140 



ROYAL OOMMISM..N ..\ A, Kit I I.Tl UK. 



19 



, 1919.] 



BIB TnuMA8 H. MIOIH.ETON, K.B.E., C.B. 



[Continued. 



a bill in. front of mo in respect of my farm on whi< h I 

 have 40 hones, and those items come to 80 16s. 6d. 

 for the whole year. That is, roughly, 2 a hone. I 

 hare also in front of me an estimate from an indus- 

 trial area, that is coming before us shortly, \vli.-i.' 

 they put it down at 3 a horse. I live in a 

 countrified district whore the harness-maker's 

 bill is probably cheaper, but in an industrial area you 

 will find it is "very nearly 3 a horse? Was the har- 

 ness pretty well worn? 



3468. No, it was well kept up, and it included re- 

 newals. I point that out to you because I feel sure 

 that your estimate with regard to horse labour is abso- 

 lutely too low, and that is where the difference comes 

 in in all the evidence you have given as regards the 

 cost of growing wheat-^it is too low P I may say that 

 I was uncertain myself with regard to that figure 

 for harness, and I am quite prepared to hear that 

 you think it too low. 



3469. These are figures that I can prove, and if my 

 figures are correct it brings up these items consider- 

 ably. The question of charging the oats at 5s. a 

 bushel, the cost of production, is a point we shall not 

 agree on, so I am afraid it is no use going into it any 

 further? No, but I do not think it matters which way 

 it is done eo long as you understand the principle. 



3470. Mr. Cauiley: If you are going to fix a 

 guarantee upon it it must matter? I do not think it 

 does so long as one understands the method. 



3471. Mr. Overman: It is not many weeks ago when 

 you and I were on a Committee calculating the cost 

 of feeding cattle in the winter months? That is so. 



3472. I see for the last six months in the case of 

 cattle 34 months old you put the cost at 133s. 3d. a 

 cwt.? Yes. 



3473. Wo thought in our calculation that during 

 that period a bullock would put on about a couple of 

 cwt. P Yes. 



3474. The cost, of a store bullock take a 10 cwt. 

 bullock would be 80s. a cwt. ? Yes. 



3475. If you take your 10 cwt. bullock at 80s. a cwt.. 

 Unit is 40, and adding the other items it brings him 

 to 53 3s. 6d. P Yes. 



3476. He grows into a 12 cwt. bullock, and the aver- 

 age price that we thought of would work out nt 

 S7s. 6d., would it not? Yes. 



3477. That brings him to 52 10s., or a loss of 1 

 3s. 6d. ? I had this same estimate in front of m at 

 the time, and I was reckoning for a rise of 10s. above 

 store prices and for a gain of 2) cwt. to make it 

 balance. 



3478. Do you honestly think that that is a fair 

 figure as an average? I think it is good, it assumes 

 very good management. 



3479. I suggest to you that 2 cwt. is as much as you 

 can reckon for on the average? Yes, about 2 cwt. 



3480. That brings the loss to 1 3s. 6d., according 

 to the evidence we had on that Committee. From all 

 these deductions it looks as if we are going to lose 

 money over everything? That is the conclusion whicli 

 has been drawn by a good many members of the Com- 

 mittee. 



3481. You have calculated that the farmer's capital 

 employed on an arable farm was about 15 an acre? 

 What I said was that a small farmer entering :i 

 farm could not do it on less than 10 to 15 at the 

 very cheapest. 



3482. How much capital do you think the ordinary 

 fanner farming 500 to 1,000 acres employs? He em- 

 ploys about the same I should say 12 to 15. 



8483. On an arable farm? Yes. 



3484. You would not be surprised if I told you that 

 I took over a farm last Michaelmas, and the valuation 

 came to about 20 to 25 an acre? No, I nm not sur- 

 prised to hear that. Just now you can easily expend 

 up to 25 an acre. Taking all your implement* new 

 and paying for your grass and all the other things: 

 you cannot do it under 20 or 22; but I was. 

 thinking of the case of a tenant who had his money 



invested and had adopted a cautious system of valuing 

 from year to year, and I think I have adopted tin- 

 rinht figure when I say the capital invested is between 

 IIJ and 15 an ac-re. or thereabout. 



.'llvi. Mr. Itca: In your evidonce-in-chief in para- 

 graph (3), you say: " From the above figures 

 and from the present outlook (given a guarantee 

 of 60s.) I should be inclined to estimate that 

 we might grow from about 2,000,000 to 2,200,000 acres 

 of wheat and 6,500,000 to 6,700,000 acres of total corn 

 annually in Kugland and Wales during the next five 

 yean." Do you think those figures would be enough 

 to safeguard the country? I suppose you look upon 

 the cultivation of wheat partly from the point of view 

 of the security of the nation in case of any future 

 wars, or anything of that sort? I have not taken 

 that much into account. What I am anxious to 

 secure is a sufficient area of land that would enable 

 us rapidly to increase our tillage land if necessity 

 arose, as necessity may arise from other causes than 

 war. Necessity may arise from bad harvests, for 

 example. 



3486. That is about the acreage which you think, 

 considering the nature of the land, could be 

 economically dealt with, or ought to be economically 

 dealt with? Economically employed during normal 

 times, and if abnormal conditions arose one could 

 lapidly expand to another 1,000,000 or 2,000,000 acres 

 of corn. 



3487. I think there is a misprint in paragraph 10. 

 I refer to this for the purposes of correction. You 

 say : " The country is likely to pay a price for its 

 mills." That should be "milk." 



3483. Yes. At the beginning of paragraph 11 you 

 say : " Tillage farming represents a very different 

 set of conditions a heavy outlay of capital, a hi^h 

 wages bill, more risks from weather, very uncertain 

 prices, much harder work." Do you apply that to 

 the working farmer only or to all farmers generally r 

 I think it applies to all farmers. 



3489. And to the farmer who does supervision 

 work also? Yes, he has to be pretly active on till- 

 age land. 



3490. I am told by a farmer that he has to work 

 much harder as a grass farmer? Possibly he has 

 to look after his sheep himself. 



3491. In paragraph 16 you refer to sm.iil holdings 

 and you propose to increase the existing nuivbcr of 

 small holdings of 20 to 100 acres. Do you consider 

 so small an acreage as 20 an economic; unn for a 

 small holding? Twenty acres of good land in the 

 South may be equal to 100 acres of high land in the 

 North. 



3492. Will 20 acres enable you to k<'o,> horses 

 going? With special cultivation, not by ordinary 

 cultivation. It is on the low side, I agree, but I 

 thought that one might go down to 20 acre? as a 

 minimum. 



3493. You would not put 50 as the minimum? I 

 prefer the 50, 60, or 70 acre size. 



3494. In the last part of paragraph 18 you say: 

 ' Properly applied such methods of Assessment would 

 H rve as a stimulus to tillage on the smaller farms of 

 which the occupiers might not be .-ifr.-cted by income 

 tax." I do not quite understand your reason for 

 that? That refers to paragraphs (c) and (d), the 

 rating affecting small farms which the income tax 

 does not touch. That is what I was thinking of. 

 Any inducement given to the landowner to secure 

 tillage would be reflected on the smaller farmer and 

 not touched by the income tax ; that was all. 



3495. You refer to the remission of income tax? 

 Yes, and also to the rating. The rating affects the 



farm. 



3496. You are very keen on getting as much land 

 cultivated as possible? I am. 



3497. It mean* getting back a lot of land into cul- 

 tivation which for the last 40 years has been laid 

 down to grass? It means keeping most of the land 

 in tillage that we secured in 1018. 



