MINUTES OK EVIDENCE. 



137 



19 August, 1919,] 



SIR THOMAS H. MIDDLETON, K.B.E., C.B. 



[Continued. 



3363. According to your figures does the cost of 

 growing the wheat consist mainly of labour, horse- 

 keep and the use of implements? Horsekeep and 

 wages are the two heavy items. 



3364. And a certain amount for the use of 

 machinery ? Yes, that is so. 



3365. Would you agree with me that wages havo 

 gone up about 200 per cent.? I cannot get an exact 

 figure but I put this one case to you in Essex on 

 which I found my statement. In Essex the pre-war 

 rate of wages was 15s. for 63 Hours this has come 

 from an Essex farmer, and Mr. Dallas agrees. JB'or 

 54 hours now it is 38s. 6d. Adding on nine hours to 

 make good the number of hours before, bringing 

 it up to 63; at overtime at lOd. an hour it makes 

 7s. 6d., and adding 7s. 6d. to 38s. 6d. it makes 46s., 

 as against 15s. pre-war, which ia a little over 200 

 per cent.? That is one particular case. Mr. Duncan 

 assured me that the figures were the other way, but 

 what I want to point out is if you know of any par- 

 ticular figures which are operative in any county 

 and will fit them into this estimate you will get a 

 comparison. 



3366. No, I am not going to do that, You brought 

 out a total of only 80 per cent, increase, and I am 

 pointing out to you that so far as labour is con- 

 cerned I do not know what is the heavier item, 

 labour or horse hire? Horse hire probably. 



3367. Horse hire and labour are not very far apart, 

 and if labour has increased 200 per cent, do not vour 

 own figures show that the charges for horses have 

 increased 100 per cent.? Yes, it comes out at 5s. us 

 against 2s. 6d., that is 100 per cent. 



3368. Yes, and I think you will agree with me that 

 the use of threshing machines and purchase of iustru- 

 ments have increased a good deal more than 100 por 

 cent.? These are the rates for threshing machines 

 which were in vogue at the time I made my estimate. 



3369. The only item that remains c:oniit<iiit is the 

 rent, all the others have increased 100 to 200 per 

 cent. ? It does not shake my estimate. I am quite 

 prepared that the Commission should take their own 

 figures and apply them and bring out results which 

 are quite different from mine, but I remain pretty 

 well where I was at the beginning. I say this id 

 how the cost works out, taking my figures for wages, 

 <c. 



3370. Let us go a little further. What sort of land 

 is this estimate for? Heavy loam. 



3371. Ploughed with two horses? Yes there is no 

 three-horse land in it. 



3372. You have excluded the three-horse land and 

 the four-horse land? Yes, I have. 



3373. Do you regard that as though that land ought 

 to go back to grass? No, but I regard the two-horse 

 land as being nearer the average than the three and 

 the four, although there is a large proportion of wheat 

 grown on three- and four-horso land in Essex. 



3374. You have brought out the cost of production 

 at 60s. for two-horse land? Yes. 



3375. Have you formed any estimate what it would 

 be for three-horse land? I have not actually made 

 an estimate. I should guess, if I did make up an 

 estimate, that it would come out at about 65s. 



3376. I suggest to you it would be 20 per cent, 

 more? The method of working would be different. 



3377. What is your view of what ought to' become 

 of the three- and four-horse heavy land? I hope a 

 great deal of it will remain in wheat. 



3378. How can it at a price of 60s.? I have said I 

 do not anticipate a price of 60s. I am talking of a 

 60s. guarantee, but I anticipate a much higher price. 



3379. According to the world's markets, you mean? 

 According to the world's markets. 



33W). Therefore you think that throe- and four-horse 

 tend must t,-ik.- its clisince in the world's markets? 

 \\ lion the three- and four-horso land came on a bad 

 teason, and there was a likelihood of a heavy loss, and 



coinciding with that heavy cost of tillage there was 

 a world price lower than the 60s., the farmer would 

 at any rate get his guaranteed price. 



3381. You cannot hope to grow corn on threo- and 

 four-horse land at the same price, and your guarantee 

 for the best land is 60s. You have estimated a yield 

 of 4J quarters on that land? I have. 



3382. You do not suggest that we in Sussex on our 

 heavy clay land can grow anything like 4i quarters to 

 the acre? Not in Sussex. You should grow four 

 quarters. 



3383. I have a letter from a man who has threshed 

 in my district for 50 years. He says that the average 

 is three quarters. What is to become of land such as 

 that? All I can say is it is time he ceased farming. 



3384. Do you mean you do not believe it? No, I do 

 not say that at all. What I mean is, if in 50 years he 

 can only get an average of three quarters, the man 

 must try something else than wheat on his land. 



3385. What did you mean when you said that you 

 were doubtful if even 100s. per quarter would secure 

 4,000,000 acres of wheat in England and Wales? I 

 meant that the area of land over and above about 3i 

 million acres in England and Wales which would be 

 available for wheat growing would be of such poor 

 quality and so difficult to work that even at a price of 

 100s. it would not be kept in cultivation. 



3386. Have you farmed yourself? I have years 

 ago. 



3387. Would you not agree with me that anything 

 like a price of 100s. would make a farmer's mouth 

 water, and that he would jump at the idea? With 

 three quarters of wheat I doubt whether it would 

 make his mouth water, on four-horse land. 



3388. Not oven then?- I doubt it. 



3389. Let us go back to your own figures. Is the 

 land in regard to which you have given the figures 

 land that requires to be fallowed after some years? 

 No; it is wheat after mangolds. 



3390. You never have a fallow? Not in this par- 

 ticular case. 



3391. Has not the bulk of the land in this country 

 to be fallowed at some time or another? No. About 

 one-tenth of the area that grows wheat, I suppose, is 

 fallowed. 



3392. You mean a regular rotation? Yes. About 

 400,000 acres of fallow 



3393. That is bare fallow not roots? But of 

 course, this land that I refer to is root fallowed. 



3394. Do you charge nothing for the roots towards 

 the wheat crop? Yes, I have charged that here. 



3395. Where? I think you will find that I am not 

 at fault there. I charge two-fifths of the cost of 

 the cleaning crop. 



3396. Assuming that the net cost of the cleaning 

 crop was 3 in pre-war times/, do you think that 

 1 4s. is enough for that now? I think so it should 

 be. 



3397. Do you really as a practical farmer tell me 

 that that is anything like enough? I do not like to 

 make much loss on my roots as a practical farmer. 



3398. You do not? No, I should be very sorry to. 



3399. You have a different farming experience 

 from mine. How often do you estimate the root 

 crop has to be ploughed? In this particular case 

 not more than two ploughings probably one pre- 

 paring for your mangolds. 



3400. For land that has to be fallowed six or reven 

 times your estimate is altogether wrong? My esti- 

 mate does not apply in that case; that is the way I 

 put it. 



3401. Unfortunately in my experience I have 

 ploughed my fallow six or seven times! where we have 

 had to fallow land so that the cost camo out very 

 much higher than yours? Yes, that is the very 

 great difficulty of putting down any sort of figure. 

 You can show under certain conditions that it is 



