MINUTES OF EVIDKNCE. 



29 



6 August, 1919.] 



SIR HENRY EEW, K.C.B. 



[Continued. 



general interests of the community? Do you mean 

 that the subsidy should not be paid to farmers who 

 were not, so to say, doing their duty by the land? Is 

 that your point? 



574. Yes? I think that is provided for by the prin- 

 ciples of the Corn Production Act already. There is 

 power in the long run to eject a farmer, if it is 

 thought he is not dealing with the land properly. 



575. Do you think the Corn Production Act 

 generally does that? Yes, I should have thought so. 



576. Mr. Cautley : I have one question on your 

 precis. Towards the middle of it, you submit a table 

 showing at five-yearly intervals the changes in the 

 acreage of cultivated land, arable land, corn crops, 

 wheat, potatoes, vegetables and small fruit crops. 

 I have not had the advantage of seeing it yet; but 

 can you tell me, does that in terms show any relation 

 between tho rate of wages paid and cultivation? Are 

 you referring to Table 2? 



577. I have not seen the table yet, but it is (a) in 

 your precis. Does that return show any relation 

 between the rates of wages paid in agriculture at 

 those particular periods? No. 



578. You cannot deduce anything from it? Perhaps 

 I might explain to the Commission what this table 

 does show. It shows in the years 1893, 1898, 1903, 

 1908, 1913 and 1918 the acreage of cultivated land; 

 that is to say, the total quantity of land under crops 

 and grass. That is the farming land of the country. 

 It shows also the total amount of arable land, the 

 total amount of land under corn crops, under wheat, 

 under potatoes and under vegetables (though those 

 figures are not strictly comparable) and under small 

 fruit. The object of that table is solely to show what 

 has been the progress with regard to the utilisation of 

 the land of the country under these main headings. 

 I may add that the only table which I have sub- 

 mitted which touches on the point of labour is the 

 second one, which shows you the cultivated land 

 at each census year from 1881 to 1911, for England 

 and Wales respectively, alongside the number of 

 agricultural labourers in England and Wales respec- 

 tively. 



579. I was asking about the rato of wages. Have 

 you any return showing tho rate of wages paid in 

 those years for which you get a return of the culti- 

 vated land? There are returns of rates of wages, 

 which, as I said just no,w, were collected by the Board 

 of Trade. Whether they are for those particular 

 y.-.ir-, I could not tell you offhand; but there are 

 certainly some returns. 



580. Is it not a fact that during the periods of 

 depression, when land went out of arable cultivation, 

 the number of labourers and the rate of wages steadily 

 diminished? Yes, I think so. 



581. And was not that due to the fact that growing 

 corn and cereals was unremunerative? Yes; the 

 diminution of the land under arable cultivation was, 

 of course, primarily, if not entirely, due to the un- 

 remunerativeneas. 



582. Even though wages were reduced to the very 

 low level they got to? Yes; but I am not quite clear, 

 at the perioa of which you are speaking, whether there 

 was a reduction in the wages as compared with the 

 arable land. 



583. I think you will agree that wages got down 

 to the smallest possible point where people could live 

 in health, and the very plain living which the agricul- 

 tural labourer had? Yes, a very inadequate wage. 

 The period you are speaking of is about the middle 

 of the 'nineties; but, if I remember rightly, that was 

 not the worst point for tho agricultural labourer. 



584. Which was tho worst? In the 'seventies, I 

 should say. I am speaking again offhand ; but I 

 should have said the average wage of agricultural 

 labourers in the 'seventies was worse than it was in 

 the 'nineties. 



585. Despite the very low wages which were paid, 

 agriculture and arable farming could not go on? 

 Yes, that is true. 



586. Tinder the Corn Production Act the machinery 

 has been set up for fixing a minimum wage? Yes. 



587. If the Government forces on the employer the 

 payment of a particular rate of wages, is there not 

 a duty on the Government, in your opinion, to put 

 the farmer in such .a position as to enable him to pay 

 that wage? Yes, I should say so, as a general prin- 

 ciple. 



588. And with that idea, we have been told a 

 minimum wage was fixed below which you should not 

 go in the Corn Production Act, and a corresponding 

 guarantee. That was in 1917. We know tha-t the 

 minimum wage below which it could not be fixed was 

 25s., and the guaranteed price for 1920 is 45s. far 

 wheat. Leave out the corresponding price for oats. 

 If that is so, you would agree with me, I take it, 

 that as the minimum wage has very much increased, 

 that guarantee, if it was right then, must be hope- 

 lessly wrong now? Yes; if the two were intended to 

 be adjusted, one by the other, it is, of course, 

 obviously out of relation now. 



589. But the Act was to adjust them? As I have 

 said, I am not prepared to say what was the object 

 of the Act. 



590. Was there any other reason for giving a 

 guarantee, if it was not to adjust them? I did not 

 know it was argued that the only reason for the Corn 

 Production Act was to allow a minimum wage to be 

 fixed for labourers. 



591. What other reason was there? The general 

 reason at that time of increasing the amount of arable 

 land in the general interests of the country. That 

 was the object of Part I, I take it, taken by itself. 



592. You do not suggest the guarantee was to give 

 an undue profit? No, I do not. 



593. Just to make this clear, you would agree with 

 me, I think, that the guarantee under the Corn 

 Production Act has never been operative since the 

 Act was passed? That 13 so. 



594. And that such maximum and minimum prices, 

 as have been fixed for agricultural produce, have been 

 fixed under the powers of the Defence of the Realm 

 Act? Of course, the maximum prices have been fixed 

 under the powers of the Defence of the Realm Act. 



595. And the minimum, too? I am not sure that 

 any such power is required to fix a minimum. 



596. There is a minimum price fixed for this year? 

 .A minimum price is the guarantee. 



597. I suppose you do not know how it is going to 

 be fixed? Are you speaking of corn? 



598. Yes? Yes, the guaranteed price fixed by the 

 Government. 



599. I suggest to you there has been no Bill brought 

 in ; there is only a Ministerial statement at present. 

 However, I will not trouble with that. I understand 

 you are Deputy Chairman of the Wages Board? I am. 



600. Will you tell me the average agricultural wage 

 to-day? It is not quite easy, and I am afraid I 

 have not the exact figure. Of course, it is not uni- 

 form throughout the country. As a generalisation, 

 the lowest wage is 36s. 6d. at 21. 



601. I am only speaking of men who are 21. Should 

 I be right in saying it is about 40s. or 41s.? I do 

 not think it is as high as that; it i.s approaching that. 



602. Have you made any calculation as to what is 

 the increase in the average wage now, as compared 

 to what it was before the war, after allowing for 

 reduction in hours and for overtime? No; but if I 

 remember rightly, the average before the war was 

 about 17s., including allowances. The present wage 

 of course also includes allowances. 



603. I put it about 41s. You think it is not quite 

 so high? I do not think it is as much as that. 



604. Perhaps you will get it for us? Yes, I will; 

 but your neighbour knows. 



Mr. Ashby : They are all in the White Paper, except 

 the last increase. 



605. Mr. Cautley: What I put to you, and will 

 you tell me if I am correct, is that the average wage, 

 after allowing for the shortening of the hours and 

 the overtime, that will have to be paid to bring up 

 the hours to what they were before the war, has 

 increased 200 per cent ? No, I could not accept that 

 without looking into it. 



