HOVAL COMMISSION OS AGRICri.TI UK. 



1919.] 



MR. K. 0. HOUIINE. 



but it would mean most probably working a great 

 dal of orcrtimo or baring another man most prob- 

 ably working overtime. With the present number 

 of hone* wo hare got it cornea somewhere between 

 employing about a quarter of a team additional. ^ 

 cannot put on a quarter of a tram, iind therefore 

 it moan* working overtime. 



6084. The question of hours is a much roor. 

 portant one than the question of the minimum wage, 

 is it notP Yet. I am personally of opinion that tho 

 hours are far more vitally important than the rate of 

 wages. 



5596. You say in paragraph 7 that the rise of wages 

 i* not proportionate to tho rise in the wage cost. 

 C.mld you elucidate that a little? What I think is 

 this: If your wages rise and you have got to employ 

 another man the total amount you spend in wages is 

 greater, but if the amount is being divided between 

 I 1 .' moil instead of 11, as it was before, the individual 

 does not receive such a high amount of your cost of 

 production measured in wages as he did when there 

 were only 11 men to divide it amongst. I have ascer- 

 tained from some further figures I have got that the 

 cost of wages in production is roughly 40 per cent, 

 per man. If you divide it among 12 men you only 

 33 per cent, per man of your total cost of pro- 

 duction. Therefore if your cost of production is 

 raised by tho raising of wages the individual is not 

 bMMftted to the same extent as the rise in the cost of 

 production though the aggregate has risen by the same 

 amount. 



6596. What axe you arguing that the lessening of 

 hours and tho increase in the number of men is not 

 lor tho benefit of labour? What I am arguing is that 

 if you curtail the number of hours worked and if a 

 man works a lesser number of hours than what is a 

 reasonable maximum ho loses individually over it 

 although labour as a whole may gain a bigger 

 Rgregate sum, and his individual purchasing power 

 is lessened and he correspondingly suffers. 



5597. In your opinion, therefore, ; t would be better 

 for labour to have a fewer number of men because 

 they would get better wnges individually? That 

 seems to me entirely a question for labour to decide 

 for itself, <,nly I think that the question should be 

 put to them perfectly honestly. You need not 

 ^wtarily employ fewer men. If you havo more 

 irable land you w:ll employ more, men, but if you 

 have to bring in extra labour to do the same amount 

 of work then the lalwurer suffers individually, but 

 if you can get more work for tho extra labour then 

 labour scores. 



6598 In paragraph 9 you say you hope to be able 

 to lay before the Commission (inures .showing the cost 

 of production of certain crojw. Havo you cot those 

 th you? I have them in draft. I should liko to 

 |.ut thetn in to bo circulated later. 



Mr Mcholti: I only wanted to ask your own 

 opinion with regard to this shortening of hours. You 

 are a young man? Yes. 



5600 !>.. you not really think that the timo had 



iv... 1 when it was absolutely necessary that tho 



hours of workers should I,. sfcoitCMdr' l" think that 



...I hours were too |o,,t; ,) ,|,. lt t | 1(1 .shortenin,' 



cially giving a weekly half holiday 



bad boon of immen-e benefit. Imt i, you shorten the 



' talOT that J do not think it w:<l bo of great 



the individnal labourer ev, ii if 1,, sti.-ks to 



imber of hours per day. wliirh he cannot 



FmnBiag, whan you hate to depend upon the 



Hi.- v.c.-ahcr s not n tiling von can control 



> IM food has to be produce! the work has got to 



ud it ha got to bo don,- when you can 



and not when you would liko to do it.' There- 



-tm bourn are verv important ]. ,. 



ing ah.-.d. One cannot II,,.,,, 



plough and it do-s in, i nutter 



whether they are ploughed on the 1st January or on 

 'ber." It matters yery much ' If the 

 is not put in you do n<(t get ,), (,. 



dtiiro i. ,,IFc, (.,] ,,i..re j,, ,| ll|t , v |V 

 than 11 the c,i"i in nny other ii,i|ii 



only |>oint in my' mind is that wo writ 

 V> nttrru t labour to the land nnd ko.-p the boat tvne 

 in touch with u - y,nt, 



6602. Do you really think that ran be done under 



tl Id conditions!' It depend-, 1 think, II|M>II what 



you mean by tho old conditions. 



