MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



11 



5 August, 1919.] 



SIR DANIEL HALL, K.C.B., F.R.S. 



[Continued. 



210. How do you moan? That he had faith in his 

 landowner and knew, taking it on the whole, that 

 the landowner would consider himself bound to keep 

 him going, while he himself was able to give notice 

 to leave in a year. It seems to me the farmer has 

 always asked to have the best of both worlds in this 

 matter of his tenancy; and now th'at the old race of 

 landowners is going out of business, as it were, I 

 daresay we shall have to have a change. 



211. Mr. Green: Can you enlighten us as to why 

 the guaranteed price was suddenly changed from 

 55s. to 75s., considering that you had no data to go 

 upon? You mean as regards this year, 1919? 



212. Yes: 1 I must repeat that there is no connec- 

 tion between the 55s. or the other prices in the Corn 

 Production Act, and the promise given last November 

 of the Government to buy the corn crop of this year 

 at tho maximum prices that were then guaranteed. 

 You see it was simply a promise to continue those 

 maximum prices, or to make those maximum prices 

 actual prices. 



213. Would the Board in the interests of the State 

 be in favour of buying at guaranteed prices for the 

 community? Are you speaking of guaranteed prices 

 as a permanent measure? 



214. Yes? I think at the Board we are opposed 

 entirely to the idea of fixing the prices at which 

 the State may buy. 



210. You are? Yes. We believe that that is an 

 unworkable plan. 



216. Have you no data of the cost of production 

 on the Holbeach and Patrington Farms? Yes, we 

 have for the year and a half since Patrington began 

 in April, 1917. We have a year and a half's accounts 

 complete and we have a year's account of Holbeach. 



217. Shall we be getting those from Mr. Floud?- 

 They are printed in a Parliamentary- Paper. 



218. And the costs of production? No, I do not 

 think tho costs of production are there. You mean 

 dissected for the crops? 



219. Yes? No, I do not think they are. You 

 see the costs of production would be very little good 

 for the year of starting as evidence. What I sug- 

 gest to you is that those figures, which are quite 

 open to you, are of very little value as bearing upon 

 the general costs of the industry. 



220. Do you think that the guaranteed prices as 

 n policy have really stimulated corn production in 

 this country? Certainly not. I should say not, 

 because they have never been in operation! You 

 see the actual prices that have prevailed since the 

 Corn Production Act was passed have been a long 

 way above the guarantees of the Corn Production 

 Act, and a long way. below the world's market prices. 

 Tin' world prices, for instance, in 1918 for wheat 

 would ho over KXK. instead of tho 7.V. that we have 

 been tied to. 



221. Therefore they have been quite ineffectiveP - 

 They have not been in the picture at all. 



222. You have mentioned somewhere in your book 

 that tho farmer's jxrs<mal profit does not coincide 

 with the national interest; and following on that 

 statement in your little book, " Agriculture after 

 the War," you have said tlw> moet effective lever 

 to secure the better farming that is now needed in 

 the national interest would be to give the State 

 powers to take over any land that has been inade- 

 quately used. You say the most effective lever. 

 l)o you still hold that ' opinion? Certainly. That 

 is another provision of the Corn Production Act. 

 The Corn Production Act takes its stand on that 

 point, that while it deals with security for the 

 lal>ourore' remuneration and security for the farmers' 

 remuneration, the community shall he guaranteed 

 good farming by giving the State powers to take 

 possession of land whieh is inadequately used. 



223. I think, if I may say so. the Board was rather 

 nervous of getting farmers to stick to their busi- 

 ness during the war time, when the case of deter- 

 mining leases was put into force. T believe about 

 on.DOO acre- have boon determined in that way. 

 T)o you think it would bo a very good plan especially 

 in the case of helping a man who is a very skilled 



man, if he were put in as bailiff of many of these 

 farms which have been under-cultivated I mean 

 men such as agricultural labourers, cartel's, and so 

 on? 1 think wherever you can see how to 

 handle a piece of land whieh has been taken 

 possession of in this fashion, it will be 

 done; but very often with regard to this land 

 which has been taken possession of and 

 cultivated compulsorily by the' Executive Committee, 

 it is extremely difficult to see how you are going to 

 handle it permanently. I will give you a case 1 went 

 to see in Essex ten days ago. You go down in the 

 neighbourhood of Southend. You have what they 

 call in that part of the country plot-land estates 

 which were sold in little blocks of twentieths or 

 fortieths of an acre for house purposes. The buyers 

 very often let their title lapse, and there was a dere- 

 lict area of the country with here and there a house 

 scattered about. A lot of that land was brought into 

 cultivation during the war. The Essex Committee 

 set to work and ploughed it up ; but there is no farm 

 there. There are plots, there are fields, as it were, 

 without any buildings. The labour has been brought 

 from a distance to do it. The horses perhaps walked 

 two or three miles. There is nothing that you could 

 offer a man to settle upon ; and there is very great 

 difficulty in seeing how that land is to be resettled, 

 and whether one can afford to do anything but let 

 it go back to the owner. 



224. In your book also you make a general state- 

 ment that most farmers are deficient in brains and 

 capital? I do not think I say most farmers? 



225. I have the passage here. Do not you think, 

 bearing that in mind, that a good deal of the agricul- 

 tural depression and the farming which did not pay in 

 that time was due a good deal to the inefficiency on 

 the farmers' part rather than the prices? I quite 

 agree that the efficiency is not at the highest level 

 or as near a high level as we should like to see it. 

 Hut you have to take people, including farmers, as 

 you find them. If you want the land cultivated, they 

 are the only people who can cultivate it. You have 

 not another race of heaven-made farmers to put in 

 their place. 



226. You mention skilled men, agricultural 

 labourers. Bearing on that point, you say in a type- 

 written sheet issued by the Board of Agriculture that 

 " In most counties the best farmers have shown great 

 keenness to co-operate with the Government in train- 

 ing ex-service officers and men, but in one or two 

 counties difficulty is being experienced in finding up- 

 to-date farms for the purpose." Would you inform 

 us generally where those counties are? I really would 

 not like to say off-hand until I looked up the figures. 

 I have not that in my mind. 



227. Gould you give us a statement of the com- 

 parative acreage taken up between corn-growing 

 farmers and, we will say, market gardeners, fruit 

 growers, and dairy farmers? I will have that lire- 

 pared for you. 



228. Mr. J. M. Henderson: The result of the Corn 

 Production Act has been to increase the cereal area 

 by how much? I do not think the Corn Production 

 Act as such has had any effect in that direction. It 

 has been, as it were, overridden by the war situation. 



229. But was not the real object of its introduction 

 in the House to encourage men to cultivate pasture 

 land and break up land whirh has not been broken up 

 before? It was introduced as a measure of per- 

 manency to show that the State was permanently 

 interested in the arable land ; but the factor which 

 had the immediate effect was the order of the Com- 

 mittees to plough. 



230. What I mean is this. The original intention 

 of the Act. as stated by the Minister who introduced 

 it, was to encourage the increase, and it only applied 

 to the increased area which was to be cultivated? 

 Yes, that is so. 



231. L,ator on it applied to everybody, and the re- 

 sult was that the original object failed? But I would 

 still insist that the action of the Corn Production 

 Act in that respect was altogether overriden by the 

 other actions that took place, that is. the action of 

 the Committees. 



