KiiYAL rn.MMlSSION ON AGRICULTUKK. 



5 A9t. 1919.] 



SIR DANIEL HALL, K.C.B., F.B.8. 





in Ef*>* on that heavy chiy land. It \ only tli.n 

 it u expensive; but you can grow the best wheat 

 and get the biggest crop*. 



347. K u n.it <-f ton tho fact th*t some of that most 

 difficult Und to work U some of the cheapest land to 

 work:' Tlu- rents aro low or. as a rule The 



are lower. There were times when you could have it 

 for nothing, if you paid the rates. 



348. Mr. Parkrr: The question of security of tenun 

 and leases has been just raised. I have no doubt it 

 must be within your knowledge that up to about 

 1879 a great deal of the land of the country was held 

 on leas*. There were great documents, I remember. 

 as big as this room. They ceased to .-\i-i. I 

 think, about 1880, not at the instance of the land- 

 lord, but by the request of the tenant. It seems to 

 me that these leases an- very suit a Me- during good 

 times of ^agriculture; hut if a bad time comes, tin- 

 tenant himself wishes to he released from the lease, 

 the amount of rent fixed, and all the restrictive 

 covenants. Is not that so? That was so. Leases in 

 England, at any rate, received a great blow at that 

 time. They were held to ruin certain tenants. 



349. But are you an advocate for coming back to 

 leases, with all their covenants, restrictions and one 

 thing and another? Not that kind of lease with its 

 great restrictions, because in many cases the restric- 

 tions ruined the tenant even more than the rent. 



350. I am a little doubtful whether the lea so is in 

 favour of the farmer himself. I want, if I mny. to 

 ask you to clear up one or two questions that have 

 been touched on before. If it is a policy of the Corn 

 Production Act that guaranteed prices of wheat or 

 oats are just to cover average working cost, includ- 

 ing a minimum wage to the labourer, rising or fall- 

 ing in accordance with the cost of living, does it not 

 logically follow that a sliding scale of minimum prices 

 for wheat and oats, rising or falling with the minimum 

 living wage ruling from time to time, will be neces- 

 sary in any amendment of the Corn Production Act ' 

 This point" was touched upon by Mr. Rea. I think it 

 is a very important point ; and I would like to know 

 whether" "that is absolutely ruled out? I should not say 

 it is absolutely ruled out; but I soe great difficulty* 

 in drawing up that sliding scale and in saying wages 

 is a factor in the security price. 



351. But it does seem, from the policy set out in 

 your evidence-in-chief, that it is almost a logical con- 

 clusion that there must be a sliding scale. That is 

 the point I am getting at? Yes, except that one -an 

 such great difficulties. 



352. In 'the third paragraph of your evidence-in- 

 chief there are certain limits which would just cover 

 the average working costs. Do you draw a distinc- 

 tion between average working costs and costs of pro- 

 duction? I did not quite understand you? When 

 I was saying average working costs there. 1 meant 

 the cost* of production without the profits. 



353. Then average working costs as contemplated 

 by the Corn Production Act, are not to include :mv- 

 thing to the farmer at all by way of interest, on tho 

 money invested in the farm and to repay him for his 

 brains and supervision? If I may explain, tho line 

 I wanted to take was this. We did not want 60s., 

 or any figure put down in the Corn Production Act 

 as the price at which it will pay the farmer to grow 

 wheat; because it would logically follow, if we put 

 down 60s. as the price it would pay the farmer under 

 any conditions to grow wheat, the State would have 

 a right to claim that wheat at 60s. If wo agree ih.i 

 60s. is the price that would pay, I would put down 

 a price, in the Act, of Ray WH . which will cover tin 

 average cost of production just tho bare cost. Now 

 let me have my 55s., and never let me get beaten down 

 below 65s. ; but if the world's price goes to 70s., let me 

 barn the reward and lot me get. my money. 



