MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



121 



3 September, 1919.] 



MR. FALCONER L. WALLACE. 



[Continued. 



men who now drift into the towns, to remain in, the 

 country, and to come back into the country. 



8860. I think you say here that the economic size 

 of a farm would be 400 acres up to 1,000? No. What 

 1 meant to say was, that a farm is of more economic 

 size to work if it is 400 acres upwards than if it is 

 below 400 acres. 



8861. Does not that mean that you would have less 

 men on the land than if you had, say, a farm of 400 

 acres? There is only one family there. Would not it 

 be better if you had four families controlling 100 acres 

 each? I do not think the size of the farm has really 

 anything to do with the number of men employed 

 per 100 acres. 



8862. But would not it give a monopoly to one 

 person? He would draw the benefits out of 400 acres, 

 instead of four families doing so? You mean to say, 

 am I in favour of splitting up a 400-acre farm and 

 dividing it into four 100-acre farms? I would have 

 a large number of small farms; but I am not prepared 

 to say that I would break up every 400-acre farm 

 into 100-acro farms. I think that would bo a great 

 mistake ; because, as I think 1 have said somewhere, 

 the rather larger farmers are the backbone of the 

 industry. I think they provide the most and best 

 employment in most cases not all. Cumberland is 

 a county of small farms; and there they provide very 

 good conditions for the men. But taking the country 

 all over, I think it is the biggest farmers who very 

 often provide the best conditions ; and I think with 

 (very industry, if you are going to take the biggest 

 and the strongest men with the most capital out of it 

 you will ruin it. You want to have all sizes. I am all 

 in favour of providing a large number of moderate 

 holdings like 100 acres, but do not for goodness sake 

 take your strongest and best mm out of an industry, 

 as you will be taking the backbone out of it. 



8866. You say in your evidence-in-chief, 8705, that 

 the workers of Cumberland are very excellent and 

 splendid workers. Are they better than in other 

 countries? I think they are as good as any I have 

 seen anywhere. I attribute it largely to the fact 

 that they are very well fed and well kept. 



8864. Do you attribute their efficiency to the fact 

 that they are well loolced after? I attribute a good 

 deal of it to that. Then they are very interested in 

 their work. They live with the family, and they take 

 as much interest in the work as the farmer docs 

 himself. The main point is, 1 think, that they 

 live so very well. 



8865. Do you find much complaint against the agri- 

 cultural worker as to efficiency that he is indifferent 

 to his work and so on, since the war in particular ?- 

 No. I have had more complaint since the war of the 

 inefficiency of labour supplied, which has been soldier 

 labour. They have been very willing fellows; but they 

 have not known much about it, and have not found 

 it easy to learn their job. That is what I have had 

 the most general complaint of. 



8866. Mr. Nieholls : I only want to ask vou on the 

 point of education of boys, whether you have found 

 in any case where a boy really tried to make himself 

 specially efficient, the farmer has encouraged that boy 

 by any extra that he might give him? Yes; I have 

 found cases where the farmer did, but the boys gener- 

 ally complain that the men themselves do not en- 

 courage them. 



8867. Supposing we go on with the education of the 

 boys, do you think it would be a good plan to give the 

 lads certificates or diplomas on the understanding that 

 as soon as a boy did get a certificate or diploma of 

 offiricncv. that would moan extra payment over his 

 ordinary wages? I think it is a splendid idea, and 

 I am suro every farmer would jump at it. 



8868. Would you be surprised if I told you that for 

 a very long time I have been advocating it among 

 farmers, and they are a little bit shy of it. I mean it 

 is a verv strong thing with me; and I have always felt 

 that young fellows who took an interest in their job 

 and really cared to become efficient, were not en- 

 couraged as they ought to have been by the men who 

 employed them. The excuse was: "Well, if I give 

 him something extra, it will unsettle him and make 

 tlio others dissatisfied "? I do not think that is a 

 w.nml argument. I nin very strongly in favour of 

 your idea. I think it is a splendid ide:i. 



88fi9. I have always felt that just as you give a lad 

 or a girl something to show that he or she has passed 



a certain examination, say, for ambulance work or 

 some other thing that proves efficiency, they are prouu 

 of that; and a farmer ought to be proud that he hau 

 got a young fellow who is keen on that line, and that 

 he should encourage him? I quite agree with you. 

 I always make a point of giving a good man a bit 

 extra. 



8870. Mr. Smith : Do you believe in the workmen 

 being organised? Certainly I do. I have stated so in 

 public. It is a necessity. 



8871. I see you suggest a system of sliding scales 

 as a method of paying wages F Yes. 



8872. Have you really thought that out in connec- 

 tion with agriculture? Will you put a point upon 

 your question? 



8873. Have you thought it out from the point of 

 view of the difficulty that would exist in applying it? 

 Would not it mean uncertainty existing all the time 

 as far as the labourer was concerned, as to what his 

 position was? Not if my scheme worked as I think 

 it would work, because the labourer's well-being 

 would be unaffected thereby. 



8874. You are speaking now from the theory of it. 

 I am speaking from the point of view of its applica- 

 tion. Do not you think that one of the things that is 

 essential from the point of view of the labourer is, 

 that he should know what his wages are to be and 

 have some assurance each week? You see the whole 

 point is, that with the money fixed which he spends 

 on every purpose except these particular articles I 

 have enumerated, if he is able to buy these particu- 

 lar foodstuffs for less money, he does not need so 

 much money, and therefore his position is absolutely 

 unaffected. The money which he has for spending on 

 luxuries or other necessities is stable. 



8875. It means, if your suggestion were carried out, 

 that part of his income would bo speculative, and 

 depend upon the prices of certain commodities? It 

 would depend upon the prices of certain commodities. 

 He would always have enough money to buy these 

 commodities. 



8876. But the point comes as to how you are going 

 to determine the varying point of his wages. I want 

 to suggest to you that the machinery that would 

 have to be established would be so cumbersome, and 

 the difficulty of coming to an agreement would be so 

 great, that there would be continual irritation in the 

 industry, which in itself would bo bad? I do not 

 think that would be so, if we could find some auto 

 matic basis. For instance, I suggested a sliding scale 

 in England would be the recognised basis. Then 

 there ought not to be any misunderstanding. It is a 

 means of enabling the farmer to pay the high wages 

 which no farmer wants to reduce ; and the status of 

 the position and the comfort of the workman remain 

 the same. 



8877. Do you know that this has been tried in 

 certain industries, and it is gradually going out 

 because of the difficulty of it? I know a sliding scale 

 for wages has ; but I did not know that a sliding 

 scale for this particular purpose had been applied. 



8878. Do not you know that it is difficult to apply 

 it in industries where the labour is concentrated, and 

 where the article is produced day by day? If it is 

 difficult there, it would be much more difficult in an 

 industry like agriculture? No, I do not think so, 

 because you are talking of quite another matter 

 altogether. You are comparing the fluctuations of 

 wages with the cost of producing coal and iron, for 

 instance, whereas I am merely talking about a por- 

 tion of the wages fluctuating with the cost of pro- 

 ducing food; that is to say, that portion of the wages 

 which is applied to the purchase of the particular 

 article of food. 



8879. It is part of the wages? Yes; but it always 

 provides enough wage to buy the article for which it 

 is intended the food. 



8880. Dr. Douglas : On that point would not it be a 

 great difficulty in applying a price scale to wages, 

 that the available scale would always be that of the 

 preceding year? Your cereal price scale would always 

 be that of the preceding season, would it not? Why 

 would it? 



8881. Your year's prices do not become applicable 

 until after harvest, do they? That is true. I had 

 not thought of that point. 



