839. And you regard arable dairying as more likely 

 to employ fabuur, and to get rid of the difficulties 

 of lubxidiarv labour siu-h as milking labour, than grass 

 dairying- Yen, certainly. 



830. So that would be an additional reason for 

 encouraging the growth of crops in connection with 

 dairying r'-Yem. 



s:il. 1 want to ask you one or two question* about 

 tii.' matter of the guarantor. You pointed out the 

 administrative difficulties of dealing with a guarantee 

 on any other than an acreage basis. Is there the 

 further advantage in the acreage basis, that it gives 

 ii ..-: help ill proportion to the least productive:' Take 

 the case of oats. The average in Scotland is -1$ 

 quarters to the acre. Certain land can produce 10 

 quarters. Kach alike would receive the guarantee 

 in respect of o ; so that the advantage of the guarantee 

 would be greater in the case of the leas productive 

 land? Yes, that is how it works out. 



833. It is that land which needs special encourage' 

 ment, is it not? Yes. 



833. Then the suggestion has been made that a 

 guarantee on that basis might lead to the land being 

 cultivated which is not economically cultivatable. Do 

 you think it is safe to leave that to the ordinary 

 processes of the market, and to the fact that the 

 guarantee is intended to be rarely operative ? Yes, 

 I think it is safe to leave that. I do not think, as 

 I say, that that will prevent a man doing his best 

 for the land. 



834. But it would be a sufficient safeguard against 

 any attempt merely to earn the guarantee by plough- 

 ing land which was not capable of producing an 

 adequate crop? I think so. 



836. You regard the guarantee as essentially a 

 matter for only occasional use, do you? I should 

 imagine so. 



836. You think the guarantee is fixed on such a 

 basis that in ordinary times there will be no depend- 

 ence upon it? Yes. If the object of the guarantee 

 is to give n man embarking in business a certain 

 amount of confidence in sinking his capital in the 

 business, it follows that what you want is Borne point 

 below which ho is assured his receipts from particular 

 products will not fall, and that obviously is not the 

 highest, or even the average. 



837. You do not suggest a guarantee which would 

 IK- frequently applied, in point of fact? No; 

 if it is fixed on that basis, and it is rightly 

 fixed, it would be something below the average he 

 is really likely to get. 



838. You suggest, I think, the intention of the 

 guarantee is that it is necessary to create a state of 

 confidence of mind in the farmer. In order to do 

 that, you say it must be sufficient to cover the case 

 of the cost of production by the average efficient 

 farmer. Is not that very difficult to get at, in point 

 of fact?_Ye,. 



839. You take a sanguine view of the possibility 

 of ascertaining that? I can only say that I hope, 

 after you have got all the assistance of people who 

 are able to advise you on the subject, combined with 

 tli<' t'ommisMoii, you will be able to arrive at a proper 

 basis. 



840. You do not think the real figures are yet 

 available!- I do not think they are, except 'by 

 deduction. You will not be able to prove it 

 statistically. 



H41. Tti your opinion we shall have to rely, not 

 on the results of any now existing accurate costings, 

 but on the general consensus of opinion of producers 

 under criticism and cross-examination? I think that 

 will bo your main reliance; tliough I still suggest 

 that you may IK- able to get, and I hope you will, 

 from certain individuals, a guide as to actual cotfs 

 in a definite form, 



842. In your view, in the guarantee intended to 



profit or surplus in agriculture for anyone 



rned. landlord or tenant? la it intended to bo 



subsidy ? That depends on the definition of 



" subsidy." Of course, I have already demurred to 

 expressing any opinion ax to what were the objects 

 in view ..I those responsible for framing the A 



843. But your own approval of it does not depend 

 on it* being a subsidy:- No. You were saying uliat 

 is the. object in view in passing it. I should not 

 have thought the object, in \ i> would have been 

 to secure the farmer any inordinate or special profits. 

 It was, I imagine, to secure him against loss or 

 continued loss. 



Ml. Therefore the question of who ultimately gets 

 nn\ Miinll profit there may be is really a subordinate 

 question? Yes, I should say it is subordinate. 



846. The intention being one of public pplicy to 

 promote production? I think so. 



846. I do not know whether it is contained in any 

 of the documents you have put before us; but how 

 do the wages actually paid in Kngland relate to the 

 minimum wage which is enacted? As far as 1 know, 

 there is no real jnformation as to that. We only get 

 it incidentally. 



847. Have you anything to put before the Com- 

 mission? No, I am afraid not. We only know, in 

 certain districts it is reported to us that tii- . 

 being paid to men are higher than, the minimum. 



848. You get that from certain districts? Yes. 



849. But you do not know how widespread it is? 

 No, I have no definite information. 



850. You point out, in one of the papers that 

 you have put before us, the proportion of labour 

 employed in large and small farms in various dis- 

 tricts. Have you any information as to the reward 

 of labour on large and small farms in the way of 

 wages paid? Do you mean the total labour paid? 



Ml. No. For example, you have a very large 

 number of farms which presumably, from their size, 

 are farms where the labour is supplied by tlio 

 families of the farmers. Do you know whether it is 

 common in these cases to pay any real wage at all 

 to the families? No. We only know, of course, in 

 the course of our experience of enforcing the 

 minimum wage, that we come across those cases 

 where the relatives of the farmer are employed on 

 the farm, ami we have to do the best we can to 

 apply the Act, which says that anyone who is under 

 a contract of service comes under the scope of the 

 minimum wage. 



852. But is there a contract of service in the caso 

 of these small family farms? No, I think not, 

 trciiorally speaking but you do come against the small 

 concrete case. 



853. On the whole, they lie outside? Yes. If it 

 is a holding cultivated by the farmer and his family 

 exclusively, as a general rule it does not come within 

 the minimum wage. 



854. Now, there are one or two questions, very 

 closely affecting the immediate cost <if production, oil 

 which I should like to know whether you can give 

 us information. There is the question of feeding 

 stuffs and the prospect of the import of feeding 

 stuffs in the immediate future. Can the Board give 

 us any information dealing with that? No, I am 

 afraid it is rather difficult for us. I think the 

 Ministry of Food will be able to give you a little more 

 lielp on that than I could. 



855. Have you any information to give us as to 

 the probable cost of the leading artificial manures? 

 In the future? 



850. I mean the forthcoming purchasing season 

 which is approaching? No, 1 think the Board might 

 be able to give you some information on that. I will 

 look it up. 



857. It is very important for us to have that infor- 

 mation? I will make a note of it. 



Nu WiHiniii Aslilry: There is a matter on 

 which your experience. 1 think, may be helpful to us, 

 if we should think it proper to enter upon statistical 

 inquiries of our own. The nearest precedent is the 

 report on the financial results of farming, drawn xy 



