1U4 



li.iVAL COMMl^M.'N "N Ai.KU I I.TI Kl . 





, 1919.] 



MR. JAMKS WYI.I.IK. 



[_' ' 



ujiorphukiihat*. Yuu bare no nianuro with the oat 

 irop .1: all ccit.iinly, but witb the first barley 

 UM thx second you have manure again. Do you not 

 think that tins farmer has been pretty well keeping 

 up hU farm? Yes. but what I think this statement 

 moans is that before crops can bo grown on this 

 particular land which has been cleaned certain 

 manure ought to be given. That ia all I take out of it. 



I'.'. l"l. 1 understand that in arriving nt these 

 you soim times apportion the rent between the 

 different fields or between the gro&s and arable ; is 

 that o? Yes. 



12,109. Is there any principle upon which you do n F 

 There ia no principle that I know of except that 

 if you have a farm consisting of poor arable land and 

 good permanent pasture, it is only common > 

 that a heavier charge for rent should be put against 

 the good permanent pasture than against the poor 

 arable. 



12.103. 1 could not fiud any instance in which your 

 method of dividing the rent was displayed:- There is 

 no general rule that I know of. 



13.104. No. but is there any instance here in which 

 you have apportioned the rents do you remember 

 one in-;umt>:- 1 think you will find oiie in tin 



of farm 04, if I remember rightly. 



12.103. That is management charge, is it not:- If 

 you look down about the middle of the page you will 

 see rent 395, rates so much, apportioned as follows. 



12.106. I see? There is so much taken off for the 

 farmhouse, so much for the cutties, so much for the 

 buildings, and the remainder is charged against the 

 land. 



12.107. While we are on this page 1 would like to 

 deal with one or two of these items on it. The rates 

 interest me. How do you arrive at the principle of 

 apportionment that is adopted there:- It . s u\.s farm- 

 house rent, 15; waggoner's house, 7 rent, rates 

 2; garthnian's house, 7 rent, rates 2; and so on? 



I take it that is an apportionment of so much to 

 the. 



12.108. The general rate in the is 4s., and in 



these cases it happens to work out at 5s. 9d. ? I 



sup]>ose it is a rough and ready apportionment; it 

 may not be accurate to 10s. 



12.109. It rather piles it up against the arable 

 land, does it ii"i when you come to estimate your 

 wages, and so on? The total difference would be 

 very small. 



12.110. Would you look at the management charge. 

 The total management charge is 250. You charge 

 i.1 per acre on the arable land and 25 for all the 

 grass and 25 for the stock that is 60 for the crass 

 tock? Ye*. 



12.111. Have \ my idea what the proportion of 



.ilen would he of the stock nnd the cereal pro- 

 ducts on this farm? I have nut at the present 

 moment. 



12.112. This is a Lincolnshire arable farm mainly? 

 Yei. 



12.113. With ome cattle feeding? There are a 

 certain nuinlx-r of cattle and sheen kept through 

 the winter that in all. 



12.114. Is it not within your knowledge tTiat in 

 these eaittcin counties on arable farms the receipts 

 from sale* of live stock cx*d in amount the receipts 

 from sales of cereal produce:- I would not like to 

 nay that; I have not gone into the mailer fully. 



12.115. Y..n do not know whether, as a matter 

 of fact, that charge of 200 per annum against the 

 arable land for management in respect of the produce 

 of which you are asking for guaranteed prices is 

 accurate or lint - Th,. idea in ap|M>rtioning tho 

 management charge is not to work according to tho 

 turnover in various department*, but to ha 

 upon the amount of managing reouired. That was 

 tho ides in thin particular farmer's mind I kn<> . 



M&Mnd that hi time wan mainlv -.pent on 

 the arable Innd 



12,110. Would you look at Farm No. 10 nh> ep 

 account No. 3* for a moment. You were asked a ques- 

 tion yesterday an to the value of that 58 acres of 

 aftermath at 6 lfi. an acre. I understood you to 

 <ay in reply that the farmer estimated that he' would 



get 15 c. ts. of hay, and that ho wu valuing the after- 

 math at. 15 cwts. of hay at market price. Is that so? 