354. Yes. but I do not quite follow that; because 

 dupponing tho farm was being farmed by a farming 

 company wih a manager, as there, are one or two 

 springing up in Norfolk, tho manager's salary would. 

 of course, bo a part of tho working expenses or rost* 

 of production. Would not that Ho o? Yc 



:V.'i. Then why should some remuneration for the 

 fanner In- ruled' .mi:- I will put it in another v.a\. 

 Supposing e had very largo iinhistii.ih-.Ml lurins 

 employing the young "men thai you eonu-m| 



>\oiiid probably ho companies registered under 

 the'. I ~ k Ac't.s. \\ith managers and 



other ..theials. Tli. of those officials would 



In- part .it the co.st "I production or working expenses. 

 would they not"- They would. 



356. Then whv imt tor the farmer:- 1 cannot see 

 tile distinction myself r It you like -to include within 

 your working c>sts the payment of the farm- 

 manager. 1 think I would give you that point. We 

 ill ruling out profit, are we not:' 



307. No; but the minimum prices of tho Corn Pro- 

 duction Act covei working ox]>eiises. You give the 

 point that some remunei at i.m to the farmer as 

 manager may be included. You have to find out tlu> 

 costs of production of agricultural commodities; and 

 surely in the costs of production we must include 

 some item for those, whether farmers, manage- 

 whoever they may be, who are doing the work. Is 

 not thait a fair way of looking at it'r 



358. That is understood, is it, that there may be, 

 in the balance sheet we are asked to prepare, some 

 remuneration included for the worker, whether he 

 is working on his own behalf, or a farming company, 

 or a co-operative farm? Yes. 



359. I wamt also to clear up my mind on another 

 point, as to how the average working expenses axe 

 to be got at. Are they to be got at from taking the 

 average working costs from large farms, say, over 

 300 acres, or are they to be got at by taking the 

 costs of production on farms of 5 acres to 50 acres, 

 or 50 acres to 300 acres? If any legislation is based 

 merely on the working expenses of the large farms, 

 it seems ito me that the .small farmers will be 

 prejudic<xl. 1 do not know whether the figures before 

 me are correct; but I looked them up in the Year 

 Book, and I see they are that the holdings of over 

 300 acres in 1918 only amounted to 16,688, whereas 

 the holdings from 50 ito 300 acres amounted to 

 53,918. So it is quite evident, to my mind, that if 

 the small man is not to be prejudiced these working 

 expenses, which are greater on the smaller farms, 

 must be the basis on which ithe average is taken ?- 

 I suppose, as a matter of statistical fact, if you an 

 going to try to get the average working expenses, 

 the average costs of production, you will have to 

 make your average coincide with the industry : that 

 is, you will have to include the small farms and the 

 large farms, and you will have to give due weight 

 to the part that they respectively play in the 

 industry. 



360. Can you tell us whether the Costing 

 Committee which is at work is working on that 

 principle? They are only collecting materials. They 

 have only just begun to get to work. 



361. Have they not got to work? I do not think 

 they have any materials yet. 



362. Because that is evidence we shall require. I 

 think ; that is ito say, the difference between the cost 

 of working on the various sized holdings? If I may 

 say so, I believe this is the trouble that is before 

 you ; that the data are scanty and imperfect, and 

 that you will have some difficulty in getting a volume 

 of information accurate enough to enable you to form 

 your average with much accuracy. 



363. But the fair way would be to draw tlipse 

 average** from the different holdings in proportion 

 to their sizes and then make a rough average of 

 the whiih-:' In proportion to the share they bear in 

 the general production. 



864. Is there any information within the knowledge 

 of the Board of Agriculture showing the 'acreage held 

 by the 16,000 holders of over 300 acres; I mean tho 

 total acreage? Yes; we could give you the acreages 

 of those groups. 



365. Chairman: Would you kindly oblige us with 

 this at your leisure? Yes. 



366. Mr. Parker : The groups are 1 to 6 acres, 6 to 

 50 acres, 50 acres to 300 acres, and over 300 a< 

 Those figures are available. 



