of dairy produce : some of the live stork is increased in value at the end of the 14. Mixed Farm— Tenant— 47« acres— Profit C-'.i.7r. Dealings in Pedigree Stock. Paragraph 6.— Losses. Of the 301 accounts received, 74 shew losses on the - working. The aggregate amount of these losses is £:;•_'. 7n;t, and the Table below shews how these losses are distnl.ut-l over Tenants, Owner-Occupiers, and Home Farms. I hav,- endeavoured to ascertain the reasons for losses by examining somewhat closely the accounts con cerned, and a subsequent Paragraph indicates some of the causes of the loss, so far as those causes can be ascertained from the face of the account No. of Amount Accounts, of I. m. Average. Tenants— England Owners— do. Home Farm% — do. Scotland Total ... ii Wales do. do. LM H 16 • »,88I 18,186 :i!M •1- 1 1 19,1 IV.'L'.i Cis 71 32.7.«. 4(2 6 (a).— N"tt* nit I'frlniii 1 •'uriHf si tt irt m/ l.iit'i^' I have investigated a numlier of the •accounts which shewed large losses to see if any sp;vial reas ,M, apparent on the face of the accounts. It is somewhat difficult, from the accounts only, to ascertain the real causes, but the following are "some typical notes on the various accounts : — l.'i. Mixed Farm — Owner - Occupier — 2"i" acres — Loss £3(11. This farmer went in for breeding Pedigree Stock. 16. Mixed Farm — Owner - Occupier — 379 acr. Loss £871. The live stock has apparently been written down at the end of the J[ 17. Mixed Farm - i >wuer ( Icciipicr 1 -_'7 acres- Loss £34:i First year's farming ; compulsory com gr<>\> is said to have involved heavy loss. 1*. Mixed Farm — Owner - Occupier — 115 acres — Loss £3:V.i. Poor crops ; cost of feeding stuffs and wages is comparatively high. I'.i. Dairy Farm -Tenant— 218 acres— Loss £:.L'«;. Deaths of c.ittlc and horses : apparently con servative valuation of live utm-k at the end of the year. i"i. Mixed Farm— Tenant— 250 acres— Loss £487. First year's farming admitted to be the cause. •_'l. Corn Farm— Tenant— 200 acres— Loss £7i.l'. Farm in bad order when taken over two years ago : now being improved. Hairy Farm -Tenant— 236 acres— Loss £47.'. No special reason apparent by these accounts for the |.>s». I Farm— Tenant— 317 acr. - I. H ';7.V.i. Apparently a conservative valuation of livestock. Ac., at the end of tin- year. 25 24. Mixed Farm— Tenant— 400 acres— LOBS £919. This farmer entered the farm only eighteen months ago ; this, and a very wet fall, the causes of the loss. Equipment was well written down. 25. Mixed Farm— Tenant — 599 acres — Loss £831. Compulsory breaking up of land for corn growing, and poor quality of labour obtainable, said to be the causes. • Grouping. The foregoing paragraphs deal with the 325 accounts as a whole, without any grouping or sub-division. In the following paragraphs (numbers 7, 8 and 9), the financial results of the accounts are grouped in three ways as follows :— r Paragraph 7. — Grouped per ••/«.<.< nf m-tupler (tenants, owners, &c.). „ 8. — Grouped per size of farm. ,. 9. — Grouped per ny*tem of farming. Paragraph 7.— Financial Results. Grouped per Clam of Occupier. The classes of occupier dealt with in this paragraph are : — Tenants— England and Wales ; Owner-occupiers—England and Wales ; Home and similar farms— England and Wales : All Scottish farms. 1 he division of owned farms lietween owner-occupiers and home farms is explained in paragraph 13 of the Interim Report, and depends whether the holding is farmed primarily from a commercial standpoint with a view to profit. . 7 (a)— (Jupii-'l («M Table 7). The capital per acre, over all the farms, is £12 ti*. (»/., the limits being £14 9*. with owner-occupiers, England and Wales, and £4 7*. ft/. home farms, Scotland. The average capital pfrfurm for all the farms is £5,313, ranging from £6,438 on home farms, England and Wales. to £3,010 on owner-occupiers farms, Scotland. As regards the /•,'/;, In comparing tin relation of the total income for the to tlie total capital employed, it will be observed from Table 27 that, as regards England and Wales. 84'76 per cent, of the tenants' capital was turned over during the year. 71 '35 per cent, of the owner-occupiers' capital, and 59- 1M per cent, of the home farm capital. A^B regards the whole of the Scottish accounts 74'95 per cent, of the capital employed was turned over during the year. 7 (bj— />A/x (** Table 7). The profit /*•/• «c/v for all farms is £1 7*. 2cf., and ranges from £2 7*. tenants, Scotland, to 13*. 'M. home farms, Scotland. The percrntaye <>f profit earned on capital for all farms is ll'Ol per cent., varying from 20'3 per cent, tenants, Scotland, to 8'3 per cent, home farms, England and Wales. The average profit (j>er farm) over all the farms is U.">>V'., the highest profit being shown by tenants, Scotland (£1,252), and the lowest by owners, Scotland (£359). Taking the accounts of /•.'//(/// * only, tenant farmers show the largest profit per acre (£1 12.«. '.)ig tin- S •' owners, England and Wales, average 403 acres. 81 home farms, England and Wales, average 509 acres. 34 Scottish farms, average 626 acres. The average of all the mixed farms (266 in number) is 408 acres, and of all the dairy farms (40 in number) 255 acres. These figures shew that the smaller size of holding is not well represented in the accounts that have been received. Paragraph 9. — Financial Results of Accounts- Grouped per type of Farm. The types of farms dealt with in this paragraph are : — Mixed, Dairy, Corn and Sheep, Sheep. Table 16 is a Final Summary of the accounts, grouped according to the type of farming carried on, and shewing bow the profit is made up. The results disclosed are : — 238 Mixed Farms, England and Wales, show a Profit per acre of £ 1 7«. -•/.. and Capital per acre £ I 36 Dairy Farms, England and Wales, Profit £1 7*. -I./. per acre and Capital £15 7«. per acre. 1>) Corn and Sheep Farms, England and Wales, Profit £1 14*. U. per acre and Capital £1'-' li'> -. '.'