MIM.TKS1 OF 



169 



20 Ai/yust, 191U.] 



MR. CASTELL WREY. 



[Continued. 



would be less stock because we handed over so many 

 acres of grass, and naturally we should have sold some 

 of the stock off. 



4365. Turning in a general way to the results, you 

 had two years' losses and tour years' profits with a net 

 profit of about 6,300? On how many years? 



4360. Six years:' If you take the eight years there 

 is a net loss of 80. 



4367. I do not think we have figures for eight 

 years? Yes, I thought I handed them in. Here are 

 two more years here, I thought they had been handed 

 round. 



l.'i'K Take the first two years. There is a net 

 loss of 4.345 ? Yes. 



I ii>9. Then you have four years' profit, total 

 10,866? Yes. 



4370. Then you have a net profit on the six years 

 of 6,521? Yes. 



4371. A\ ith an increase in vour valuation of 

 10.648? Yes. 



4372. We are right in assuming that you have 

 wiped off a big overdraft at your bank during the 

 period of somewhere roundabout 5,000? I cannot 

 tell you off-hand; have you got it there? 



4373. We have your bank charges here? I will 

 take your figure as correct. 



4374. That is the position : that you have is a 

 matter of fact through cash received from the farm 

 during these years wiped off this overdraft? Yes. 



437."-. Cliniriiiiiii: Your overdraft at the llth April, 

 i'H-. is 2.947 according to the balance sheet? ^ - 

 It was wiped off in 1017. and it came on again : it 

 was CI91 in 1917. 



4370. Could you tell us what is the comparative 

 condition of the farm now its compared with when 

 you took it over? I think it is cleaner than it was. 

 that is all I should like to say. The buildings are in 

 worse repair because we have had no men to repair 

 them. 



1377. Has the fertility not lieen reduced? Xo, it 

 hn.s increased if anything. 



137H. The general condition of the land is that it i~ 

 as good if not better than when you took it over? 

 Y-x. I think it is. The valuer expressed that opinou 

 to mo. the other day when he was asked, that he 

 thought it was considerably better. 



4379. To that extent your valuation i.s not wrong? 



>> hir as cultivations go I do not think it i.s. 



I3*fi. There are some rather striking figures in 

 \<>iii balance sheet for labour. Would you mind me 

 (ading them dowiu. In 1913 your total ll>our bill 

 was tt..(77? Yes. 



43X1. In 191), L-l.2til ' Yes. 

 In 191.-,. C3. !!!!' >.... 



J3-3. In 191U. 3..->!is;- .Ye. 



t.!-l. In 1917. 3.193r Yes. 



4.TX.-.. I,, )9H. L3 .-19? Yen. 



13^(5. So that up to the 6th April, 1917. while the 

 wages had been rising all tin- time your actual laliour 

 bill had l>een falling, ml the condition of your farm 

 \\as well maintained to say the least? Yes. 



43H7. How did you do \\'? My increased labour 

 saving machinery and organisation. 



1'i--. So that at least on a big farm w here you can 

 have a fairly good equipment, a rise in wages does 

 not necessarily mean a rise in the total cost of lalxnir,. 

 or even in the total cost of cultivation? Xot neces- 

 sarily on a big farm. If you f^ct reallv bi^ machinery 

 you can reduce your lal>our bill enormously, but t 

 would ruin the small man if he tried the same thing. 



4389. My question related to the big farms?--On a 

 big farm it is quite possible. My idea of a big farm 

 i- llii^: it I could get the area I wanted 10,000 acres 



I should employ big expensive machinery, and I 

 could afford to pav verv much higher wages than 1 

 inn paying today. In that way I should get the pick 

 of the men. and I am certain that economically it 

 would be a good thing to do. 



43'MI. I understood yon to say in reply to a question 

 by Mr. Cautley that'you would get somr figures re- 

 I-iting to the live stock, so that we might see what had 

 happened to the valuation, \\botliei it v.as real, or 

 whether it n ax only written npP- Yes. I will bring 

 those figures. 



