78 



ROYAL COMMISSION oN A< ; 1M< Tl.TfHK. 



g&pfmfer, 1919.] 



MR. R. COI.TOV 



i .,.,. .-,i 



7503. That Resolution indicates that your . 

 about a 54 hours' week are not universally shan ! ' 

 the farming community:- I tliink in our part last 

 week they told me- or' when 1 said I was gon 

 say 54 hours, every farmer (and there v. 

 them on the Committee) agreed with me. 



7503. You spoke just now of the rate of wages I 

 fixed for a year. If wages were fixed for a year, do 

 lint you think that employment of the man should 

 be guaranteed for a year also? In our part, on the 

 Wolds, tlmt is done. "The men are hired for a year 

 from next Martinmas. 



7504. You know that that is not common in other 

 parts of the country? It is, on the Yorkshire Wolds. 

 I myself hare men on a fortnight's notice in my own 

 cottages; but unless they create a disturbam , they 

 re there for as many years as they like. 



7505. But if wages were fixed for a year, would 

 you think it fair that employment should he gnaran 

 teed for a year? Hardly, because it would allow th< 

 workmen too much liberty. 



7506. In your Table, paragraph (4) of your 

 evidence-in-chief, you have reckoned 20 per rent, on 

 cost as going to the farmer in addition, OB profit :md 

 compensation for risks, and only entered in your 

 profit column anything which the farmer gets over nnd 

 above that 20 per cent? It has been pointed out to 

 me that the 20 per cent, over and above the actual 

 cost, ought to be sufficient. 



7507. Then what the farmer would actually rect-ivc. 

 would be the difference between your cost column 

 and your value column? Yes. 



7508. I have been through these figures, and I think 

 there is a misprint at the top of the value column 

 where you have 15 Os. 2d. instead of 15 2s.. which 

 is four times 75s. 6d.? It may be myself. I will not 

 blame the copy. 



7509. Making that correction, I have added up the 

 return over and above the cost of production on nil 

 the fields except that field of oats which was ploughed 

 by order, and which, I think, you will agree waa an 

 exceptional case. The result shows, does it not, that 

 the farmer of the 73 acres would get at the existing 

 guaranteed prices a total return of 1 4s. 4Jd. an 

 acre? Yes. 



7510. Now, I want to take you just a step furth i . 

 All these calculations so far have been based on the 

 existing guaranteed prices? Yes. 



7611. And those are minimum prices? The v ' 

 is also the maximum. 



7512. At least as regards oats and barley the> 

 minimum prices? Yes. 



7~>13. Oats and barley are the only crops on which 

 yon do not show some profit on every field?- V. - 

 except that which was ploughed by order. 



7514. And there is one other which is a barley field 

 Yes, it is 3 quarters. 



7616. Take that barley field. At 86s. 7d. a quarter. 

 which was the average price of British barley last 

 week, those six acres of barley which yielded only 2", 

 quarters an acre, and are a loss on your figures, v-'ould 

 be worth 10 16e. 5d. an acre, and would show a profit 

 of 11s. 7Jd.an acre ? Yes. 



7616. You would agree with me, I expect, that this 

 bun been an exceptionally dry season?- It ! 



7617. The drought, you say," has seriously affected 

 th<- yield? Ye*. 



- But you would not seriously suggest thnt the 

 Government ought to fix guaranteed prires which 

 would give you n profit on every crop in everv field 

 in an exceptionally bad season:- No. I pointed out 

 to a gentleman over hero that the exceptional loss in 

 an exceptional season is part of the gamble, and 1 

 think we would stand it; hut the id.. a ^ that, fak'nc 

 normal neason and n normal yield, the profit should 

 be guaranteed r.ver our expenses. A year like this 

 we are accnttomed to ; we do not mind. 



7.' HI. You upeak of low; but I think T have shown 

 that, nn your own figures, taking the market price 

 intend of the guaranteed price, there is no loss 

 on the one field of 2fi' .ICT-CS of rat*, "hich was ploughed 

 by order'- V. ! quit* see that There is 10s. even 

 on the had piece of barley. 