•/. per acre. - <>'. lish Accounts, all types, Profit of £1 4s. 11 acre and Capital £7 7*. '.hi. Table 17 shows the results of the Scottish Farms according to the type of farming. Thr li'rluli'iil of dljtilnl /•/ 7W/I-" It will be seen from Table 28 that in no case is the Capital turned over once in the year umliT r.-view. 90'19 percent, of the Capital of the Dairy Farms was tum. .1 .n'l only .'i7"J'.' per cent, in the case of the Corn and Bheep Farms. In the most common type of farm ; \od Farms, the turnover wax 7 1 '36 per cent, of the Capital. Type* — 325 /•'•< •c e -• | 6 - 1 -^ oco * 1 •/. H England and Wales — Tenant* 81 Jl P 1 115 Owner-ocoupicr- lluiue farmi ... M 71 y 3 7 — N 81 Scotland- Tenants 12 1 — — 13 Owner-occupiers Home farms '.' 7 B 1 1 13 a M6 40 17 2 Paragraph 10.— Details of Income, per Acre, and per cent. Ml Fnrmt. Table " 18 " gives details of the chief items making up the total income. Each item is worked " per acre " and in also expressed as a percentage of the total. This table is an extension of Table "D" in paragraph 7 of the Interim Report. Taking the whole of the farms, it will be seen that 48 per cent, of the total income is received from live stock. In each of the classes of farms the income from live stock is of course an important item, ranging from 43 per cent, of the total income in case of owner-occupiers, England and Wales, to 57 per cent, in case of home farms, Scotland. The income from com, hay and straw, &c. is next in order of importance ; being, in the case of the whole of the farms, 29 per cent, of the total, and ranging from 13 per cent, with owner-occupiers, Scotland, to 35 per cent. with tenant farm-'. Scotland The income from milk and dairy "produce is, on tin- average of the whole of the farms, 16 per cent, of the total. Taking the " per acre " figures, the income on the whol.- of the farms works out at £8 17s. \enditure on live stock, foodstuffs and manures, &c. represent, in each of the classes of farms, about 50 per cent, of the total, being highest in the case of tenant farms, England (."• and lowest in the cise of home farms, England, (4(> per cent.) Expenditure on live stock varies from 2H ]« i cent, with owner-occupiers, Scotland, to 34 per cent, tenant farms, England and Wales. Foodstuffs, manures, &c. vary from 18 per cent, with home farms, Scotland, to 27 per cent, with owner- occupiers, Scotland. Included with the item "Rates" is probably some insurance and possibly a little Income Tax. '• Otlu-rexpeus:-*" include. . ..< .. r pairs and maintenance, threshing, hire of tractor*, carriage, A . . Further comments on rent and wages appear in the next paragraph. Paragraph 12.— The Relation of Rent, Wages and Profits. The great majority of these farms (just over 80 per cent.) are Mixed Farms, and the particulars of the various types are shewn in the table below. 12 (a) — AV/T' -•''-' "' /'• In Table " 20 " I have segregated these three iteuiK :in :t Warwick , M 1 1 2 Westmoreland . M 1 1! 1 Wilt* g 1 .-' \V.,m-rter _ — 1 2 York ... 5 2 7 Total England ... 108 88 06 Subject. Financial results — Grouped per class owners, &c.). Table No. of occupier (tenant*. !"• ,, Expenditure per acre and per cent 19 The relation of rent, wages, and profits- Expressed in percentages -" Per acre, and per farm 21 Relation to total expenditure ... ... ... 22 Labour and equipment — Grouped per type of farm ... ... ... -.'( Grouped per class of occupier ... ... ... 24 Total numbers ... ... ... ... ... 26 97 additional accounts dealt with since submission 26 of Interim Report (see paragraph 15.) Relation of turnover to capital — Grouped per class of occupier ... ... ... 27 Grouped per type of farming ... ... ... 28 TABLE l—cantintitd. County. Tenants. tag-Imp Brecknock — — Cardigan m 2 1 Carmarthen — — — Carnarvon — 1 1 Denbigh 1 Flint ... — — — Glamorgan . — 1 Merioneth — — 1 Montgomery Pembroke 1 1 1 Radnor ... — — ' Total Wales 8 :• i SCOTLAND : Aberdeen 3 — Argyll ... 1 1 Ayr ... 1 •-' Banff ... — Berwick Bute — — _ Caithness Clackmannan . — — . — Dumbarton — — — - Dumfries 1 2 i Elgin Fife 1 1 Forfar ... i Ihi'Minjjton — -2 Inve ness — ! — Kincardine — — — Kinross ... — — — Kirkcudbright 1 1 — Lanark ... 1 — Unlithgow — Midlothian — Nairn _. — Orkney ... — I'eeblec ... — IVrlh L' Renfrew — — Carried forward TABLE 1 — continued. County. Tenants. Owners. Farm« SCOTLAND— cout. Brought forward ... Ross and Cromarty Roxburgh Selkirk Shetland Stirling Sutherland Wigton Total — SCOTLAND ... 9 9 2 — 3 1 1 — 7 15 10 7 TABLE \-cmitinved. Summary. Tenants. Owners. Home Farms. Total. England 108 83 66 257 Wales 3 5 4 12 Scotland 15 10 7 32 Total ... 126 98 77 301 TABLE 2. Comparison of Number* uf Live Stock carried per 100 Acres. BOARD OF AGRICULTURE RETURNS, 1818. AGRICULTURAL COSTINGS COMMITTEE FIGURES. England & Wales. Scotland. Great Britain. England and Wales. (291 Farms) Scotland (34 Farms) Great Britain (325 Farms) Acres. Acres. Acres. Acres. Acres. Acres. Total irea 37,137,564 19,069,683 56,207,247 118,822 21,279 140,101 Live Stock Average per 100 acres. Average per 100 acres. Average per 100 acres. Average per 100 acres. Average per 100 acres. Average per 100 acres. I Hones 3-09 •98 2-38 2-93 1-47 2-70 Cattle 16-69 6-34 13-18 16-98 9-87 15-91 Sheep 44-3ii 36-07 41-55 44-72 54-62 46-22 Pigs 4-57 •67 3-25 3-75 1-08 3-34 TABLE 3. Aggregate Total* uf Valuations — Beginning of Year (325 Farmt). Grain. Machin- Description. No. of Farms. Live Stock. Hay, Straw, to Sundry Stocks. ery Imple- ments, &c. Tenant right. Total. Per Acre. England and Wales. X. £ £ £ £ £ £ *. (I. Tenant Farmers ... 115 275,538 42,671 24,443 42,448 44,827 429.927 11 1 3 Owner Occupiers 95 . 