'. 



ItnVAl. O'MMIv-K'N ON .M.IClCI I.TI KK. 



& A*giut, 1919.] 



Si* UAMEI. HALL, K C.B., F.B.8. 



inHt,l. 



cr*k, 3.7 in limn calorie* out of a total homo pro- 

 duction <>f VI.'J million ruloriiw. That u more than 

 9 per cent. 



74. I am sneaking of the total supply of f,l to 

 the t'niunl Kingdom, which in tln> column to the 

 right?- Home production was about 4'.' |>cr cent in 

 calorics. Of conn*-, n you whittle it. \..u 

 represent anything that' we produce as negligible. 

 Thai ia a perfectly consistent argument. You can 

 take the line, if you like, that British agriculture 

 and the food it produces is negligible, and ought 

 to be written off; but that is n.it .nir ljn art- tin- 

 Board of Agriculture, nor the policy that I stand for. 



I do not wish to whitt.le it olf. I ju.-t 

 wiah io state the facts, as near as I can state them 

 in roiiml figure*, ami that is roughly tin- |M*.ition: 

 that- of the total weight of food consumed we pro- 

 duce in cereals about 2 per cent.. nd of the total 

 energy value of the food we consume ,. produc . 

 in cereals roughly nlM>mt 7 per cent. The question 

 waa whether l>y guaranteeing prices for that 7 per 

 cent, you did seriously affect the total supply of 

 food to the t'niUMl Kingdom? I i-li you could turn 

 it into cash rot-urns to the typical farm. I think we 

 could get a better idea of how far the pri<v of cere il- 

 ia going to affect farming from that th.-in from con- 

 sidering what fraction it bears to the total .supply of 

 food to the country. 



76. In paragraph 4 of your prrcii you use the 

 phrase " The minimum living wage."' Would you 

 define that from the Board of Agriculture point' of 

 view?-! cannot define it. I think we should all 

 agree that it cannot be defined. 



77. You would not suggest that the minimum wage 

 hied by the Agricultural Wages Board this spring 

 has exceeded what could bo defined as a minimum 

 living wage? No; I certainly should not myself make 

 the suggestion. 



You agree with Mr. Anker Simmons that the 

 depression in prices between 1885 and, say, 1907 de- 

 populated the country? Yes, in certain districts. 



79. You would agree, I suppose, that the greatest 

 amount of depopulation both an regards total num- 

 bers and as regards the proportion of the rural |pu- 

 lation occurred between 1851 and 1881. and l-iil and 

 1871, at a time when the amount of arable land was 

 increasing antl when British agriculture was exceed- 

 ingly prosperous? Yon mean that the fall in the 

 rural population waa greater between 1861 and IS7I 

 than between 1871 and 1881? 



90. Yea; or between 1881 and 1*!H :- I mu-st take 

 your word for that. I do not know the figures of the 

 population during that time. 



81. That is the case. The |x>int I mint to bring 

 oat is thin, that it was not only prices. hut certain 

 changes were being made in methods of production 

 which called for leas manual labour?- Yes, there was 

 no doubt that that process was and is going on, 

 economy in the production. The reaper and hinder 

 alone has enabled the corn land to be farmed with 

 fewer men. 



W. And that partly accounted for the depopula- 

 tion? The point I rather wanted to make was this. 

 that while that process was going on, the introduc- 

 .ion of machinery which called for less hands on th 

 farm, then- was no temptation to the farmer to more 

 intensive production which would have occupied the 

 ante number of hands. 



I nge<> ; but do not you think that it was 

 inevitable that there should be'some depopulation of 

 rural Kngland during that jieriod even if prices had 

 Wn maintained- Yes. I think there would Have IMVII 

 a reduction, but there nonld not have K.cn the whole- 

 sale laying down of certain areas to grass. 



84. Mi I'uiiflrii: I understood yon to say that 

 you considered the uar had shown that we ought 

 to have in this country a.s much arable cultivation as 

 possible? I think the war brought home to us the 

 necessity of it. 



85. Would you also a^rec that to make good man- 

 power, whether for soldiers or for an industrial army 

 we rhould also have n large an arable itopulation ns 



Me!- F l.elieve in the value of the rurnl popu- 

 lation a* an eleir 



86. Whether it is to make good the wastage of the 

 town or the wantage in armies? Yea. 



87. Could you tell u how many more men are em- 

 ployed on arable land than on grat* land:' Arable. 

 I. in. I would employ from 3 to 4, say 4 men. per 1(K> 

 acrci-. and the grass farm alx>in <>M,.. It depends. 

 You may get a grout farm wh> tin-re is ..ne man to 

 500 acre* or one man to 900 acres. 



88. And a more intense cultivation and better culti- 

 vation of arable land, the more men could be. employed 

 and greater production could he obtained. Do you 

 agree with that:- On the very best arable farms that 

 I am acquainted with, and I am speaking before tin- 

 war, as, for instance, some farms in the Kant I/othians 

 and some of the Fen farms, you would rise to 5 or 6 

 men per 100 acres. Then, of course, when you come 

 to fruit and market gardening, you get a man to 

 5 acres. 



89. Should I he also right in saying that you can 

 produce milk bettor on arable land than you can on 

 gran land!'- -You can make sure on arable farming 

 of an even supply throughout the year, which you can- 

 not do on grass. 



90. Therefore, for every reason, it is desirable to 

 have as much arable cultivation as possible? Yes. 



91. You have to ensure having workmen? Yea. 



'.'-. Therefore, the first problem is. is it not. to see 

 that the men are paid as well a.s the industry can 

 afford to pay them: do you agree with that? I do 

 not think I can accept your limitation. I mean you 

 must pay the men to compete ith other indunt : 



93. I \\ill not say the industry then. Shall 1 say 

 well as this country can afford? V 



! 1. The better the wage, the more contented the 

 man, 1 take it: would that be so? Certainly in the 



end. 



95. To gel these men is not it desirable that the 

 agricultural wage should be more proportionate to 

 that which it is in the towns? Yes. 



!H>. Are you quite sure that good wages increase 

 production? Certainly in the end. 



!)7. I am not sure that the miners' results have 

 shown it. hut you think it does? It does. My own 

 experience would be that sometimes you have a little 

 temporary set -hack as the first effect of increasing 

 wages. 



98. Was it from that point of view, to get the men 

 on to the land and to make them contented and more 

 piodu< -live, that the minimum wage was fixed in the 

 Corn Production Act? It was the feeling that that 

 was necessary to secure the position of labour. 



99. And in that Act for the first time in any big 

 industry, at any rate, the wage was to be fixed quite 

 independently of the selling price of the articles pro- 

 duced by the workman? Ye*, that was so. 



1<H>. That is a new principle in this country, at any 

 rate? Yea, as far aa any big industry goes. 



101. I am speaking of a big industry. I a t 



speaking of sweating ti:u: > s, that is so in a big 



industry. 



IH2. Then does not it follow that il you fix the 

 wages independently of the wiling price of the article 

 there must conn- a time some time or other- w hen the 

 industry cannot pay the wages? That would be so, 

 or certain parts of the industry 



10:t. The result would then follow, would it not, that 

 the employer will go out of business:' 



]O|. |5ut he would be put out of business by the 

 action of the- Stall- : lie would. 



10."). In fixing the wage independently of the cost 

 of production and independently of the selling price r 

 Yea. 



106. Therefore. I think you will agree with me 

 that it is a State's duty to take soi> 

 that the employer is kepi in business:- If the 

 thinks that the l.nsineKs is one to keep him in. yea. 



1117 Otherwise, industry g". W.- .-\acilv. 