5603. The old conditions of hours and wag<*? The 

 wages have certainly doubled since the war, nnd 1 

 do not think at present prices the wages are to high. 

 1 think that tho hours, 50 a week, are not too ! 

 five days of In hours and one day of six hours, gi\ m j 

 the people- a half holiday and not yery much overtime. 

 It is a Kmgish day, Imt at the same time a good 

 deal of it is spent in getting about from place to 

 place, and the work is not so complicated or so dull 

 as it is in a factory. 



6604. Mr. Lennard: You say it is impossible to 

 accelerate the rate of agricultural operations because 

 these are largely governed by the pace of the horses P 

 Yes. 



6605. I fully appreciate that, but is not the quality 

 of the horses on many farms capable of great 

 improvement? I should think that is quite likely. 



5606. You speak of using a tractor. I should like 

 to know what your experience of tractor cultivation 

 suggests. Has a tractor accelerated the rate of 

 agricultural operations at all? Unfortunately in our 

 case the soil is clay, and if you put the tractor on 

 to the soil when it is wet it usually puddles it, and 

 the effect is disastrous. When you can use her 

 under certain conditions, when the soil is not too 

 wet, she is very beneficial, but she is always very 

 uncertain. 



5607. Y'our experience with the tractor has not 

 been very good? Where she is useful is for harrow- 

 ing and for rolling on grass land. She is better than 

 horses then, but you have to use her with great 

 discretion on the arable. You may only l>e able to 

 use her for two months in the year, and then have 

 to put her on to something else owing to the 

 character of the soil. 



5608. Mr. Thomas lie iul< I:,H : In paragraph 7 

 you say: ' Jt is obvious if the value of agricul- 

 tural produce is to bear a relationship to the 

 cost of production." What is the meaning of that? 

 Do you refer to the cost of production of wheat in 

 that passage? I understood this Commission was 

 dealing with the fixing of the price of wheat for 

 another year, and I presumed that so long as there 

 "as a guaranteed price it had some relation to the 

 cost of production. 



5609. You were referring to the cost of production 

 of English wheat? Yes, the cost of production in 

 Great Britain. . 



5610. You go on to say: " With a further shorten- 

 ing of hours the price of wheat must rise "? There 

 again I refer to the cost of production. 



5611. You were not meaning so much the cost of 

 wheat as tho cost of production ? Yes. That, of 

 course, is governed by foreign supplies and so on, 

 but I was only dealing with it in this paragraph so 

 far as the :;narantcod price* are com-, -rued. 



561L'. When you say "the ri.se in price of wheat 

 must inevitably be greater than any rise in wa 

 are you referring to the extra labour you will have 

 to employ? That is one of the thin 



5C13. Anything else? It I may turn back to my 

 letter to "Tho Times," I there worked out the 

 percentages. Kvon when an extra man is not cm- 

 ployed, it does not quite correspond with the' rise in 

 wages, partly liccaiiso the hours were shortened a 

 good deal, and that makes the cost per hour more 

 expensive, and the number of hours which require 

 to IM- norkcd in order to keep a farm going cannot 

 In- shortened, unfortunately. 



'''''II. Turning to your table in paragraph 10, I 

 gather that wages did not increase at all ill your 

 neighbourhood between 191 1 and I!M7:- t'nfoi t unaiclv 

 'luring that time I was on active service. I think 

 tl.'-y did increase as a matter of fact, but I was not 

 at homo, and I could not give you tho details. 



">iil.". Your account books apparently do not show 

 any increase? 1 could not t;ct at the accounts with 

 sufficient accuracy to bo able to state that Tl,, n 

 was a change in the nninW of hands at the farm at 

 the time, anil I thought it, better to leave it out 

 altogether rather than give ina, . ui.iti- tij-i. 