297,487 68,695 34,967 46,247 35,063 476,459 12 8 5 Home and similar Farms 81 256,366 89,333 25,353 38,635 23,168 432,855 10 8 10 Scottish 34 102,143 16,240 4413 10,508 7397 140,701 6 12 3 Totals 325 931,534 216,939 89,176 131,838 110,455 1,479,942 10 11 3 TABLE 4. Aggregate Total* of Valuation — End of Year (325 Far/it*). Grain, Machin- j Description. No. of Farms. Live Hay, Stock. Straw, to. Sundry Stocks. ery Imple- ments, &c. Tenant right. Total. Per Acre. England and Wale*. £ £ £ £ £ £ £*.2 476,969 12 9 7 Owner Occupiers 95 320,887 95,831 44,440 51,295 37.421 549,874 ' 11 3 2 Home and similar Farms 81 288,033 120,607 31,376 47,066 27,360 •14,441 12 8 11 Scottish 34 106,214 18,173 5956 11,695 !»344 151,382 723 Totals 32.') 1,001,557 301,550 107,341 169,141 113,077 1,692,666 12 I 7 30 TABLE 5. .['• up Val e— per Fart - > •',- I'-- •'• .•..'/,/,.,•...,..• )'•<• (ivj.'i /•'./,/-). — Live Stock. Grain, EUj, Straw, &o. Sundry Stocks. Machinery Imple- ments, ice. Tenant Right Total. England and Wales :— Tenant Farmers Owner Oooapien Home Farms Scottish Totals Institutions Market Gardens 1 UN 3,131 3,165 3,094 A 371 723 1,1(12 478 £ 213 96S 313 130 £ 369 IM 477 309 £ 390 :i«;;i 217 £ 8,788 5,015 5,343 4,138 J,M;.: 667 274 t 406 340 4,.v.:i 2.653 146 908 483 270 481 351 .93 485 n 4,667 l.L'HS 1,454 705 371 228 MO 3,026 TABLE 6. Value — per Farm — of the VnlnnlinH I'm-ms). — Average Size of Farm. Live Stock. Grain, Hay, Straw, &c. Sundry Stocks. Machinery I 111] lie - incnts, &c. Tenant Eight. Total. Acres. £ £ £ £ £ £ England and Wales :— Tenant Farmers 341 2,491 582 222 614 339 4,148 Owner Occupiers 403 3,378 1,009 468 540 394 6,788 Home Farms 509 3,556 1,489 387 581 338 6,351 Scottish DM 3,124 534 175 344 275 1,461 Totals 431 3,082 MM BO • 620 348 KjMG Institutions 3,116 1,203 15 391 779 5,504 Market Gardens — 124 772 512 103 33 1,544 Total — 1,685 997 252 253 422 B,eo> TABLE 7. Capital and Profit— All Farms. Shewing (1) Amount ; (2) Per Acre ; (3) Per !•'«, ,«. •« CAPITAL AT END OP YEAR. PROFIT FOB THE YEAB. o . s § Average <;•». 1 »^- iMjte of Farm. ACT.-. Acreage. Amount. Per Acre. Per Farm. Amount Kate per cent, on Per Acre. Per Farm. f-4 Capital. £ £ ,. ,1. £ • A ». d. £ 116 341 Tenant Farmers, England and 39,270 494,588 12 11 10 4,300 64,253 12-9% I 12 9 5M Wales. 13 IM Tenant Farmers. Scotland ... 6,924 80,040 11 11 '2 6,157 16,280 196 270 1,252 95 4113 Owner Occupiers, England 38,309 658,529 14 9 0 6,887 56,342 10-1% 1 9 5 KM and Wales. 13 453 Owner Occupiers, Scotland ... 5,892 40,177 f, ir. I 3,010 4,671 11-696 16 10 359 81 50» Home and Similar Farms, 41,243 Hl,487 12 12 11 6,438 43,141 8-896 1 0 11 5U England and Wales. 8 LjOM Home and Similar Farms. MM 37.0.-.:, 4 7 ii l/M 5,611 15-1% lit :t 701 Scotland. Ml 431 Total 140,101 1,726,876 12 il >•• 6,313 1!)0,298 11-0196 1 7 2 586 31 TABLE 8. Number of Accounts Showing Profits. Profits Grouped, in Order of Amount. — ENGLAND AND WALES. SCOTLAND. TOTAL. Tenants. Owners. Home Farms. All Classes. All Classes. £ From 1 to 100 „ 101 „ 200 11 6 3 9 8 3 7 3 5 3 11 8 7 7 7 5 4 1 I 3 5 2 9 5 11 2 4 3 5 3 6 3 3 4 1 11 6 5 1 3 2 2 1 3 2 4 4 3 21 20 11 to 12 14 14 14 13 4 35 23 26 „ 201 „ 300 301 „ 400 401 500 501 600 601 700 701 800 ... . 801 900 901 1,000 1,001 1,500 1,501 2,000 Over 2,000 Total accounts (representing 247 farms) ... — — — 227 TABLE 9. England, Wales and Scotland — All Classes (if Farms (3-25 Farms). SUMMARISED INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT. TABLE W—corUinKed, England and Wales — Tenant Farmers — (115 Farms) — continued. SUMMARISED INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT — Expenditure. Ineuni''. Per Acre. PerFarn Live stock Feeding stuffs, manures. Sic. ... Wages, Board and allowances Rent Rates &c Other expenses ... Total CM in in c nc ing valuation Profit Total £ 341,623 896,608 310,536 126,104 20,113 169,078 Live stock Milk and dairy produce Corn, hay, straw, roots, &c. Other receipts ... Total Closing valua- tion ... Total £ 686,197 1117,193 366,305 90,!»41 Excess of income over £ expenditure 17,211 Increase in closing valua- tion 47,042 £ *. d. 089 1 3 11 £ 149 409 Net surplus or profit 64,253 1 12 8 558 1,240,636 1,692,666 Acreage ... 39,270. Number of farms ... 115 TABLE 11. 1,263,062 1,479,942 190,298 2,933,302 2,933,302 I Per Acre. Per Farm. Deficiency of income over £ £ 1, d. £ *. d. expenditure 22,426 0 3 1 69 0 1 UM. Increase in closing valua- tion ... ... ... 212,724 1 10 4 654 10 8 Net surplus or profit 190,298 1 7 I 585 10 7 Acreage 140,101. Number of farms 325 TABLE 10. "till Widen — Tenant Farmers (115 Farms'). SUMMARISED INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT. £ Total expenditure 401,98') Com me nc i ng valuation ... 429,927 Total... Profit Total... H31.910 64,253 H96.163 Total income ... Closing valua- tion Total £ ll'.M'.H 896,163 SUMMARISED INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT. Expenditure. Income, Total «!xpenditure Commencing valuation £ 412,029 476,459 Total income ... Closing valuation £ 394,9.>6 549,874 Total Profit 888,488 56,342 944,830 Total 944,830 Per Acre. Per Farm. Deficiency of income over expenditure. Increase in closing valua- tion. Net surplus or profit ... £ 17,073 Loss 73,415 £ s. d. 8 11 1 18 4 £ IsO 773 56,342 1 9 5 593 Acreage : 38,309. Number of farms : 95. TABLK IS. Wain— I lam r and tiwilar farm* i - • |N< .'MK \\i> Kxi'Ksi-irrio: A KruenJUun: linvmr. Total expenditure :t!7".v, Total income ... *i*.r.|l Commencing Cloning valuation 514.441 valuation 432.855 Proflt 43.141 Total 823,052 Totul 823,053 TABLK r.'— ••••in. Per A Farm. — i — ... « ..I incomi - i !•'• 18 • . \iM-iKlituro. I."-- Increase in closing valua- H1.586 I 1'.' 7 I'«i7 tinii. irplun or profit .. (3.111 1 " 11 Acreage: 41. W>. NumU-r of farm- TABLE 13. o/' /Vi/j/ (3-'.ri F.I i ;;»«). to (1) fturplut of Income over ; ('2) Increase in CI Dwner Occupier, England and 38,309 Deficiency 17.n::i 179 78,418 772 .•.r,.:u.' Wales. 