16 



ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 



5 Augtut, 1919.] 



SIR I) VMM H.M.I., K.C.I!.. 1-Mt.s. 



[Cnntiiiiiril. 



make for improvement, or does not rather the profit- 

 ahleiims of the industry make for improvement I' I 

 believe tin- profitableness of the industry makes for 

 improvement; and that when you look back to the. 

 pcrml 1SS.V.I"), 1 ilo not think we saw an improve- 

 ment in farming then going on under the 

 :ik- squeezing that was taking place. 1 

 .1.1 see a good deal of improvement going on 

 from, sy, 1897 to 1907, when prices ! 

 ruing and things were getting better. I think, 

 on the whole, merely as a piece of psy. -hology, when 

 you are dealing "with an industry, tin- liacl 

 time, that is, the time of falling prices, does not 

 produce improvements to meet it so much as it 

 causes men to leave the industry nnd go out of it 

 altogether, getting away and cutting tlicir losses. 



331. But may not it lend to improvements after a 

 certain time? la not it the fact that some of the 

 greatest improvements in agricultural practice have 

 taken place in counties which were especially hard hit 

 in the bad time, su-;h as the County of EssexP Yes; 

 I admit that pressure works both ways. 



323. Can you give us an idea of the extent of the 

 change which would be involved by the general adop- 

 tion of the most economic unit of production? I 

 mean, how great an area would have to undergo 

 change and to what extent would the average cost 

 of production be reduced by the change? No; I am 

 sure I could not translate that question into terms. 

 You see, it is like asking: Suppose you went d;mn 

 the Commercial Road, we will say. and .swept up all 

 that succession of little retail shops into two or throe 

 great emporiums; what economy would you effec t in 

 the district in the man-power? I could not put into 

 figures what economy you could effect in a given 

 county of England, or a given agricultural unit of 

 country, if an all-wise fanner were given that land 

 to lay out as an agricultural area I have no doubt 

 he could do great things ; but I could not turn them 

 into figures. 



323. You would agree there is very considerable 

 room for a lower cost of production, due to changes 

 in the unit of production? There is room:, that is 

 to say, there is a margin; but I must not bo sup- 

 posed to commit myself that we can attain it forth- 

 with in practice. 



324. But you think some improvement is to be 

 obtained in practice? I think, by degrees, we can 

 move in that direction. For instance, to take the 

 -..it of thing I am thinking of; we are farming at 

 the Board of Agriculture perhaps 20,000 or '30,000 

 acres. I believe we shall effect some improvements 

 by our action. I do not for a moment sup- 

 pose I could do the same over 300,000 acres, and still 

 less over 3,000,000 acres, or 30,000.000 acres. The 

 task get* beyond organisation and the man-power 

 available. 



325. Just one or two supplementary questions which 

 have suggested themselves to me in the course of the 

 Session : Some questions were asked as to the basis 

 of the 25s. minimum wage drawn by the Corn Pro- 

 duction Act. Is not it a fact that this figure was 

 first reached by the Ministry of National Service in 



id to men without agricultural experience who 

 were physically unfit for active military service, and it 

 wa applied to agriculture in general at a time when 

 military service had depleted the supply of young 

 ;.tiil lit men for agricultural labour? I do not know; 

 I should have to look up the dates. I think it was 

 somewhere about March or April in 1917, was it not, 

 that that figure of 25s. was first put down ; and it 

 was put down as being the minimum which the 

 National Service Department had adopted at the 

 time not for agriculture but for all services for which 

 they were enrolling men. It was, if I may say so, 

 re-ally convenient to take a miniinnim which had been 

 arrived at by a body outside the agricultural com- 

 munity. Wo were, in a sense, glnd to have taken 

 away from us the responsibiF'ty of saying what a 

 minimum wage should be. 



326. But am I not right in suggesting that the 



labour to Which it I 'n|, I:,!". I that \\:<l'i should 



bo paid, and for which that should be the minimum 

 wage, was owing to war conditions physical! 

 inferior to the normal supply? Is not the conception 



of a minimum wage without relation to the- work 

 done. It was to lie the minimum that would provide 

 for a man to live upon; and whether your sn railed 

 illy unlit man of the Labour Department could 

 do a full day's work was not the i|iiestioti ; it Mas what 

 ho could live upon at the time I; ood him just as 

 much to live, whether he was doing a full day's work 

 or not. 



327. Then some questions were asked about the 

 extensive sales of agricultural land which h.i\. 

 recently been taking place. Is not it a fact that 

 many farms have been purchased by the tenants; and 

 does not the tenants' willingness to purchase indicate 

 that they coiisidei the prospects of the industry to 

 be good? I should say a very largo proportion of the 

 purchases have been made by tenants. Of course, in 

 some cases the high pri.es were also partly duo to the 

 fact that the tenants had money in their pockets. 



328. Do not you consider their willingness to pur- 

 chase indicates that they considered the prospects 

 good? Yes, certainly, I think they did. 



329. Then there are two questions which arise out 

 of questions Mr. Langford asked. In answer to one 

 question, you spoke of greater fortunes being made 

 in industry than in agriculture. Did you mean that 

 the actual rate of profits tends to be, or has been, ntr 

 certain periods greater in industry than in farming; 

 or only that in urban industry there is a greater 

 opportunity for a man to expand his industry into 

 a larger scale, though the rate of profits are not 

 necessarily higher? 



330. I'hnirmnn: The rate per cent, on capital em- 

 ployed, you mean? (Mr. Lennunl: Yes.) Yes; I 

 think I would agree with you that, taking the years 

 immediately before the war, the rate of profit which 

 it was then found men were earning on their capital 

 was a good one ; but, of course, there were .not the 

 same opportunities of rapid expansion of a man 

 taking on farming that were present in the industries 

 and in commerce. It would be a commonplace 

 in talking to farmers about their sons, to hear that 

 so and so who had gone into the town had done better 

 and was making more money. There is no doubt 

 that, speaking of the period of the late 'eighties, or 

 the early 'nineties, and 1900, there was a great drift 

 away of capable young men from the farming 

 profession. 



331. Would not an increase in the size of farm 

 tend to obviate that, and give a greater opportunity 

 for the really good man!- Of course, I mvself hold 

 very much that if we had more large organised farms 

 with positions of sub-managers and assistant-managers 

 and steps by which young men without capital, 

 but with good promise, could come into the farming 

 business, wo should give an opportunity for many 

 men who would be of value to the industry. Of 

 course, as an old head of an agricultural college, 

 I used to regret very much that when you got a very 

 capable, youngster fully bitten to work and educating 

 h'msclf well that if he did not want to teach, or 

 did not want an administrative post, very often he 

 found there wae no opening for him in this country. 

 He could not got a paid job in farming, and he 

 could not start in farming as he could in insurance, 

 banking, or a metal house or something of that 

 kind. Ho either had to put up his capital in a 

 farm for himself, or what he usually did was to take 

 his energy and knowledge abroad to our Colonies, 

 because then' he could save enough to start on a 

 small capital. 



332. So that you would say thcro is n supi.lv of 

 Riiitnhln men atailahlo, or who <i>uld ho MWted 

 as required for positions in farming, who would he. 

 capable of running a number of these larger farms? 



Certainly, that supply would soon come forward 

 if there was a demand. 



.'t.'tt. .Mr. I.anglord also raise<l the question of 

 soldier .smallholdem. As smallholders are not usually 

 growers of eeroals, would guaranteed pn< 



ils do much more for them "than possibly create 

 on upward tomlenry of rnts all round;- The- small- 

 holder more often wants to buy cereals. You see our 



