H'S 



UOYAL COMMISSION ON AORICULTUKE. 



19 Auyutl, 1919.] 



SIR THOMAS H. MIUM.KTUX, K.B.E., C.B. 



[Continual. 



whole of the equipment ought to be charged on tho 

 rent to the small holder? It undoubtedly ought to 

 be if it is going to be an economic proposition. 



3114. If it is going to be an economic proposi- 

 tion, I take it there would be small clianre of a small 

 holder making a success of his small holdings; in 

 other words, he would probably have to pay double 

 the rent of what the farmer paid before it was cut 

 up into small holdings? At the present cost of build- 

 ings ho would, but one always hopes these costs 

 "ill not continue. 



3115. Do you see any real hope of costs of building 

 coming down in the near future? I am not suffi- 

 ciently acquainted with the building trade to answer 

 the question with any authority, but I should hope 

 they would come down in the near future. The 

 mere fact that there is a scarcity of 100,000 men in 

 the building trado and they cannot get men is a 

 thing which time should remedy. 



3116. When there is a larger number of men being 

 engaged in building, is it at all likely that their wages 

 per hour will come down? I do not know. 



3117. Then it is reasonable to presume that the 

 small holders, the men who would be fixed up on the 

 land in smalr holdings, in the near future will have 

 a hard beset fight with all these increasing expendi- 

 tures put upon them? They would certainly have to 

 find a hig"her rent if they got new buildings. 



3118. I suppose you are aware that in the past, 

 when the County Councils have purchased small hold- 

 ings and equipped them, that the Assessment Com- 

 mittee have pounced immediately upon the small 

 holder and increased his rent, even upon the fencing, 

 the buildings and the supply of water, and that sort of 

 thing all the expenditure upon small holdings. 

 That is so, is it not? In some cases I have no doubt. 



3119. Is not it your opinion, and you have had 

 great experience, that small holders ought to be re- 

 1 eased, at any rate, of that payment? I should like 

 to see it done. Whether it is desirable that it should 

 be done seems to mo to be a question largely for tho 

 locality. 



3120. Is not it more a question for Parliament than 

 for the particular locality to alter the system? Is it 

 your view that the small holder is unfairly rated? 



3121. M^ point is that it is unfair to rate a man 

 on the buildings and equipment. It is rating a man 

 on improvements? Yes, I see your point now. 



3122. I put it to you, it would be better to alter 

 the system of rating, and put it upon land rather 

 than upon improvements and upon buildings. Do you 

 agree to that? I agree it is desirable not to penalise 

 the improvements. 



3123. Do you agree that under the present system 

 of rating improvements are reported and are 

 penalised? I have not come across it in my own 

 experience. I think it is likelv I take it from vou it 

 U likely. 



3124. Do^you agree with me that if I put up a 

 range of cowsheds suitable for making a feeding farm 

 into a dairy farm, I am immediately rated upon tho 

 market value invested in that direction? Yes. 



3125. Do you think that is quite fair and that the 

 system ought to bo altered? I suppose the answer 

 to that is, the consumer of milk will have to pay. 



3126. That may or may not be the case. I see in 

 your suggestions you propose to cut up farms into 

 small holdings of from 50 to 100 acres. You make no 

 provision in your recommendation for smaller hold- 

 ings? I was not dealing with tho statutory small 

 holding, or the small holding in the sense in which 

 one u.iually uses the term. I was thinking of the. 

 small farm which could be worked by on pair of 

 horses as compared with the farm which is now re- 

 quiring two to three pnim. 



3127. Would you agree with mo that the most eco- 

 nomic small holding would be the one which the skilled 



farm labourer taking up a small holding could nork 

 himself with his family without paying wages? Yee, 

 I agree. 



3128. But do you think a small holding on which 

 an occupier has to pay out large wages would be 

 likely to be profitable to him No, 1 think not; but 

 what I did draw attention to in my i-.-nm.ii.- is the 

 very heavy cost of horse labour now, and it was that 

 I was thinking of. 



3129. Then under your recommendation to supply 

 small holdings, you suggest im-n using tin- number of 

 20 to 100 acres from 137,000 to 192,000. You would 

 displace 55,000 farmers. What do you propose to do 

 with those? I do not displace 55,000. It is a bigger 

 area. I displace 15,000 from the larger farms and 

 give them the small farms. 1 am assuming they ar 

 the less efficient people on the larger farms. Tin ,< 

 are 40,000 to be provided with holdings of an average 

 size of 60 acres about. You \\ill find it will take 

 something like 15,000 holdings from the next group 

 larger to make these 40,000 holdings. 



3130. Then your idea is to put upon some of the 

 smaller farms men who are now farming the larger 

 farms? Yes, and as a rule not doing thriii well. 



3131. But is not the idea of small holdings at the 

 moment to bring a largely increased number of men 

 on to the land? Quite; but I do not want to turn 

 those men who are on the land off the land. I want 

 to make provision for them. 



3132. But you want to make them smaller farmers? 

 Yes ; a great many of them should be. 



3133. In your Appendix B you state that the cost 

 of feeding a beast in summer is much less than in 

 winter. Do you agree with me that that fact alone 

 will have a tendency to put down to grass a lot of tho 

 land which is now tillage? That is the strong factor 

 which is influencing men to put down land to gras 

 at the present time that and wages. The cheapness 

 of grass feeding is recognised. 



4. With regard to your estimates of growing 

 wheat, autumn cultivation, harrowing with one mar 

 and two horses, do you mean one man with two horses 

 will harrow 16 acres a day? Yes. 



3135. Is not that very much above the average now 

 done? No. I think it is a good bit less than the 

 Scotch average and about the Eastern Counties' 

 average, but probably more than the Western 

 Counties' average. It depends on the condition of the 

 land, of course. 



3136. With regard to the rolling mentioned by Mr. 

 Smith, you would regard it as bad farming not to 

 harrow and roll the land in the spring, would not 

 you? Yes. 



3137. Is not it the fact that very frequently a 

 good farmer rolls his wheat and other crops as many 

 as two or three times in the spring? That may be. 



3138. If ho gets an attack of wireworm, he has to 

 do it many more times than that? Yes, that may be. 



3139. Under " Other Charges " for seeds you have 

 2} bushels. Is not that much below tho average 

 usual? Not if you take the average over the whole 

 of the country. The seed average is rathor hiphor 

 in your area; but on tho whole it would be rather loss 

 in the Eastern Counties I think. 



3140. The Chairman: May I, just for the purpose 

 of getting it on the records, ask if you wore Lecturer 

 in Agriculture at Aberystwyth University College? 

 I will briefly indicate tho appointments I have held 

 in this country. I began my agricultural work in 

 India; I was there seven ye'ars. I was Lecturer 

 in the University College of Wales, Aborystwyth. 

 from 1896 to 1899; Professor at tho Armstrong 

 College at Newcastle from 1899 to 1901 ; Professor of 

 Agriculture at Cambridge from 1902 to 1907. I re- 

 signed in 1907. I came to the Board of Agriculture 

 as Assistant Secretary in 1906. I resigned my ap- 

 pointment in May of the present year, and I am at 

 present a Commissioner under the Development Act. 