13 Owner Occupier, Scotland Surplus ... 3.7!Hi 291 881 87 4.'-,71 -I Home and similar farms, England 41,243 Deficiency 38,415 474 -I..-.M; l,iKt7 (8,141 BSI and Wales. 8 Home and similar farms, Scotland 8.463 Surplus ... 1,973 246 8,688 454 5,611 roi 325 Total, all classes 140,101 Deficiency -'L'.IL'I; Deficiency 88 flS,1S4 884 utn.iitK TABLE 14. Aver- ••/< ".I rari'iiix t TVI-K OF FARMS. TENANTS. Owmn-Ocoupn us. HUMK. SCOTTISH. TiiTAL. } Mixed »l 24,13? 297 56,668 415 71 33,210 46« 2- .v,i; h's.cir 4l>S Dairy 24 5,718 9 2,64fi 294 3 618 2i«; 4 1,198 299 M 10,808 Corn and Sheep ... 9 5,6*8 (66 — — — 7 7,385 1.055 1 '.MS B46 17 14,324 Sheep 1 8,427 3,427 — — - — 1 3,«48 2 7.o7.-, Total 115 39,27d 341 95 38,309 I 403 81 41,243 i 509 34 21,279 626 32.-. 140,101 431 TABLK i:.. .. l-ii' Com- Profit. Capital. No. of Forms. Average MM. Vmhu- Total Expen- Total Income. Valuation at Em). tion. Per Acre. — Per Acre. Acres. £ t - il. ed under Types uf Farm* (e.g. Mixed Dairy. ^- 1 2 1 t ii » i A i * u J H V H o H O H J ' H , o H o •8 o •3 «w o "o o * I & & * 1 R (S * . (S so e- 1 * 0H £ ». d. £ *. d. £ *. d £ *. d. C 1. .•/. £ *. d. £ *. d. Live stock 28 287 34 3 10 4 25 1 19 1 24 2 12 7 20 0 17 'i 23 1 18 10 30 0 15 2 Feeding etnffs, manures. 23 222 22 2 :t 0 2>i 204 26 2 14 11 27 1 n 2 23 1 H 8 18 0 9 4 mfe Wages, board, and 24 2 4 i 20 230 23 1 15 7 25 2 14 2 20 0 18 3 29 2 8 1 25 0 12 11 aliowancec. Rent in 0 18 1 10 I 1 10 U 0 J8 5 9 1 0 0 10 093 10 0 16 2 13 0 6 7 Rates 2 0 2 11 1 032 1 10 1 8 2 037 1 0 1 3 2 030 1007 Other eipentes 13 1 1 2 13 1 2 10 13 0 19 1 14 1 9 10 22 1 0 0 18 1 3 6 13 0 6 0 Total (00 903 100 10 4 8 100 7 14 2 10) 10 15 1 1 06 411 6 100 883 100 2 11 1 TABLE L'<>. The Rflalinn nf ];,nt. \\',iifff, niiil Profit* rsprrttfil I'M Perrntiagtt (All Farm*). — All ClMMS. Trn&nts. Owner Oocupien. Ilium- anil similar Farms. Kntrlatul and Wales. Scotland. England and Wales. Scotland. England and Wales. Scotland. Bent Wage* Profit Per cent. 31 49 80 Per cent. n 44 34 Per cent 18 35 47 Per cent. 19 52 29 Per cent. 31 43 37 IVr cent. 19 11 24 Per cent. M 39 41 Total Rent, Wages, \ Profit-* / 100 100 100 100 10(1 100 IIKI TABLE 21. The Relation of Rent, Waget, Profit*. (1) Pfr Acre; (2) Per Fan,,. He*»H» of 325 F< — Bent. Wages. Profit. Total. Per Acre. Per Farm. Per Acre. Per Farm. Per Acre. Per Farm. Per Acre. IVrFarm. Tenant Farmers — England and Wales Scotland £ t. d. 1 1 10 0 18 6 £ 373 492 £ /. rf. 232 1 15 7 m 947 * >. d. 1 12 9 272 £ 559 1252 £ ,. d. 4 17 9 5 1 2 £ 1669 2691 Owner Occupiers— England and Wales Scotland 1 0 0 093 403 209 2 14 1 0 18 3 1091 414 1 fl 5 0 1.1 10 593 m 5-36 184 2087 983 Non-Resident Owners — England and Wales Scotland Total 0 16 2 067 405 350 2 8 1 0 12 11 1224 684 1 0 11 0 13 3 526 701 452 1 1L> '.» 2166 1788 0 18 0 387 244 964 1 7 2 586 197 IM7 TABLE 22. The Relation of Rent — Wages — and all other Expenditure. (1) In £. (2) In Percentages. Results <>f 325 Farms. TENANT. OWNER OCCUPIER. HOME AND SIMILAR FA mis . ALL CLASSES. England and Wales. Scotland. England and Wales. Scotland. England and Wales. Scotland. *°* *3 £ •33 £ "8 £ £ o-i — o £ £ ol" £ £ = 3 £ £*H $£ ^ «e ^£ ^H ^£ Bent 10 126,104 10 42,716 12 6,385 9 38,288 10 2,721 in 33,197 13 i'.;:': Wages 24 310,536 20 84,528 23 12.31'J u 103,667 L'u 5,382 29 99,172 25 5,468 All other expenses 66 826,422 70 274,739 65 34,697 66 270,074 70 18,866 61 214,687 (12 13,3511 TOTAL EXPENSES 100 1,263,062 100 401,983 100 63.401 100 412,029 100 26,969 100 347,056 100 21,«24 . TABLE 23. Summary nf Farm Labour mul (1) Per 100 Acres. (2) Per Farm. iir»nj>ed, per Type of Farm, e.g. Mixed, Dairy, ,(-c. li'.-iillf nf 'JlU NUMBERS. PER 100 AOBK8. Number £ I Women Women i Women ,- Type of Farm. of 1 1 Men. and _ — Men. and I Men. and I Farms. •< • ll,,y-. l!oy-. m Bogr& i Mixed... 216 JM.W7 1,719 1,930 682 M •'I 1-9 9 2-7 8 Dairy n 8,296 176 203 76 2-4 •9 2-1 M 2-3 B'l Sheep and Corn 14 12,043 260 258 56 2-1 •5 2-2 18-4 4 18-0 Shif p 2 7,076 10 14 3 \ •08 •1 7 1 5 264 119,410 2,Hi5 Moe 716 1 •6 1-8 M 27 8-2 A\ KKAI.K I-ER FAH.M. 35 TABLE 24. Summary of Farm Labour and Horses. (1) Per 100 Acres. (2) Per Farm. (rrouped per Clots of Occupier, e.g. Tenant, Owner, &c. Results of 264 Farms. Per 100 Acres. Per Farm. . Number Women of Farms. Acreage. Horses. Men. and Boys. Men. Women and Horses. Men. Women and Horses. Boys. Boys. Tenants ... 98 34,600 712 742 230 2-1 •7 2-1 7-6 2-3. 7-3 Owner occupier ... 79 38,874 732 840 261 2-5 ! -8 2-2 10-6 3-3 9-3 Home farms 62 33,093 565 683 160 2-1 •5 1-7 11 2-6 9-1 Scottish 25 17.843 156 140 65 •8 •4 •9 5-6 2-6 6-2 TOTALS ... 264 119,410 2165 2405 716 2 •6 1-8 9-1 2-7 8-2 TABLE 25. Aggregate Totals of Farm Labour and Equipment. Results of 264 Farms. No. of Farms. No. of Accounts. Class of Farms. EQUIPMENT. LABOUR. Steam Engine. Trac- tors. Working Horses. Oil Engines. Horse- men. Cattle- men. Shep- herds. General Labour. Total Men. Women Boys. Total Women & Boys. 98 79 62 25 90 73 56 22 E. &W. Tenants. E. 4 W. Owner Occupier. E. * W. Home Farms. Scottish. 21 12 11 3 28 31 37 1 712 732 565 156 6 7 6 226 233 206 71 159 146 120 29 59 46 57 17 298 415 300 23 742 840 683 140 117 151 82 52 113 110 78 13 230 261 160 65 264 241 — 47 97 2,165 19 736 454 1T9 1,036 2,405 402 314 716 TABLE 26. Financial Retulti. 97 Additional Accounts, Representing 130 Farm*. No. of Average ai~e» Profits. Capital. Farms. Acres. Total. Per acre. % on Capital Per acre. Per farm. England and Walea : — Tenant Farmers Owner-Occupiers Home Farms All Scottish Farms Co-operative Farms ... Institutional and Municipal Farms 16 12 10 9 59 24 518 304 326 278 205 210 £ 4,072 2,626 5,564 5,613 30,883 32,935 £ >. d. 0 9 10 0 13 10 1 14 1 2 4 10 2 11 0 6 10 5 7-68 4-74 9-29 15-62 12-69 27-3 £ 52,977 53,255 59,896 35,936 243,261 120,615 £ *. d. 678 14 11 8 18 7 3 14 6 11 20 2 1 23 17 7 £ 3,311 4,438 5,989 3,993 4,123 5,026 130 268 81,593 269 14-42% 565,940 16 4 7 4,353 TABLE 27. Relation of Turnover to Capital. ( 1 fiuped per Class of Occupier. Number of Farms. Income. Capital. Per Cent, of Income to Capital. • England and Wales — 115 95 81 34 £ 419,194 394.956 308,611 117,875 £ 494,588 553,529 521,487 157,272 84-76 71-35 59-18 74-95 All Farms . ... 