71' 



KiiYAl. COM AGRICUI.TUHK. 



12 



THE Ho* KPWARD STKUTT, C.H. 



[Continued. 



I do not say it it common, bat some of the smaller 

 fat-men ha* hone* that are not quite a* good as 

 yon find in other OMM. 



1498. Any increased efficiency in labour would tend 

 to leMon Uie cost of production P Yes. 



1690. Would you agree that the oost of produc- 

 tion would be lew on a farm of 1,000 acre* than on a 

 farm of 300 acres P No, 1 cannot Me why that should 

 be so. Of count*, the man who manage* 1,000 acre* 

 u< probabU a more skilful man than a man who 

 manages 300, but beyond that I do not we why it 

 should be so. 



1700. It would be possible to have more scope in 

 the way of a ladder of promotion, and so forth. 

 the larger farms than on the small ones? Yea; it 

 might be that on the larger farms you have a better 

 position of offering prospects to your men to in- 

 duce them to try and progress and get on in the 

 world. 



1701. You spoke of the danger of the less efficient 

 agricultural labourer being out of employment. You 

 ir aware that u good many men have been dismissed 

 since tin- rcceni ,ncr. .isv in tin- minimum wage: 



I have not come across it myself, but I have been 

 told of it. 



17Ui Do you consider that those dismissals were 



economically necessary, or was there in the movement 



an element of demonstration against the legislation :- 



-There are some odd people no doubt who acted in 



that way. 



1708. Would you say from what you have heard 

 that it is the older men who are often dismissed ?- 

 Yes, I think it is so sometimes. 



1704. Ho you think the situation would be eased 

 if men over a certain age were exempted from the 

 operation of the Minimum Wages Act? I think 

 it might be a good way of meeting the difficulty. 



1706. Can you suggest any age? That is rather a 

 difficult question. Perhaps 65 might do, but some 

 men are so much better than others at 65. It is 

 *o difficult to say. 



1706. Taking a rough average would you say 65:' 

 Yes, I should think 66. 



1707. Yon spoke just now of a Saturday half- 

 holiday involving a greater loss to the farmers than 

 appeared, because their horses have to stand idle? 

 Ye*. 



1708. Is that in any way peculiar to agriculture? 

 In the large engineering and shipbuilding and other 

 establishment* does not the Saturday half-holiday 

 involve their machinery standing idle? Yes, but 

 when you are comparing the cost at the present time 

 with the cost before the war, you have to bear in 

 mind that it did not happen before the war. 



1709. You spoke of a 60s. guarantee for wheat 

 and a proportionate price for oats. If I remember 

 rightly, the President of the Board in introducing 

 the Corn Production Bill said that the prices guaran- 

 teed gave a preference to oats as compared with 

 wheat. Do you suggest that that preference should 

 bo continued? Yes, but I do not think a Scotsman 

 would admit that. 



Mr. Kiln-unit; Or a Welshman either. 



171(1. Mi. l.i -nii'inl : I understood you to say in 

 answer to Mr. Ashby that an increase in pronto 

 since the war means little because the amount of 

 the farmer's capital in his farm has increased. An 

 increase in thn value of a man's capital is prima 

 fucie a gain to him, is it not? Yes, it is. but that 

 i< the part of In, profita during th<> war which we 

 have talked about HO much an increase of his capi- 

 tal. That U part of his profit* which make liis 

 profits appear big, but it will go down again directly. 



I'll. V'.u .-|Miko ot tin' minimum rate ut w.ige.- 

 having become a standard rate, which was not what 

 wan intended hv the Corn Production Art. Is it not 

 the fart that tin- Corn Production Act . .nteniplat.cd 

 the j-etting up of a minimum wage by which a 111:111 

 .ii'l hi- family u'.tild li. .'..,!. I.. I I,, live 

 I aboil Id think that is true. 



171'J You would not. suggeM. that a lower minin"iir 

 than tho one now in ojwntion would n* present prices 



enable a man and hi family to live decently, would 

 Of course, it is rather difficult to say that. 

