71 



IIOYAI. COMMISSION oN ACiUICUI/TL'KE. 



12 



, 1919.] 



THE H>\. EDWARD STRUTT, C.H. 





1753. To what extent do you vhink you were thort 



of jour KTJ Kl M.mtUrtl ol' labour?- 1 have n<". 

 into it from that |x>int (if view. 



1764. You would bo considerably down!- You. 

 *1766. The moro fact that jour laud i in a \.-rj 

 bad state now would allow that your pre-war standard 

 of labour was considerably higher- Yes, we were 

 rory thort of labour indeed. 



1766. You itate that the pro-war wages were 16s. 

 a week in EsBox'r That waa tho minimum wage. 

 The men used to earn roughly about a guinea a week 

 in those days. 



1757. The Corn Production Act came into operation 

 in August, lit 17, did it not? The Bill was passed in 

 August, 1917, and the 25s. came, into force then. 1 

 think. 



- Yen, and tho increase of wages passed by tho 

 Wages Board, which 1 believe was 32s. for Essex, 

 came into operation about June, 1918? I do not 

 remember the exact time; you probably know better 

 than I do. 



1759. 1 think it is fair to assume that for 9 month- 

 ..I tin- year the mini mum wage was 25s. a wtvk. and 

 for tho last 3 months of the year it was 32s. ? - 

 Yes, probably that is so. 



1760. That is an average of 26s. 9d. for the year? 

 You have worked it out no doubt, and I accept it 

 from you. 



1701. Iti your figures for Labour Cost in Table 1 you 

 show that the average of the 3 years 1912, 1913, and 

 1914 was 9,628, and that it was 16,440 in 1918. 

 That is an increase of 90 per cent., is it not? If you 

 say so I will take your word for it; I have not worked 

 it out. I do not think it is 90 per cent, quite. I have 

 not paid any attention to the percentages with regard 

 to 1918, because I only put in 1918 for your informa- 

 tion, and nothing eke. 



1762. I understand that these are actual figures? 

 Yes. 



1763. I was just wanting to point out that the 

 average wago of 26s. 9d. for 1918 as compared with 

 the average pre-war wage of 15s. is only an increase 

 of 80 per cent, for labour? Yes. 



1704. Your figures show an increase of rather more 

 than that on a considerably reduced amount of labour 

 employed:' I soe what you mean. Of course it was 

 inefficiency of the labour perhaps, as well as the 

 numbers. 



1765. I understand you to say that the amount of 

 labour employed in 1918 was considerably less? It 

 was less in efficiency, and I think less in numbers 

 also. Wo had some soldiers who were not verj r effi- 

 cient, and we had a lot of women too. 



1766. It seems rather strange that on a smaller 

 amount of labour employed, the increase in your 

 labour bill should be 10 per cent, more than tho 

 actual increase in wages, even assuming that the full 

 number had been employed? Is it right about the 

 90 per cent.? Have you worked it out? Is it 10 per 

 cent, moro? 



1767. I am taking your No. 1 Table? Is 16,440 

 an increase of 90 per cent, on 9,628. 



1768. Mr. Athly. 72 per cent? Yes, it is only 7'J 

 nor cent. ; it is not 90 per cent. ; 1 thought you must 

 be wrong about that. 



I "lilt. .Mr. Smith : 1 am sorry my figure was wrong. 

 Still, tho wages bill would ix> father high if the 

 amount of labour was considerably reduced !' I really 

 think the reason was that a j/n-al many women were 

 employed. They were splendid people and ga\. 

 tremendous lot of help, hut for all that they were 

 not cheap laliour I am afraid. 



1770. I notice in your figures you have a consider- 

 able item for manure- "\ 



1771. What proportion of thorn; would bo artificial:' 

 'y tlie whole. 



1772. I)o you produce no manure on your farms? 

 Whatever is produced it is not booked. The only 



difference the actual amount would make in the 



V..s would bo the <! ii.it there 



was one year and what there was another, so that 

 piai t it-ally you may tako it that lh- manure, pro- 

 diited .m" tlie fun would not affect the account* 

 in all. 



1773. You would not allow for any increabo m 

 manures produced on tho larmsr No, 1 think 

 1 ilnnk you may take it that those figures ai< 

 artificial manures as nearly as possible. 



177-1. In regard to your figures of tie cost of pio- 

 duting your J918 wheat crop, your figures show a 

 total cost of 11 lls. Vil. j- 



1770. You have just admitted in reply to a qu< 

 ol .Mr. Parker's that 3} quarters per acre would bo 

 about an average crop!'- It would not ho an a\- 

 crop for me, but for tho hea-y land ol K.SM>X 1 .should 

 say that would bo about right. 



1770. In suggesting a guaranteed price, of 60s. a 

 quarter you have put a figure at which in your opinion 

 the farmer would be guaranteed against loss? Yes, 

 1 hope so. 



1777. Not iu order tint he should reap an advan- 

 tage from the guaranteed price, but that 60s. re- 

 presents a point at \vlm h the farmer would feel that 

 he would not make any loss!' Y'es; so that he could 

 keep going. 



1778. 3i quarters at 60s. would be 10 guineas, 

 would it not? Y'est That would not enable him to 

 do it on very heavy three or four horse land, but 

 as 1 have said in my evidence, if you will road it. 

 I consider that such land is doomed. 



1779. These figures, therefore, have not much sig- 

 nificance so far as the future of the land is oonoeraeor 

 These figures would not save the three or four horse 

 heavy land. 



1780. You mentioned something in your evidence 

 about the. trouble with labour. What did you moan 

 by that? Of course, there are a lot of little disputes 

 going on now which did not tako place, before- there 

 is no doubt about it and it is a matter of anxiety 

 to the farmer and worries him. 



17-1. Did you include shortage of labour as one of 

 your labour troubles? In the past few years that has 

 been one of our troubles; I do not Know whether 

 it is going to be so in the future. 



1782. Is there a shortage at tho present time!- 

 In some places they are very abort, and in other places 

 they have got quite enough. 



1783. If farmers in some districts state that they 

 can get more labour than they require for harvest- 

 ing would that in any way destroy the fact that 

 there is a shortage in other districts? There are 

 tome places where there is a preponderance of labour, 

 and there are other places where there is a great 

 .scarcity. Where I live we have enough labour, and 

 we .shall have enough for tho har\est. 



1784. I take it that your idea in submitting this 

 evidence is to give us some idea upon which to base 

 a conclusion as to what tho future of the agricultural 

 industry is likely to be? Yes, I thought it would 

 give j'ou the expenses of those average yeais and 

 what the similar expenses will be in the. futuro as 

 far as one can see according to the riso in ; 

 That seemed to me as reasonable a way of settling 

 the thing as you could adopt. 



1785. If anybody hftppMiad t<> semi \<>u n pros- 

 pectus of a business and asked you to invest in it, 

 and they only .submitted accounts to \<>u showing 

 what their expenses were, hut not I heir receipts, 

 would you pay much attention to it: I think you 

 must rcali-e that hat has been done in ihe la.st four 

 or five \. olutely no test for the future in 

 ilie flight e-t decree. I hope you will understand 

 that. It you do not. you will go wrong in a hope- 

 less dee.! 



1786. I am sure we do want to understand, and 

 that is just my point of dilliculty. My difficult;! in 

 properly nnder.-taiidiiie; ail the fa'-t that 

 you have only given us one set of figures, and there- 

 fore I am not in n position to judge piopci-ly as to 