325 1,240,636 1,726,876 71-84 . — Thi» Table was not before the Royal Commission when evidence was given on the Final Report. TABLE •>* of Tiimnrfr <•• 'o. 8. 1) M Owner Occupier ... 835 »' No. I.— • Farm, 739 A erf*. — Receipt* **— Halatce. Debit Balance. £ £ £ £ 1909 2,7 ifi 2.697 7- — 1910 2,627 1,988 411 1911 2,527 2,841 313 11'12 3,120 2.976 143 • 1913 3,238 3.013 224 — inn 3,769 3,947 — 1915 4,826 3,181 l/.ll — 1916 4,9«4 M.Tti- 1,196 — 1917 4,667 4^84 3X2 — 19IX 6,161 4,63S 1,:.25 ^~ \ ,,/, . — The Valuation» «re not t;ikm into account in these fipnr.-~ No. 2.— Mij-ril h'liriH—Chcnfr-Oi-i-iijiirr — 620 Arrrt. Stock llentf. Pay- In Year ending at t-V.n- io. owing menu «, . . during Total' during Stock at end. Total. Oraii proflt. BOON tax Nrt profit. Net ninu'. at end venr. \ • . r < £ £ it £ £ £ £ £ • 1 c 6th April 1913 — ,570 B.T81 io,3.-,3 10.123 — 230 i:. — 24.'. i y 1 4 6,3118 ,251 "..114 12,7'J3 ;,2ic. I2..->7o — 223 20 — ' 243 Ml 15 7,211', ,382 2,927 11,526 8,161 6,816 11 '.171 446 — 30 416 — 1916 6,816 ,217 8,908 12,021 .",.:"...'. 7,2lf, 12.:. 12 .",21 — 2i «i 32 1 — '.'17 7,246 ,312 8,801 12,361 7,168 7,:.:.7 11,712 — 22o 2,131 — ., 1VI8 7,5.17 2,077 8,888 13.172 8,7*0 7,064 !',*L' 880 332 — ,. 1919 7,064 l,12i; 13.4.-.H I0.42S 8.T18 l.i.l 13 2,HK7 — 7:,o 1,937 — Estimated 1X20 5,715 IflOO 12.21.-, 6,600 — 15 7:.o — Totiil 48,012 10,935 38,949 •.'7,8'..., 104,115 6687 468' 2,335 5,187 1,25-J Average 6,001 1,369 4,868 12,237 r,.3oo 6,714 13,014 835 58 292 «I2 157 37 No. 3.— Mixed Tenant (287 Acres). Xo. 4. — Mixed Farm — Owner-Occupier — 302 Acres. — PROFIT. CAPITAL. June 30th, 1911 308 (Loss) 3,912 , 1912 134 (Profit) 4,380 1913 301 „ 4,063 1914 99 „ 3,650 1915 528 „ 3,713 , 1916 87 ,. 3,446 AVERAGE PROFIT ACCOUNT. £ *. d. Year 1917 ... 15fi 6 0 „ 1918 ... 216 15 3 „ 1919 ... 324 13 7J 3) 697 14 10J 3 years' Average 23211 7 Deduct Interest A/c. 195 9 0 37 2 7 CAPITAL ACCOUNT. £ *. d. June 30, 1916 3,740 18 1 „ 1917 3,958 19 8 „ 1918 4,027 5 10 3) 11,727 3 7 3 years' Average 3,909 1 2 Five per cent."* Interest on > 195 9 0 £3,909 1*. 2d.) Ytar endiiig March 25th. Profit. Loss. 1910 ... £ *. d. 158 2 4 £ s. d. 1911 63 10 11 1912 281 10 10 1913 361 12 7 1914 ... 479 4 0 1915 359 2 5 1916 6,18 2 3 1917 1,362 5 5 1918 ... 1 592 12 5 1919 1,641 4 11 • 6,655 17 3 281 10 10 £6,374 6 5 = 10 years' profits. The drought of the present summer is suggestive of 1911, which resulted in a loss on the year's accounts. No. 5 — Mixed Farm -Tenant — 599 Acres. Expenditure and Receipts for 1913-14 and 1918-19. Expenditure on 1913-14. 1917-18. Receipts for 1913-14. 1917-18. £ >. d. £ >. d. £ j>. d. £ *. d. Cake 252 0 0 280 0 0 Milk 1.249 5 11 2,271 1 2 Cotton cake 98 0 0 60 0 0 Beast 2,035 9 6 2,075 17 0 Dairy cake 230 0 0 68 0 0 Sheep 555 17 0 486 0 0 Bran 30 0 0 1:10 0 0 Horses 84 0 0 75 0 0 Grain 64 0 0 140 0 0 Corn 65 14 6 487 10 5 Labour 9'.i8 0 0 1,987 13 0 Wool 114 7 9 97 7 3 Rent 685 (• 0 685 0 0 Sundries 13 6 0 '__ Taxes 64 10 0 131 16 9 Rates 61 4 0 77 18 0 Tradesmen's bills 70 0 0 175 4 2 Snndriea 89 14 0 201 19 2 Seedc, &c 120 10 0 47 18 0 Rail bills 86 4 2 96 2 4 Purchase 1 Beast 1,027 5 0 1,669 5 9 Road costs, &c 50 13 0 — Implements 48 16 0 — Total 3,928 16 2 5,650 17 2 Total 4,118 0 8 5,492 15 10 Valuation. Description. 1913-14. 1917-18. Number. Value per Head. Total. Number. Value per Head. Total. 18 78 15 56 300 313 6 1 140 £ s. d 45 0 0 25 0 0 20 0 0 180 0 250 1 10 0 500 7 10 0 050 700 0 0 £ ». d. 810 0 0 1,950 0 0 300 0 0 1,008 0 0 675 0 0 469 10 0 30 0 0 7 10 0 35 0 0 1,025 0 0 1,497 10 0 11 6 4 86 10 36 14 258 148 4 3 150 £ i. d. 60 0 0 50 0 0 30 0 0 28 0 0 28 10 0 30 0 0 11 10 0 2 10 0 1 15 0 500 10 0 0 066 £ i. d. 660 0 0 300 0 0 120 0 0 2,408 0 0* 285 0 0 1,260 0 0 161 0 0 645 0 0 254 0 0 20 0 0 30 0 0 48 15 0 950 0 0 987 0 0 Do Do Cattle— Cows... ... ... Fatting beast* Do. do Sheep- Ewes Lambs Rams Pigs- Sow Poultry... .... Implements and machinery — Tractor Engine and thresher Other implements and machinery per acre. (Included in total.) Tenant Right — Much more hay and manures in 1914 than this year. 8,129 0 0 2,651 0 0 Totals 7,807 10 0 10,779 15 0 Very poor this year. - r. /" ^ to o |K S -? '*- I - •*! £ 9 llBt-9161 • r- O oo «• I "I t.oo» 0 1 «I$a r, « - - 2 *« p> 1 \ 06 JL e» •^-. — «« — 0 Ot- ,,• to O oo oo O ON 5« S 3 S »o5 «1 .» N »«_ — . 0. 0 | 1C — 1 1 1 1915-16. ,. 00 00 « 0 JO §1 M t> O fe ' 5 5 JS SB •sue to — 06 c-r - «> 1 i to * 8 z^ -^ a «• 0> --•*—•- O l- C. lO IO to " O» CO CO O» W CO 00 ; 1 I »" J 2 •1J — 10 0 -1 t- 0 • »« O 00 F« M " 1 ^SSS S S | o ! o s Ob" < i 'tils i • og|?!t Is • - -1 o> p— 1 *>H H- = e?» o >o to o ocx* ooo ?5 to x N S ^* oo •— >o ^^ co o — " is" ^ p-4 30 9 •WOMOCOl-O «OO O O 1-1 r* ~ «O* eo • yt 2. i • 1916-17. TJ - •» to t- -f tc *O— IOO •»"* i-tr-t i-t 1^ i P4M 1 t^ipieoao totot- 1 o t- ' =052*00 "°S2 o? o « I s" tH 1915-16. •<» O to f> t- " 10 « M C* — — tC .jONtO'WOlt- tOt-IO CCNIO o IM 00 10 5 WOU5OOOOO COO*! .^N^ §C« — O> W IO « CO 09 t- '.- — C • X B 3 bt oi oo — oos ^ ^ t» ^.* 00 r.' 1913-14. *^ O 91 V ^* O O ^ t— C* — r :'. ^: ^3_4OD'i«'C4~* <«iaO*O»OC7OO §ro — — CO co O09>»qaor~r-io to oo co r ^ ^ i '" *2 «""" " * w"^ O 0 06" :J3--- a : : : • .4 Jill • • n ». S i 2 "V •; "3 o — -- * * *-_<£> t- — — r^ .- r aoc-cno fe | '|S S a ? s t k M j ;-M 3 U • •i H Z o S * § 2 C ^ • •! . 