 \\ iii-n the Corn Production Act was brought in, 25s. 

 was the rate put in, was it not .- That was considered 

 .in man} jMople to be a very high rate at the 

 time. I belic\e certain people though; that It ought 

 to be 80s. 1 believe some of the. Labour Party 

 thought that it ought to be 308., and asked that it 

 should be ao. Therefore 1 presume they were of 

 opinion thai 90s. was the utmost it was necessary to 

 haie then. At the time the Corn Production Act 

 was under discussion and the 30s. was mentioned, 

 wheat was selling at 90s. a quarter and the loaf was 

 lid. to Is. it is now 9d., and I think meat was ] 

 well as dear as it is to-day. 1 think the agricultural 

 labourer on the whole would have been as Imdly otf 

 because prices were ruling very much against him then 

 as they are to-day, except perhaps in the case of 

 clothes and boots. 



1713. Have you considered the l<c|M>rt of the Wages 

 Board as to the cost of living in the case of agricul- 

 tural labourers:- 1 have only just glanced at it. 

 Would that be over the spring of 1917? Bread was 

 Is. a loaf, I think, at that time, and it now is 9d. 



1714. That Report goes into full particulars up to 

 the beginning of this year, if I remember rightly? 

 I think if you take the spring of 1917 March bread 

 was Is. a loaf, and you know the agricultural 

 labourer very well liread i.s a considerable item in 

 hi- expenditure: and I think the food which he uses 

 Ha* certainly quite as dear then as it is now, with. 

 as I say, "the exception of clothes and boots, which 

 were not so dear. 



1715. There would he, ot course. :t lessor number 

 in many of the homes because .some memoers of the 

 family would lie in the Army;' Yes, that is so. 1 

 should have thought that if 30s. would have been a 

 fair rate to put for the minimum according to what 

 people thought then, it is as good a rate as it would 

 be now. The cost now is not any more, is it? 



1716. You would maintain that the present mini- 

 mum is sufficient :- I would not like to say that. I 

 only say that .'!<)s. was considered 'the, utmost then. 

 and if that is so, it would be a reasonable rate now . 

 I would not like to mention a minimum rate for 

 the agricultural labourer, hut I .should have thought 

 myself that 30s. would he a good deal better for him 

 than his old wage, because : he agricultural labourer 

 has his garden, and he appears to be well off now. 

 compared with what he used to be. I do not grudge. 

 i> him in the least, but I think that is the fact, that 

 he is much better off now. 



1717. If I might turn back to the question of 

 guaranteed price tor the moment, do you think there 

 is any danger, if farmern were guaranteed 60s., that 

 it might create an impn -ssion that those best able to 

 form an opinion considered that world prices would 

 fall in the near future. In other words, might not 

 security be dearly bought, at the price of diminished 

 ho|>e? I do not think that is the attitude the farmer 

 would take. 



1718. It has occurred to me that the falling guaran- 

 tees of the Corn Production Act might have made 

 farmers more pessimistic with regard to the future 

 than otherwise? It may possibly be s o. but I think the 

 60s. would give the farmer tip feeling that it would 

 at any rate prevent him from going to ruin if things 

 went to the had. It would not make his fortune. 

 but it would prevent him being ruined if pri< < 



to the minimum. 



1719. Do not the high prices farmers ale paying for 

 their farms when they are put up for sale indicate 

 that farmers as a body ha\e a fairly sul.stant ial hope 

 that profits ^iill continue to he large?---! think the 



u is that the farmers have been on a rising 

 market for the last five years, and that anybody who 

 has been in business on a rising market ha- been 

 successful and i- a lionet ill person, and will buy his 

 farm even at a high price, hoping that it will he .n 

 right in the future: and another reason is that he 

 does m.t \\ant tn leave liis home. 



1720. That would diminish the need for a guarantee 

 would it not?--Yes; but the point in he would put hie 

 land down to grass unless he. has a guarantee. If 



