70 



KOYAI, O'MMlS.sMN iN AOJ'.rl I.Tl'KI.. 



,,/, 



Tint 11. IN. 



STKUTT, r.H. 



,iued. 



in: Yes. 



:i. In that cat> 1 do not con.idcr it worth while 

 t<> [mi nii\ question*. 



1U'<7. Mr, 1'rutter Jontt. I think you told us it was 

 possible to get more out of tin- land, ami even more 

 out of tlu land thai is at present under the plough I" 

 I did not know that 1 said that, but it in very 

 likely true. Do you mean wo could plough up more 

 laadl 



1638. No. That we could get more out of what wo 

 have already plouch- : I think wo could pro- 



duce more out of the land than we are doing to- 

 day. 



Iti'i'J. By what means? By higher and more expen- 

 sive cultivation. 



1640. You told us, I think, that you 'ould not get 

 the men to take on piece work? That has been our 

 trouble rather. 



1641. Is it your experience that the work performed 

 on the pioco-work basis is as efficient as work per- 

 formed on the day-wage system? I think it is, on the 

 whole. Sometimes there is an odd man who is not 

 80 good, but taking it on the whole, the agricultural 

 labourer is a very honest fellow, and generally does 

 his work well. 



1642. Do you know that it is the experience right 

 through the country that people are getting away 

 from piece-work where they possibly can? I am 

 afraid that is so rather. 



1643. Not only people engaged in the agricultural 

 industry, but in other industries also? I do not know 

 about other industries. 



Kill. Ifr. Lanijfin-il : You said in answer to a ques- 

 tion from Mr. Prosser JoneS, that in your opinion 

 the land could be made to produce more than it does 

 at the present time? I think that is jMKsible. 



1643. You think that is so? Yes, I think it could 

 be made more productive if you spent more money 

 upon it. 



1646. Do you put that down to the inefficiency of 

 the farmer or to the fault of the system?- To the 

 fault of the system, I should say. I do not say that 

 every farmer is efficient ; some, farmers are not. 



1647. Would you agree with me that one way to 

 improve the system and to enable the farmer to do 

 more with his land would be to give the farmer a 

 bettor security of tenure? Personally it has never 

 affected me. I have farmed a good deal of land, 

 and never felt in danger myself. 



1648. It has come within your knowledge in con- 

 nection with the Board of Agriculture, has it not, 

 that a vast number of farmers are receiving very 

 nhort notice to quit their farms six months or some- 

 thing of that kind? I have not heard of any cf 

 six months. I thought it was twelve months. 



1649. Is it within your knowledge that Earl 

 Beauchamp gave his tenants six months notice to 



?uit and put the farms up for wale? I heard that 

 x>rd Beauchamp had sold hH farms, but I did not 

 know that the notice was only six months. 



1650. Do you consider that such tenure as that is 

 conducive to a high class of farming and heavy crop- 

 ping? No, I do not think it is. 



1661. Would you agree with mo that if there is 

 a guarantee given, however small it i. it would give 

 Creator confidence to the farmer- although there 

 would need to be some legislation to prevent tho 

 landlord getting the full benefit of the guarantee? 

 Of course, under the Corn Production Act then- N 

 one now, is there not. 



l'-VJ. There is a guarantee as to price, but no suffi- 

 cient guarantee to keep a good tenant farmer on 

 his holding? A landlord '-annot give notice to a 

 tenant to raise hi* rent on account of anything lie 

 has gained from tho Corn Production Act, can he? 



1653. Is it within your knowledge thai Miany land- 

 lords are giving their tenant- notice in order to raise 

 rents at the present time!' There are occasional land- 

 lord* who do it. but I think they are obliged to raise 

 the rents because of their own increased ex| 

 I think it is only fair that they should bo able to do 

 so -up to a point. 



>-!. 1 agree with you. Would \ou agree with me 

 the high prim which land is fetembg in the 



I . 1 11.. .It. 



1864. 



that 



open market to-day i-. \ery largely due to the I 



prices which have been ruling since the war. and 



that fanners an- compelled to pay high juices for 



.. \\heii they arc put n]> for .-ale DYW their 



rather than be turned out of them- I think 



lai rs have undoul>tedly made money during the 



war ami \\ant to keep in their (arms, and are will- 

 ing to buy them it they are for .-- 



!' \ou think that tho Agricultural Execu- 

 tive CommitN-es. or any Committees that are to re- 

 ihein. if they lia\i> power to turn out a farmer 

 for inefficiently tanning his land, ought, on the other 

 hand, to have a right to IM) able to retain a farmer 

 u|K>n his farm if he is farming it in a high state in 

 the interest* of the nation? You arc opening up a 

 very wide question there. It practically means that 

 tho land OH net- is only to be a rent charger if you are 

 going to insist on that. 



Does it not affect the position of the whole 

 economic system? ] want to see the farmer the owner 

 of his farm. 1 want to see as many owners as we can 

 have. 



1657. Is it riot the fact, if the farmer becomes the 

 owner at the present inflated prices, it will havo an 

 important bearing on the cost of production in the 

 future and a tendency to increase prices to the con- 

 sumer? I do not think the rental is a very imjH>rta,nt 

 part of it. The rental of this land here comes to 

 about 9 per cent, of the whole show, including the 

 interest on the buildings and the tithe and every- 

 thing else 1 think, as a matter of fact, tho rental 

 only comes to 8J per cent, in this cose. 



1658. You are basing that rent, 1 take it, upon as 

 you have told us-- high-class wheat producing land 

 at an oxccpt.ionally low rental of 20s. per tu-re? I 

 think it is a little more than 20s. really now; it is 

 about 24s. now. 



1659. In any case you would regard it as not an 

 average rente! for similar land in the country? No, 

 I think the rent is rather low. It is good wheat land, 

 but it does not follow that it is good land because it 

 is good wheat land. It is useful land. 



1660. You have been asked a great ninny question* 

 as to why you have not put in a profit and ]os 

 account a balance sheet, showing not only the cost of 

 production, but the profit. You have put in a state- 

 ment showing the expenditure?-- Yen. 



1661. You have told us that the yield ha.- been five 

 quarters to the acre on this particular farm during the 

 year 1918? I have given you, in the case of wheat, the 

 receipts as well as the expenses. 



16G2. The difference between the cost of production 

 and tho price at which you sold that wheat would be 

 your net profit? Yes. 



1663. So that it is a very easy matter, in tho case of 

 the wheat, to arrive at what your profit was on this 

 farm ? Yes. 



1(10 1. Do you fallow much of your land? No< 

 lately; that is because \\e have been asked to grow as 

 much wheat as wo can. We have put jiotatoes in. 



UK;"). Therefore there is no expense of fallowing in 

 these, figures? No. 



llilili. This would not represent your average 

 system of farming? Before the war perhaps wo should 

 have one field _'' i ;i,res in fallow, 1 Mippose. 



!()(!". You sjioke just now alx>iit the incllicioncv 

 of lalxnir. I put It to you that that inefficiency 

 which yon referred to was not inefli. iency on tin part 

 of tile habitual farm labourer so much as inefficiency 

 on tb part of the labourer whom \ou have hail to 



put up with during the continuance of the 11 

 That has been so, of course. 



V.ii do not anticipate that that incllieienc y 

 will continue when the experienced agricult uri 

 demobilised and return to their work? There will not 

 !> - > much inefficiency certainly, but. I am ..haul we 

 1,10 in. i gelling quit,, the same amount of work out of 

 our people as we did Ix-fore llm war, but I think thai 

 in the future wo shall not get the proM-nt inefficiency. 