'II si If 1 ^•: o »o ec t* o tr t- -^ t 1- - ~ '. i ~ — - ti r. — r. •; i •- * OS "O •«• CO O 0> * •« N O « 00 m — 15 !C « i2O3O~HQO»tO-*'COOClO'~ §!C!C-fOWXaOtOCO OS CO (O -^ -*•£•! — t~ iGCNOOO^tOCO — , r. - r. i i^ i-^ c-. ic i- '•: — — cs tomooioo 39 « « o -c o T. to CM -H o oo i— cc i * O •* CM O i-i b- •— i CO 0 O — 00 ^H cc CM b- t- ce o OO to CM* -r low ~~ O O OS tO i-< CC C 1C •-< cccoocstoo, 1 1-. rH 1 O) CM CO 00 00 OS CO i— CC O ^* OS b- OS -+• ec CM" ~ cc oT Ci C; re O co CM O t- « N .= ^ t- b. o | o> o -r re re ro -jc i- ^H CM CM OO CM CO O t-« CO b- i— i CM OS -H" PH" of t>r us cc u; CM re oo o CO 01 — OS O 12 CC O I ** — i-< 1 s p-i b- ^^ Q ^H u; ir; « 5 ^ PH us" — ^ us b- to as c N rH OS CO r- — i CM O | H >-« b* an GO ci os co us b» 1C -f OS ~- OS O i. •H* -»• b-ooec roooo OS •* O-^ CO 00 CM O 1 r- rH rH CO co -f os re re »o o b* CO 00 ^_^ § 3, CO CO O CC r- O O rH rH 0 0 0 tC CO u; CO 0 | s co en ao CM o i-* u; OS b* K) **" r-, 3D O t- •"• eo" o 1 e^ r i i i "* i • c " -I s > : o : 1 .' . H i «iH. O S c o : 8 » tS-§ 1 II&|flM « ' • ^6370 OS O ** M OOOOOOOr^t^OscO OOCMO i— i IS tO LC t- ^ o o o o o re b— CM os cc o o b» o ^ rH rH rn 1 OS 00 >O oo to o oq^o^o^ to CO CMOOb.CMCCO'fOiO —i Ob-OCM -**os^-*ir; b-^CMb- o CMco^-4-^1 CO ^ ,-, CM ,3rt ~!r S iC O t- o O CO O O » O O rt rtO OO O o »O CO »O b- O N O O — i O O (N OO OO O ^, ^^ 1— 1 b« -^ CM b- oc ^ re 1 WINCCOICC^OO-^ ^ to Ot- C^lOOd Oi C^«5_^ •• S *f CM" CO 1-1 os m pi « ~ CO • CM CC »c OOOOO'-COO«C»O — UC -Ht-o CO s ^^ III 1 CC CC 3 re — _ —r OS Cft. co" S CN_S S " S 00. S CC " O> OS CO i -r — — • u: o o co o CO r- i- — r. Z ^022«=>W*0|0| | | | | s X 2|=| -f CO CO >C CM CO OS 1 • — ~ '* »o" "H Z ic ic »o oocoootoooeo o CO 3 CQ ^- ~- i— ' •^ OOOU3OOOOb-CO O •**< ^H I-< f* ^H i-^ r-* || IO N OO t-to >o QO 00 O^ I »O CC -f CM "" CM C^'-O CM OS OS •* 10" l-H ^H : : : . : :::::::::::::: i : : 1 stii""T*y*st*i|J* 1 1 So " ® 3 : : : : :^ : : . gj> • • • -^ « i* •2 ,:: -u - : -j £ Bank overdra: Sundry credit Capital A/c at 6 I 2 40 00 o> ^ o — x oo o t- w » tc •- §« t- o >- ic te ic co » « «e -i -: oo wo-, jp A tc j~ ^^ ^* t* c* t*« ** eft c ic co O ^ ri .-. •*• at a . ^ C C4 — O O Ol — 0> « C 10 1C A tO O 00 10 A — A o n t- c?» 10 i- -c •»• 10 eo t- co CO CJ MS OS 1C U5 X CO W to r* tO 1^ ^- C4 -r — O iS1 CO OJ| f-« lO^CA 74 •*. I^RS ^1 S5 ^. eo" --." — — ' JfS ^- — i*» 8 3> ~.' m*>ooo — ic •» t- — x c to o to o te x CM 3> -- ci so c C4 -f in icoot^ on CO ^^ 7> O CO X 10 3* i** >- 1C 74 b— O O ' — CO — • CC t^ ^* IO — 74 b* IO ^* l~» CO Cl 1O CO C|| £1°,0>,", 00 rH CO IO O 71 oco , - i - o'o" g e> § 10' •^ •*• CJJ — X tOtOOOXtO OAtOX " 'ff«I Ji ! ' 'f eo -»« is1 t- 9> « X S ^ oooiomo IOOW^C^A oo co c o o •-* • ooccoc^eo tooicecccco *i T — • i - c oo H ^ .-^ ^ ^^^- | 00 N r- M Cl UiOOCCC^OOiO O^--COO CO -j .XTt^'C1^ N C4COb-> »-7 »C "*«»O t» »0 •* t- 00 r-i i-< Oi (M CO 10 i c o t-"o'— " oo" cri A lO-PtO01CC t» N M CO eO X ONO51O «O H ^ P-^H^ — ^ | f5>C*OtOQO ^« O» •*••"»• X C4 CC t- ^- ^t -f tO -., N n O tO (O OC4t-COU5O OOOO «O U7 O QO^OQ ^i tO C4 94 46 04 CO to t- o t^ t* tc io"oo" o ^ O«t*-P-O ^-fO^tOO OOOC»O tOOO O X •* te -•• t- X o" s **O>tOOl'*< -f-*»C5OCON -ft-.C4tCiS t^ — ™ t-* CO GO ob en « ? i — o -»• -t- •— ?: to»a ^ — — d 51 CO 74 l~ O te"x" M 3. tQ : : : : : :::::: : : : : be : : 0} a •c H £ | ^ || .1- RECEIPTS DUBI J i^ S J-1 ~£~1| j ia I's't i i^j s*iM?i"iiii'i^' 3 o o s Total receipts ... Valuation at end of ' Balance being Low . H ^ Wx •e t- Wen ~ A oovooeo c « f. » o> t£ 7) 080 10 « « n te M Slils 04" e«T O X O -r o o o 10 o m A 1C •*• 74 tC Ot, - - CO ••»• 74 I- O -" « N — M C N — m o> SX lit -f CO 74 — — M - 00 -f - 7. — 71 O CO 00 N t- C •« •»••*» o » tr •* -j c^ « t- r- 9» o> co i- « -« — -< o x •* »•* O» O> X — • t^ w to x •— r r- r r- x 'O :' to_— «o_ 04" — ' K '-. - ± i p - 0 ||«as.2 ,1 S *||f|l 1 « gK^^ol 41 01 t- ! W iO Ci — ' GO -* co ••* t- c?i o ^H ocneo^eoooco CO « 50 t~ i— cNCCCiia»-' co i— U5 CO •«*« O *-l ^•t ^ • - -~ .- — C» CO —i SO t> W 00 »0 CO i-< •— 1 I-H O Ol !-» I — i- — • CO OO t- O i-l 1C O !§§ l-vr G «O 3> O t0 . M 0» W CA 04 t* ^ ^ ^ ^ " | | N O O> 00 9» <* C4 •*< CO eoo »c o i-i r - :- — . ,-. X« 8,-co^. >-O5>c co — c^ao ^fO'* oo M-Hr-. w O*-«t-«Oi-" CO t- WGCOSOOO ---.-: ao •* to cq A *-4 co ~ — t - Z -^ 8 • " Clt-OtOO t* O» s 3 - lUllt = 15 !! : : n^ 2 ¥ I-S & - VOLUME INDEX. NOTE. — A full i«n-:\\AKT; Gilbert DAVIDSON and 1). Me I.AUI..V ou behalf of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland 14,340-14,881, App. 1. Agricultural depression ... ... 14 1-12-14,444 Arable land, conversion to grans ... 14.010-14,661 Barley, prices 14,481 C outs of production : Enquiry, difficulties 11,392-14,394 Explanation of figures t>ub- mitu-d 14,358-14,368, 14,409-14,418, 14,420-14,438, 14,459- 14,460, 14,490A-14,4fc6. 14,503-14,606, 14,659-14,665, 14,702-14,717, 14,768, 14,777-14,783, 14787-14,801, 14,844- 14,850, 14,788-14,793, 14,814-14,824 Value 11,342-14,354 Drainage, State loan desirable ... 14,<197-14,498 Education rates ... 14,454-14,458, 14,864-14,872 fallowing J4,543-14,544 Farmers : AcopunUteepiiig ... 14,369-14,371 Attitude as regards Government interference or free market... 14,675-14,089 Balance sheets 14,355-l7, 14,741-14,717, 14,844-14,849 Hours 14,379-14, :M. 14,446-14,461, 14,612-14,620, 14,718, 14,721-14,725, 14,875-14,879. Implements 14,358-14,364, 14,416-14,418, 14,769-14,771. Labour: Casual 14,599-14,608 Coste 14,559-11,560, 14,690-14,697 Increased staffs 14,583-14,586, 14,695-14,608 Land: Leasehold system 14,531-14,533 Purchases by farmers 14,384-14,385, 14,608-14,'. 1 2 Sales ... 14,632-14,663, 11,807-14,813 Security of tenure 14,654-14,658, 14,631-14,633 Livestock, oosta . 14,702-14,710, 14,797-14,801 Date, cost of production and prices, etc 14,395-M.I<>2 14,436-14,438, 14,478-14,480, 14,778- 14,780, 14,851-14,853. Overtime 14,445, 14,462-14,463, 14,199-14,602 Potatoes, cost of production and price. 11.;. 14,469-14,476, 14,477, 14,562-14.563 Prices 14,552 Profit* . 14,726-14,728, 14,765-14,766 Rates 14,818 Rente 14,506-14,507, 11.528-14,530 Shoep keeping 14,637, 14,539-14,642, 14,711-14.717 Turnip. 