MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



113 



3 September, 1919.] 



SIR RICHARD WINFREY, M.P. 



\Cuntinutd. 



8647. Are you able to resist the temptation to 

 embark upon it? I have always dabbled in farming. 



8648. You have had the experience? Yes, I have 

 been through all these years. 



8649. I want to take you just for one moment to 

 an item in your statement as to the first year costs of 

 producing wheat at Swaffham Farm. I understood 

 you to say when it was pointed out, that neither 4 cwt. 

 of basic slag nor 1 cwt. of sulphate of ammonia could 

 be purchased in 191$ for the sura you put down 

 namely, 14s. That was a typist's error, and the word 

 " or " ought to be put inp That is what I think; but 

 I am going to discover it and let you know. 



8650. You mean it would not much matter whether 

 he put on basic slag or sulphate of ammonia ? I am 

 not sufficiently a chemist to say, because I do not 

 know what that land specially wants. 



8651. " Or " implies that, does not it? Yes, it 

 does. 



8652. It looks as if your smallholder manures on the 

 formula that they use in some dispensaries. Any 

 blessed thing ; and that he considers that it does not 

 matter whether he uses phosphatic manure or a nitro- 

 genous manure. I am afraid that explanation would 

 not do? Very well then; I must clear that point up.* 



8653. You told us that in your judgment labour 

 on the smallholding is more productive per unit. 

 Would you develop that view a little, and tell us why 

 you say that? If you see a smallholder working on 

 his holding, and then go and see the hired man 

 working on a farm, you soon discover the difference; it 

 is patent. The smallholder seems to have got more 

 muscle somehow. He can dig deeper. 



8654. You told us that with a view to encouraging 

 the development of the smallholding movement, the 

 State has agreed to subsidise it? Yes, that is what 

 it will amount to under the Land Settlement 

 Act. You see, the land is to be bought now at its 

 present war price. Then they are to equip it, which 

 will be most expensive : then it is to be let at an 

 economic rent, and the State will stand the loss for 

 five years. 



8655. You mean an uneconomic rent? Yes, 

 uneconomic in that way: but to be let at a fair rent. 

 Then there wiH be a loss; and the Board of 

 Agriculture are to bear that loss for five years, and 

 at the end of the five years that land is to be re- 

 valued to the County Council at its then price, and 

 that is where the loss will come in. 



8656. Do you think, having regard to the present 

 price of land and the present cost of building, it 

 would be reasonable to expect any development of the 

 Smallholding movement if the State did not do that? 

 In other words, could the smallholder pay an economic 

 rent, having regard to the price of land and the cost 

 of building? No, I do not think hp could. At the 

 present price of land and the present cost of buildings, 

 I do not see how County Councils will be able to 

 supply the men other than ex-soldiers. 



8657. Then does it not follow, that although it may 

 be his own fault that the farmer does it, the prospect 

 of a man who has to buy land at the present price, 

 and farm it, is not very much better? If he has to 

 put up expensive buildings; but if you buy "a farm 

 you buy it fully equipped. It is the equipment which 

 costs the money to-day. 



8658. Not always? Generally. They will not put 

 in more equipment. They will make it manage. 



8659. You agree they have to pay pretty tall prices 

 for the land ? Yes ; but they would not spend any 

 money on the equipment. A man buys a farm, and 

 that is the end of his expense. But you see, if you 

 buy, say, to-day 40 acres of land at 50 the acre, for 

 a small' holder that is 2,000. If vou buy it at 100 

 an acre that is 4,000; and it will require 1,000 to 

 equip it. It is terrible. 



8660. I agree. You do think that the Corn Produc- 

 tion Act falls short of perfection to this extent, that 

 tho figure for 1920 needs amendment to the extent 

 of 10s.? Yes; that Torn Production Act was passed 

 in 1917, and we did not know as much then as wo 

 know to-day. 



8661. I take it your view is this, that the economic 

 prospects are such that the State would bo warranted 



8re Appendix No. IV, 



25329 



in increasing the guarantee next year to the extent 

 of 10s.? I think the State would be warranted in 

 keeping the present guarantee of 1919 for another 

 year. 



8662. That would amount to an increase of another 

 10s. on the figure mentioned? Yes, it would; and 

 that is as far as I go. 



8663. After that, you would give the farmer 45s. ? 

 Yes. 



8664. And you would rigorously enforce the Corn 

 Production Act? Yes. As far as I am watching the 

 country, I cannot see any steps being taken to do it. 

 That is my regret. 



8665. I thought the Agricultural Committees had 

 done their work very well? Yes, they did during the 

 war ; but it seems ~to have lapsed, and nothing has 

 taken its place. 



8666. I want to be clear about this. Part IV., 

 Section 9, Sub-section (1) (b) of the Act, reads us 

 follows: " That for the purpose of increasing in tho 

 national interest the production of food, the mode of 

 cultivating any land or the use to which any land is 

 being put should be changed." If that is the view of 

 the Committee, they have power under this Section to 

 order such a change in the method of cultivation? 

 Quite. 



8667. Do you suggest with a guarantee of 45s., and 

 the price of labour which you say is not coming down 

 remaining at its present figure, a farmer should bp 

 called upon to alter the mode of his cultivation? I 

 know that the Section also says he must cultivate 

 according to the rules of good husbandry, which is 

 quite a different thing? Quite. I think that that 

 other clause wants using, naturally with discretion. 



8668. Very great discretion, do not you think? 

 Yes, very great discretion. I think you could trust 

 the local Committees though ; they are all sensible 

 people. 



8669. Mr. Smith: I think you told us the small 

 holder lived at a higher standard than the ordinary 

 labourer? Yes, certainly. 



8670. la not that explained by the reason that he 

 works better? Yes, I think he does. 



8671. And a higher standing for labour might pro- 

 duce better results also? I do not know. I think it 

 is only human nature I wish it were not so, but I am 

 afraid it is to work better for yourself than you do 

 for other people. That has been my experience in 

 50 years of life ; and I think it is the experience of 

 most of us sitting here. 



8672. From one of your previous answers, I -think 

 you agree that it' is a good thing for labour to bo 

 well paid? Yes. 



8673. With regard to this speculation in land, in 

 so far as any speculation can take place in agricul- 

 tural land, the basis upon which tho whole thing 

 rests would be the value of agriculture as an industry, 

 would not it'? The basis is the value of agricultural 

 produce, yes. There is nothing else that has increased 

 the price of land except the price of agricultural 

 produce and the profits arising. 



8674. But even if speculators force the price up. 

 they are basing their judgtrent upon the future of 

 the industry Yes, quite. 



8675. As to the figures as regards population, did 

 you make any comparison between the areas covered 

 bv the small holders and the adjoining areas which 

 were under ordinary farmers? No, I did not. I took 

 either 17 or 19 parishes round SpaldinR, and I took 

 the census returns for those years each decade ; but 

 I have never been in any other district where there 

 an* no small holdings and taken the records. 



8676. You could not say from those figures ? I can 

 say, for my own constituency in South-West Norfolk, 

 where there are very few small holdings, that the 

 rural poulation has declined each census during the 

 whole of the time I have been there. 



8677. Were these figures taken from the Lincoln- 

 shire area? Yes. 



8678. You would have to make a comparison with 

 adjoining areas, where the land and conditions are 

 practically the same, in order to get a comparison ? 

 On adjoining areas we also have small holdings. 



8679. Do I understand from you that some of these 

 men have made such a success of their holdings, that 

 they have practically capitalised them out of their 



H 8 