 I should also have stated, although I do not think 

 1 did. that in this particular case he reckoned that he 

 was going to be two bushels j.er acre of wheat worse 

 because of the fact that tho altermath was folded by 

 sheep instead of being cut. 



12.117. Really? I put that forward nierch as an 

 example of the difficulties which one meets with. 



12.118. As an authority on agricultural practice 

 what would bo your judgment of a statement like 

 that;- I personally was not inclined to accept this 

 valuation at all. 



12.119. I was thinking ratber of the question of 

 getting more or less wheat because you gra/cd u 

 lather than cut it!- I would not include that at all. 



12,119.\. 1 want to put this to you at any rate: 

 whereas he might be justified in" estimating it at 

 the value of 15 cwts. of hay he ought certainly to 

 have cut off all the expenses of making and carting 

 that hay? I quite agree. 



12.120. So that in any case 6 15s. is subject to 

 considerable reduction? That is one of the few items 

 which if I had a perfectly free hand 1 would certainly 

 cut down. 



12.121. Turning again for a moment to the 



tion of interest, looking down that page under 

 "Interest" you had 5 per cent, on valuation, 

 2,245, plus 129, 118, and 5 per cent, on working 

 capital, 106:- Y,s. 



12.122. Your working capital on a flock of sheep 

 is very nearly as big as the valuation? As an ex 

 ample of how that is got at you have a total expend; 

 ture on purchased cakes amo'unting to over ll.uilii. 1 

 suppose that would be considered as working capital. 



J2.123. It depends of course upon how long it 

 used, docs it not? It does, but I take it thai that 

 5 per cent, on the working capital is estimated at 

 about one-half the outlav. 



12,121. This sl,, V |, account is exceedingly int. 

 ing. If you look at the valuation you have :J!h; 

 103 ewe tegs and three rams and 7 1 - wether tegs and' 

 sales of 76 tegs, 13 ewes, 40 fat lamb, and 1(17 tat 

 tegs, 60 draft ewes and then you state the valuation 

 on the same basis at tho end of the \ear M at the 

 beginning of the year. Is it within your know: 

 that there was a \ery bad crop of Iambi that \ear or 

 anything? Yes, I understand that the crop "i lambs 

 was under the average. 



12.125. It is a pity you did not State the numbers 

 comprised in the valuation at the end and at the 

 beginning so that we really might we uhat was the 

 cause of some of this big deficit. On the general 

 question did you in the case of this farm take tins 

 deficit to the crops? Unfortunateh. .,., this particu- 

 lar farm, we did not have any crop Misting at all. 



12.126. I think it is- ray fortunate that you did 

 not. The ration for a horse on Kami | tin r 

 interests me. Is it at all typical of the rations that 

 they were feeding to the horses on the whob 

 farms? This is taken from three farms umh, 

 management. 



12.127. When you were estimating the cost of 

 horse labour on the other farms did you not set out 

 some sort of a ration- I took the rations in each 

 particular ease. 



12.12*. That is what I was asking you whether this 

 is at all typical:- 1 should not like to say offhand 

 vnether it is an average ration or not. ' You find 

 that the rations vary very considerably Iron, district 

 to district. 



12129. Did you ever find them varving according 

 to the number of days worked per hor.s'er They do to 

 a certain extent., but not directly. 



13,180. When (here is a variation of as much as 60 



lays a year as there is in some cases, would not that 



>e direct.- \\hat J mean is. if you had on one farm 



> horses working 200 days in 'the rear, and on an- 



iarm tho horses working :K) days, the cost of 



ling would not increase directly iii that propor- 



12,131 If you had one horse working for 2*0 days 

 d another horse working for 220 days, would the 



JM, Of feeding the latter on,, tall in 'anything like 

 the ,,,,,po,t,o,,?-I do not think so. Horses must 



See Appendix IV. 