7">3n. And. moreover, in all these figures we have 

 made no allowance for the value of the straw? 



7521. So that him to he counted in if we are to get 

 the real financial result? Yes, it should be. 



7623. Mr. Longford: You do not belong to the 

 National Kami. -r>' I'nion, do you? No, I do not. 



;.Vj:l You belong to the r'arniers' Cluh:- 



Ho many members have you:' I do not 

 know, hut I should say a few thousand. 



\.m aware there are approximately 

 ineiiilierx ot the National Kiirmers' I'nion in 'i 

 shire:- They are increasing the membership in York 

 shire. 



And you would not know how many witnesses 

 are coining from the National Farmers' I'nion- N 

 I do not. 



You would not be surprised to learn that a 

 few are coming?- No. I am very glad to hear it. 



7'.'J~. I projKise to a-k \oti a i|uestion and in : 

 into detail; but among your far 

 liMli you inside a loss ot B867 ]~~. ',,|.*:- \ 



' In 1!H7 you made a profit of <if. 2s. (id., and 

 in Mils you made a profit oi c:*- 1 ..' USt, "<d.' V 



7530. If you add those three years together it woik- 

 out to a profit of '91 Os. 5d., or an average of the 

 three years of 30 6s. 9d. That is a very small profit, 

 is nut it: Forgive my correcting you. but when I 

 av last in York I went to see the accountant alxint 

 settling, up for Income Tax, and I understood him to 

 say that the average for those years was 160, I think. 



7.">;U. I am taking the figures as presented by you 

 in your accounts? These were got out by my 

 accountant. 



7532. You admit this is an abnormally bad year on 

 account of the drought? I admit it is a very small 

 profit. 



7533. Then you do not expect to make a profit this 

 year on your own figures? On my figures here I 

 have given you the yields, and I think those yields 

 are correct. 



7534. On those yields at present market prices, you 

 do not expect to make a profit this year? Except on 

 the 26 acres. 



7535. So that over a four years' average your 

 profits will bo extraordinarily small? Very small. 



7536. I think you have been too modest ; but you 

 said you were the only intelligent member of your 

 Association who would come and give evidence ?- 

 Hecatise. if I may say so. you gentlemen are rather 

 more brainy thnn farmers from our part. 



7537. I put it to you that if you cannot make a 

 profit, many of your neighbours farming :n a smaller 

 way would bo unlikely to make a better profit?-^ 

 But some of my neighbours have 3 or 4 sons, and have 

 not n single hired man. 



7538. It would bo fair and reasonable thnt those 

 sons working on the farm should bo credited with a 

 reasonable wage? That is so. 



7539. And after paying a reasonable wage to the 

 sons they would not ho able to mako a profit cc|iia! 

 to yours? But those sons have no limit to the hours 

 they work. 



7540. Mr. Cautlev put a question to you. and you 

 said that rents had not increased in your district? 

 \ 



7541. Your rent hns not increased? Except as re- 

 gards the increase of tithe. 



7512. Mr. Cnntley put it, to you that rents had not 

 varied in consequence of an Art of Parliament, and 

 you agreed to that? Yes. 



7543. Do you agree to that now? To the existing 

 tcn.ir.i tin- rents have not gone up. 



7" It. Yon are speaking of your own particular 

 county? Yes. 



7~i^i. Would vou be surprised to learn that in most 

 counties in England rents have gone up considerably? 

 mid h<> surprised to the existing tenant, 

 if T may say so? 



754fi. Exactly. T want to read an extract from a 

 letter which conveys a different impression, and which 

 ought to be cleared up. This is the letter: "Deal- 

 Sir. Upon the denth of the Hon. Lady (BlankV the 

 l.ito owner of tbn (Blank) Estate, Sir Thomas (Blankt. 

 the new owner, hns to pay to the Government, under 

 f Parliament, n heavy tax known as an F^tat 

 Dutv. This tax is based on the selling value of the 

 nroportv. You will doubtless agree that a 9il 

 Thomas (Blank) will ho called upon to pay this heavr 

 duty bawd upon the selling value as estimated by 



* See Appendix No. IT 