14,429-14.431, 14,738-14,740 \VoK«-.« ...14,439-14,441. 14,650-14,663, 11,734-14,737 ALLISON, J., JUN.— continued. Wheat, cost of production, prices, etc 14,39S-14,402, 14,432-14.434, 14,781. 14,483-14,485, 14,487-14,490, 14,851-14,858. (.AliDNKK, .lame:., representing tin- National Farmers' Union of Scotland 12,742-13,439 i;\p, ni 11. ,• ;i- Chairman of District Agricultural Wages CommitU-c ... 13.2 1 1 13,24 Si/,. ,,f f iirm, class of land, rent, &c. 13,207-13,222 Agricultural depression, '80's uud '90's 13,179-13,189 Agricultural development, impor- tance of, and means ... ... 12,809-12. >• In Agricultural Holdings Act 12,866, 13,025-13,045 Agricultural stagnation ... ... 13,42 AraMe land, conversion to grass ... 13,304, 13,3-V.I Heet 13,347-13,350 Capitalisation of industry 12,926 Compensation for unexhausted manures ... 12,862-12,869,13,029-13,046 Co-operation ... 13,013-13,014,13,157-13,168 Co-operative creameries 12,997- 12,998, 13, 148-1 3. 1.'* i Cost of production 12,749-12,750, 13,339-13,344 Education, lectures, *<•. 12,746, 12.7H>, 12.95.-,, 13,10.-, 13,120, 13,234-13,237, 13,249-13,259. Farmers, Scottish: Attitude us regards State Inter- ference ... 12,804-12,807, 12,880- 12,881, 12,902-12,904, 12,964-12,967, 13 121—13 123 Effects of war on attitude of ... 13,318-13,344 Farms, equipment, drainage, Ac. ... 12,746, 1-'. 7 78-12, 785, 12,984-12,989, 13,021- 13,023, 13,309. decreased Fertility of land 12,958- 12,959, 13,010-13,012 Foreign competition ... 13,178-13,183, 13,420 (la me, destruction of crops by, and proposed remedies ... 18,748, l'J,7Sii I2.7!)4, 12,870-12,879, 12,916-12,917, 13,086 13,103, 13,184-13,186, 13,201-13,204. Germany, agriculture ... ... 13.137 Guaranteed Price : Amount 12,762,12,961-12,963, 12,968-12,969, 12,975-12,977, 13,139- 13,141, 13,177, 13.223, 13,292-13.2:* I. 13,420. Basis ... 12,978-12,983, 13,173-13,176, 13,224-13,226 Connection with system of land tenure 13,430 13,436 Need for ... 12,811-12,830, 12,984, 13,166- 13.168, 13,190, 13,296-13,317, 13,325- 13,344, 13,368-13,366, 13,418-13,427, 13. 128-13,429. Period 13,139-13,140, 13,234 Itcsults 13,298, 13,307-13,308 Subsiding of other industries 13,303, 13,310, 13,314-13,317 Horse labour ... 12,757, 12,848-12,849, 13,000- 13,007, 13,238-13,241 Hours : Comparison with industrial work 12,842, 12,893-12,901 Details 12,882-12,883 Reduction ... 12,764, 12,756-12,757, 12,843-12,847, 12,886-12,892, 12,918- 12,919, 12,936. Settlement by Voluntary Dis- trict Conciliation Com- mittees ... 12,756, 12,831-12,835, 13,267-13,277, 13,389-13,397 Implements, price, Ac. 12,767, 13.23^13.241, 13,261-13,263 INDEX. 11 GARDNER, JAMES— continued. Intensive cultivation 13,298, 13,382-13,386 Labour 13,396 decreased Efficiency ... 13,288, 13,291 Irish .' 13,279-13,283 Labour employed, details and in- creased cost ... 13,215, 13,284-13,288, 13,398-13,402 Land : Purchases by farmers ... 12,852-12,853, 13,373-13,374, 13,436 Rates ... 12,745, 12,772A, 12,850-12,853 Tenure : Arbitration Board, pro- posal 12,911, 12,777, 12,914-12,915, 13,046-13,082, 13,037-13,082 Leasehold system 12.772A, 12,856-12,857, 12,860-12,869, 12,929-12,935, 13,191-13,200, 13,436. Security, importance of 12,746, 12,748, 12,769, 12,912-12,914, 12,924-12,928 Yearly tenancies 13,195, 13,230-13,233 Landowners, position ... 13,184-13,186, 13,367-13,372, 13,382-13,386 Meat production 12,991-12,994 Milk production 13,337-13,333 Minimum Wage Committee, Scot- land 13,413-13,416 National Farmers' Union of Scot- land ... 12,744-12,745, 12,762-12,767, 12,840 Potatoes 12,816-12,830, 13,312, 13,330-13,333, 13 347—13 350 Prices 13,133-13,137, 13^43-13447 Production ... 13,016-13,020, 13,289-13,291, 13,403-13,412 Profits 12,821-12,830 Rents ... 12,751,12,854-12,855,12,956-12,957, 13,008-13,009, 13,199, 13,377-13,382 Research 12,746, 12,942-12,946, 13,159-13,161, 13,437 Transport ... 12,746, 12,841, 12,970-12,974, 12,999, 13,152-13,154, 13,155-13,156 Wages: Above minimum rates 13,125-13,126 Increase 12,753, 12,757 Payment when weather too bad for work 12,895-12,S98, 12,921-12,923, 13,169-13,172, 13,227-13,229, 13,388 and Prices 13,438-13,439 Settlement by Voluntary Dis- trict Conciliation Com- mittees ... 12, 755, 12,831-12,835, 12,937-12,941, 13,267-13,277 HOWELL, H. G., F.C.A., Director of Agricultural Costs: Farm accounts... 16,062-16,225, Apps. IV., V. NUNNELEY, E. M. : ... 14,882-15,333, App. II. Farm, nature of land and method of farming ... 14,883-14,886, 14,967-14,970 Agricultural depression, '80's and '90's 15,041-15,044 Agricultural Holdings Act 14,915- 14,922, 15,047-15,058 Arable land, conversion to grass ... 14,895fl, 14,897, 14,971, 14,975-14,980, 15,059- 15,060, 15,068-15,072, 15,129-15,133, 15,214-15,216, 15,292-15,296, 15,312. Capital 15,119-15,128 Compensation for improvements ... 14,887, 14,935-14,960 Corn Production Act . . . 15,278, 15,328-15,333 Farm accounts... 14,889-14,890, 14,929-14,960, 14,996-15,040, 15,113-15,118, 15,176- 15,179, 15,195-15,213, 15,217-15,223, 15,301-15,310. Farmers : Feeling of uncertainty 14,891, 15,102-15,104 Freedom from interference ... 14,971, 15,059-15,060, 15,150, 15,224-15,225, 15,298-15,300. Fertility of land 15,019-15,020 Foreign competition 14,962-14,963, 15,282-15,288 NUNNELEY, E. M.— continued. Grass land, ploughing up 15,313-15,314 Guaranteed price ... 14,895n, 14,896-14,897, 14,971-14,974, 14,981-14,985, 15,059- 15,060, 15,068-15,072, 15,133, 15,170- 15,174, 15,331. Hours 14,895s, 14,975-14,980, 15,074, 15,079-15,100, 15,134-15,138, 15,141- 15,145, 15,153-15,158, 15,180-15,190, 15,232-15,240, 15,315-15,327. Land : Sales and purchases by farmers 14,888-14,888A, 14,891, 14,993-14,995, 15,046-15,058, 15,105, 15,108-15,112, 15,264-15,^77. Tenure ... 