130 



ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 



19 Aufutl, 1919.] 



SIR THOMAS H. MIDDI.ETON, K.B.B., C.B. 



[Continued. 



It i* a pretty old basis now, because when I was a 

 young man I moved about a great deal among farm 

 servants, and I knew the general feeling there 

 i* in the mind of the farm servant. A certain number 

 of them prefer " service," as they call it, to holding 

 land, but there are always a certain number of mm 

 who want to be independent, and I estimate taking 

 one with another that you would find a demand for 

 a small farm from about one in ton farm servants. 



3163. That i* based on the recollections of your 

 youth? Ye*. 



3164. You do not know the altering factors that 

 have come in since then? No, but I think that .tho 

 altering factors which have come in since then havo 

 all been in favour of small holdings ratlin- than tho 

 reverie. The prospects of saving money used to ho 

 very very small, whereas nowadays it is very consider- 

 able. 



3165. You think there is greater likelihood now of 

 their going in for small holdings?- Much more likeli- 

 hood now than there was 35 years ago. 



3166. You use the expression " Wages Fund." Will 

 you tell us exactly what you mean by that? Unless 

 an industry produces a certain amount of money, 

 there is nothing to divide up among the various 

 interest*. If you are tilling arable land, the gross 

 average value of the crop at the present time would 

 be something like 14 to 15 to the acre, whereas 

 under grass it would be 4 or 5, and in the 14 or 

 15 there is a much bigger sum available for division 

 than in the 4. 



3167. Really, it is another way of stating that more 

 people are employed on the arable land than on the 

 grass? Yes. 



3168. I thought that perhaps you were using it in 

 the good old sense in which economists used it? No. 



3169. Mr. J. M. Henderson: Referring to your 

 Appendix A, where you speak on the pre-war and post- 

 war cost of growing wheat, you put the cost pre-war 

 at 33s. Id. per acre? No, per quarter. 



3170. That was pre-war? Yes. 



3171. And after the war you put it at 59s. 2d.? 

 I do not attach any value to the penny and the two- 

 pence, but it happened to work out in that way 

 arithmetically. 



3172. Wo will call it in round figures 33s. pre-war as 

 against 59s. post-war per quarter? Yes. 



3173. How much money do you assume the farmer 

 made per acre pre-war if it only cost him 33s.? In 

 the fire years before the war he would have made 

 10s. and 8s., that is 18s. per acre, but as I explained 

 at the beginning of my evidence I think my estimated 

 yield is probably 2 bushels too low for that class of 

 land, and you ought therefore to add on another 5s.. 

 bringing it up to 23s. 



3174. The post-war cost according to yon is 59s. ? 

 Yes. 



3175. So that if he sells at 72s. 6d. he makes more? 

 Certainly. We know he is making much more just 

 now than he did before the war but he is getting the 

 advantage at the present moment of good times which 

 will be certainly evened out by hnd times. 



3176. Then the whole of your scheme is based upon 

 bad times? No, it is based upon the average. 



3177. If he is getting 72s. 6d. or 76s., which I think 

 is nearer what he is getting, what use is the 60s. mini- 

 mum that you have proponed? Because he is not 

 convinced, and no one can be certain that the price 

 will not drop suddenly, although that is very im- 

 probable I think. 



3173. I suppose you arc aware that the Canadian 

 Government have fixed the minimum price of corn at 

 an equivalent to 7/>s. for this season's crop. They 

 have fixed it at $2.25 per bushel which according to 

 my arithmetic works out at 75s. a quarter? Yes, 

 that is about it. 



3179. You say yourself with regard to the world 

 production and the world demand that it is very un- 

 likely for the next two or three years there will be any 

 drop in prices P Yes, that is so. 



3180. Is your suggestion that we should give to the 

 farmer a minimum of 60s. a long way below what he 

 is selling his wheat at in order that his feelings 

 might bo soothed: is that it? I really cannot say 

 whether his feelings will be soothed by it or not. 



3181. You speak of this being in the nature of a 

 psychological protection for farmers. This ia the first 

 time I have heard of such a form of protection? 

 What I mean exactly is that if he had a guarantee of 

 60s. for say five years ahond he would be induced 

 in my opinion to put in the quantity of corn I have 

 estimated or thereabout. 



3182. He was induced to put it in 1375 without 

 any minimum. What has happened to him since then 

 to make him require a guaranteed price? His wages 

 bill lias gone up very much and foreign competition 

 has entirely modified his views as to the prospect of 

 corn growing. 



3183. You think, therefore, that we must come to 

 his aid? I do not think he wants you to come to his 

 aid ; on the contrary, I think he would like to be left 

 alone. 



3184. Now will you take your Appendix B with re- 

 gard to meat. You work out here the total cost of 

 producing meat before the war? Before the war it 

 was 36s. lOd. per cwt. on the 2-year olds and 40s. 

 on the 3-year olda. 



3185. 36s. per cwt. the cost, and selling at 18 Is. 9d. 

 per head. Do I understand that that figure of 

 18 Is. 9d. is the result? No, the 18. Is. 9d. is the 

 total pre-war cost at 23 months. He would have to 

 sell the animal at 21 or thereabouts. 



3186. What did he sell it at in fact? Just before 

 the war at about 39s. per cwt., I cannot remember 

 exactly. 



3187. What profit did that leave him? 2s. 2d. a 

 cwt. on 9 cwt. 



3188. That is 10s. 6d.? Yes. 



3189. Post war you estimate 73s. lOd. as against 

 the cost 36 4s. 6d. ? Yes. 



3190. What profit does that leave him ? I beg your 

 pardon, the 36 4s. 6d. is the same figure as" the 

 73s. lOd. The present price is 79s 1 . 



3191. How much profit does he make out of that? 

 5s. 2d. 



3192. That is 6s. 2d. as against 2s. 2d.? Yes. 



3193. That is not a bad profit? Do you propose to 

 give him a minimum in regard to meat? I have made 

 no proposal as regards meat. 



3194. These figures which you have assumed have 

 been hastily got out? No, tney are not hasty, they 

 have taken a good deal of time to prepare. 



:tl!o. To go back to your evidence, you say in para- 

 graph 1 : ''In the absence of a large number of 

 accounts it is impossible either to prove or disprove 

 the correctness of these estimates." It is difficult 

 for me to start with a thing which is not capable 

 of either proof or disproof? I quite agree you are in 

 a bad position, but they are not hasty figures, they 

 have .taken a good deal time to get out. 



3196. Would you be willing to admit that these 

 estimates are all on the pessimistic side what they 

 call in the City on the " Bear " side? No, I do not 

 think so. The figures set out in the estimate are 

 pretty nearly right, I think. 



3197. May I put it that they are figures which 

 from your own conscious rectitude you think are 

 right, but you have no other data upon which to go? 

 In the case of the two year old cattle, the figures 

 are based on the weighing of 130 cattle in seven suc- 

 cessive years about 18 animals each year. 



3198. You say nothing here about cattle bought. 

 As you know it was tho custom of farmers to buy 

 their store cattle from Ireland and elsewhere and 

 feed them? Yes. 



3199. You have given us no estimates at all on 

 tho profits made on that kind of cattle? No. I 

 havo confined the estimate to the case where the 

 animal ipends it* whole life oil one f.-irm 