4391. Y'our live stock system of farming is to rear 

 and sell the finished product? Yes. I buy calves, 

 that is all. I put my bulls at the dairy and I buy 

 the produce back. 



4392. Do you remember saying this morning, that 

 you thought that the fact that production in agricul- 

 ture had been well maintained during the war while 

 the efficiency of labour was falling, was due to the 

 fact that farmers themselves had done more work than 

 they had ever done in their lives before? Yes, and I 

 stick to that statement. 



4393. Will you accept the generally accepted figure 

 that there are three labourers at least to every 

 farmer? Is that right I am prepared to accept it if 

 you give it to me. 



4394. I think the members of the Commission will 

 agree that that is a generally accepted figure. As a 

 matter of fact it is the Census figure with the excep- 

 tion of a small decimal point. I want you to consider 

 whether you think that one person would be able to 

 d'i the work which would be necessary through not 

 only the falling off in the efficiency of the other three 

 persons, but also owing to the" fact that those three 

 persons had been reduced to just over two because 

 of recruiting, and so on? I am afraid I did not 

 quite follow your question; it was rather long. 



4395. Supposing you had throe employees and one 

 employer, and you reduced those three employees by 

 recruiting to between two and three, and the efficiency 

 of the remainder fall off considerably, dees the other 

 one person do all the work that is necessary to counter- 

 balance not only the loss from recruiting, but the loss 

 of efficiency in those that arc left? I think I am 

 right in saying that the farmer has worked harder 

 than he has ever done before, he has had to do it to 

 keep his farm working. He has stuck to it morning, 

 noon and night, which the labourer will not do. 



1396. You would not say dogmatically that the 

 increase in production is altogether due to the work 

 ni the tanners themselves? No. I do not, I think 

 i: is a great deal due to the advertising of the value 

 of sulphate of ammonia and other manures which the 

 Hoard undertook. 



1397. You promised. I believe, to bring some figures 

 relating to the efficiency of the workers? Yes. 



439S. That is to say, you are going to try to show 

 11- in figure's by measurements the efficiency of the 

 present day workers as compared with the efficiency 

 of the workers in 1914 and 1915? Yes. 



1399. Do you not think that that needs very care 

 fill methods of measurement? They have got to be 

 careful. A labourer is not going to be done down 

 nowadays. If I say he has only ploughed three 

 quartern of an acre, and he says he has ploughed 

 an acre, he i.s not going to take my word for it. 



4400. This is not a question of doing the labourer 

 down, but a scientific measure as regards efficiency. 

 Can you indicate to us the method by which you 

 would .show anv change in effic enev on the part of 

 the agricultural labourer between the year 1915 and 

 the present date? I think the easier way would be 

 to take the case of CJi-orge, or Dick, or Tom, and find 

 out what I was paying him pre-war, and how much 

 work he did for it. and what he is getting paid to-day 

 and how much work he is doing for it. 



Mill. Does not that much depend upon the sttsto 

 of the land, the condition in which it is as regards 

 weeds, and its wetness and dryness, and soon? Yes, 

 tlwit creates a difficulty. 



4402. You will bear that in mind in your figures? 

 Yo. where they were working generally but of course/ 

 I cannot trace particular fields that George or Dick 

 or Tom were working in lx>fore the war. I will give, 

 you the figures as near I can, but I cannot promise 

 nearer than that. 



I 103. Several member! have discussed with you the 

 question as to whether or not it is true that even in 

 your own local area farm labourers who have held 

 offices ill connection with their union have, been 

 penalised because of that fact? I do not know of a 

 case. 



4404. Was there not a case on a local estate where 

 :i man who was the secretary of a lrn<lo union which 

 had a small strike. w;is evicted:- I cannot Irjl vim 

 nk all. 