14,89 1-14,895A, 14,900-14,907, 14,923-14,934, 15,045-15,054, 15,148- 15,149. Local Taxation 15,150, 15,165-15,170, 15,225, 15,252-15,261 Overtime 14,896, 15,089 Prices 14,961-14,963, 15,282-15,288 Rents 15,047-15,050, 15,146, 15,148 Research 15,078 Small holders 14,988-14,992 Transport ... 15,076-15,077, 15,163-15,164, 15,242-15,251 Wages ... 15,063-15,067, 15,152, 15,226-15,231 POTTS, A. H. 15,334-15,501, App. III. Arable land, conversion to grass ... 15,358-15,361 Class of farming 15,397-15,402, 15,444-15,450 Farm accounts 15,335-15,357, 15,362, 15,420-15,435, 15,462-15,462, 15,488 Fertility of land 15,436 Guaranteed price 15,358-15,361, 15,391-15,392, 15,408-15,416, 15,440- 15,443. Hours of Employment Bill ... 15,470 15,480-15,487, 15,498-15,501 Labour 15,379-15,380 Ofi-time 15,440, 15,464-15,469, 15,472-15,179, 15,482-15,487 Profits ... 15,352-15,355. 15,369-15,374 Transport 10,491-15,497 Wages 15,380-15.388, 15,417-15,419 WILLIAMS, THOMAS, Chairman of the Advisory Council of the National Farmers' Union in Wales. Acreage of farm, labour employed, etc 15,572-15,576, 15,584-16,585, 15,846-15,850, 15,857-15,858 Arable land, conversion to grass ...15,524-15,5216, 16,056 Butter production 16,011-16,017 Co-operation 15,721-15,725 Cost of production 15,763-15,764 Cottages : Prices 15,508, 15,637-15,641, 15,877-15,883 Shortage and bad conditions ... 15,569, lo.621-15.623 Tied system 15,637-15,641, 15,844-15,845, 15,990-16,004 Dairying 15,721-15,725 15,928 Family farms ... 15,745-45,756, 15,953-15,957 Farms, equipment and maintenance 15,509 15,643-15,644, 15,774-15,789 Fertility of land, decrease 15,592, 15,705-15.710, 15,870-16,876 Game 15,521-15,523, 15,842-15,843 Grass land, ploughing up 15,525, 16,050 Guaranteed price: Amount 16,528, 15,529-15,530, 15,535, 15,598-15,600, 15,606-15,608, 15,726-15,737, 15,808- 15,809, 15,821-15,826, 16,051. Atttitude of farmers 15,840-15,841 Lower and higher yielding «oii 15,657-15.658, 15,&34-15,837 Period 16,006-16,008 from Point of view of Welsh farmers 15,569, 15,578 15,662-15,655, 16,055, 16,057-16,058 for Small holders 15,917-15,325 16,053-16,054 and Supervision 15,663-15,667 Ill INOKX. WILLIAMS, THOMAS- continued. Holidavt 16,060 Hour.' 15,634-16,636, 15,687, 15,805-15,900, {5,036-15,947, 15,948-15,953. Implement* 10,765-15,768 Utnri 15,887-18,893 Competition of industries ... 15,691, 15,676-15,677 Efficiency 1-V>V> Living conditions ... ... 15,609, K. ..Mr, 15,642, 16,690-15,693, 16,061 Uadi Purchases by farmers 16,514-16,515, 16,518-15,530, 16,607-15,508, 15,542- 15,546, 15.551-15,659, 15,593, 15,618- 15,620, 15,646-15,651, 15,668-16,670. 15,769-15,773, 15,827-15,833, 16,026- 16,029, 16,033-16,037, 10,040. 16,044- 16,049, 16.659-16,672. Sales 15,551, 15,790-15,792, 15,859-15,863, 16,032- 16,035. Tenure 15,509, 15,510-15.513, 15,619, 15,793-15,803, 16,00.5. Machinery 15,581-15,583 Manures 15,871-15,874 Meat, guaranteed price 15,569-15,571. 15,594-15.596, 15,738-15,742 Milk, guaranteed price 16,738-15,742 \VI I.I.I A M-v THOMAS— continued. National Farmers' Union 15,539-1 Overtime 15,936-irO'i:, Profits 15,864-15,867 I ImMinns, Wales 15,506, 15,611-15,617, 16,818 1V--JL1, 15,884-15,886, 15,960- 15,965, 16,038-16,043. Stock breeding 15,673-15,674, 16,018-16,021 Transport 15,719-1 r,.7i'n Unproductive farming 15,506, 15,697-15,704 Wages ... 15,587,15,589-15,591,1 15,804-15,807, 15,902-15,905, 15,911- 15,916. Wages, in kind ... 15,608, 15,624-15,635, 15,680-15,684, 15,975-15,989 Wales : 1918 crop 15,866-15,866, 15,868-15,869 Class of farming, Ac. 15,808-15,814, 16,817, 16,049-16,050 Wi-lsh Farmers : Account keeping 15,693-15,696, 15,966-15.971 Characteristics, &<•. 15,506, 15,743-15. 7t> I. 15,818-15,822. 16,968 1 lVsire for removal of control 15,524-15,525, 15,560-15,562, 15,568, 15,652, 15,972- 15,974, 16,006-16,008. Feeling of insecurity 15, 507 Wheat, yield ... 15,655-15,666, 15,711-15,718, 15,851-15,856 ARMY AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEE. REPORT: — Formation and Objects; Position of Army Cultivations in January, 1918; Home Forces; France ; Mesopotamia ; Grain Cultivation by Native Population ; Vegetable Production ; Forage Supplies .' Dairy and Fodder Farms ; Seed Testing and Distribution ; Demonstration Farms ; Salonica ; Direct and Indirect Cultivation ; Proposals for 1919. [Cmd. 308] of Session 1919. Price 3rf. AGRICULTURAL WAGES BOARD. RKPOUT UK THE COMMITTEI.; ON THE FI.VANCIAL RESULTS OF THE OCCUPATION OF AGRICULTURAL "LAND, AND THE COST OF LlVIXG OF RURAL WORKKUS. INTRODUCTION : — Fanning Costs and Results : Prices of Farm Products : Regulation of Prices of Farm Products : Prices of Farm Requisites : Implements and Machinery ; Farm Seeds ; Feeding Stuffs and Fertilisers ; Farm Rents ; Receipts and Expenditure on Farms : Tenant Farms ; Home Farms ; Co-operative Farms; A Co-partnership Farm: Rise in Agricultural Wages and Cost of Labour; Cost of Living: Retail Prices of Requirements of Farm Workers' Families : Cost of Living, Conclusions : Financial Results of the Occupation of Land, Cost of Living in Rural Districts, Summary. Appendices : — Tables of Average Prices of Farm Products and Requirements, Feeding Stuffs, and certain Fertilisers, Increase in the Price of Farm iparative Cost of Stocking a Farm, 191:5 -191 -s. Estimate of Amount of Capital required for a Michaelmas Entry on a Farm of 300 A.cres (half Tillage. Corn and Stock) in 1913 and 1918 respectively, Estimate of Capital on V-.trrn^ of 316 Acres, 191-4 and 1918, Average Expenditure of 269 Farm Workers' Families, ..'une, 1919, ei [Cmd. 7'- - ssion 1919. Price 9n 1919. Price fir/, i DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION FOR IRELAND. xni A.NNUAL GBNEBAL RKI-OUT, 1916-17. I'nrt L— Administration nn<( /''innlx. \griciilimv and Hoards; Funds of the Department ; Administration of the Endowment i: Central Institutions: Development Ad : Irish Minerals and Raw Materials; Loan Fund System; War and the Food Supply. /'