MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



51 



21 October, 1919.] 



MR. E. M. NUNNELEY. 



{Continued'. 



yourself to the full, as it were, in th< developing 

 of the farm-' No, certainly not, especially with 

 regard to the laying out of capital. I did not mind 

 my own time and trouble so much as that I was chary 

 of laying out capital which I knew, in the event of 

 this lady's death, 1 should probably lose. 



14.893. Of course, I quite agree with you that that 

 is the feeling of practically all of us ; but do you not 

 think that such a position is an impossible one for 

 the full development of our land? Yes, certainly, 

 I do. 



14.894. You will agree with me, therefore, that the 

 first essential is to put this on a proper basis as a 



nation? Yes. I may say that security of tenure 



has been the great objecf, farmers have been striving 

 for. It is the thing I have done publicly the whole 

 ot my life. 



14.895. It has been my object, too? I do not know 

 whether it would be fa'ir for me to say here that I 

 am intimately connected with the Farmers' Union, but 

 I am in no sense giving evidence on their behalf. 

 T have not been asked to do so, and my accounts 

 have not been submitted to them at all ; but, at the 

 same time, I am Chairman of the Land Tenure and 

 Local Taxation Committees of the Farmers' Union, 

 and, therefore, if you are going into that I should 

 have to be somewhat careful, because I should feel 

 1 have a certain amount of responsibility as being 

 Chairman of those Committees. 



14.895A. Chairman : I think the land tenure ques- 

 tion is only one to be gone into so far as it affects 

 the cost of production ; and, of course, it does affect 

 the cost of production if you are unable to expend 

 the capital which is necessary for economic produc- 

 tion? Of course, I look upon that and upon local 

 taxation as two very important questions for the 

 f,,ture. 



14,895B. Mr. Eilu-anli: As you are probably aware, 

 the drift of things at the present moment on this 

 Commission ami. possibly, outside, too, is, that the 

 remedy for the state of affairs is for the State to 

 guarantee prices and leave the other matters as they 

 are. I should like to have your opinion on tint 

 policy, if it is a policy? If I may speak quite freely, 

 I was more in favour of that a few months ago. It 

 was my idea very .strongly. But at the; present 

 moment, if conditions of wages and, more especiallv, 

 hours of labour, are to be continued. I am certain 

 that no Government could guarantee such a price for 

 cereals (and I say frankly, speaking as one of the 

 community at large. [ do not think they ought to) 

 as would enable me to continue to cultivate them < ti 

 a very large part of my land. I refer more especially 

 to the hours of labour, because my farm lies, as it 

 were, in a triangle, with the villago and the. buildings 

 at the apex. A very large proportion of it is from 

 1J to 2J miles away from that. With a lOJ-hour 

 working day, I could not get more than 6 hours' 

 work from horses on that land, and not more than a 

 7 hours' day from the men. With an 8^-hour day. it 

 w ill make it absolutely impossible to cultivate that 

 land. In fact, I am at the present moment laying 

 the whole of it down to grass again. The principal 

 part of it was in grass from about 1880 until three 

 or four years ago, when I broke up over 100 acn-s 

 '.f it. Next year, or the year after, the whole of 

 that will be down to grass again; because it means 

 this, that if the men are to have an 8J-hour day, 

 it takes at least 1} or 1^ hours to go from the dwel- 

 lings to that land, and the same to come back. With- 

 out reckoning the time of getting the horses fed, 

 before and after, it would mean on that land they 

 could not be at work for more than 5 hours a day. 

 I think you will agree with me, that with the present 

 wages conditions, cost of horse labour, and so on, 

 it would be absolutely impossible to cultivate the 

 land if they could only work not more than 5 hours 

 a day, even in summer. 



14,896. I quite see that things are unsatisfactory; 

 but you noticed the renly of the Chairman of the 

 Wages Board to Lord Lee as to the recent Order. 

 M" said there would be no difficulty, or no legal 

 objection to the farmer coming to terms with his men 

 to work any hours they like? I know, and I thought 

 it was one of the weakest replies I have ever seen 

 mnde by one public man to another. If Sir Ailwyn 



MHO 



Fellowos had been farming as 1 have done, without 

 a foreman or anything of the sort, for 50 years, I 

 think he would know that the men will not work 

 overtime systematically. They do not mind three or 

 four weeks in the summer, the hay time or harvest, 

 but they will not work for many weeks systematic 

 overtime. They say those arc their hours. Another 

 thing. I cannot conceive any Government giving 

 such a price for wheat as will make it pay me to 

 cultivate that land with regular overtime, and over- 

 time pay during the greater part of the work on it. 



14.897. So that the conclusion you are forced to is 

 thjt, whatever the guarantee or anything like a 

 reasonable guarantee may be, it would be impossible, 

 for you yourself at all events, to carry on as you have 

 done in previous years? Yes, it is utterly im- 

 possible. I may say my son is in partnership with 

 me, and I have been talking it over with him, and 

 he ({uite agrees with me. He practically manages the 

 lerm now. I am only there two days a week. Ho 

 agrees with me that it is absolutely impossible. Of 

 course I do not say if the Government were to guaran- 

 tee a quarter for wheat and 5 for oats, it might 

 not make a difference ; but I cannot conceive any 

 Government doing that, or any community agreeing 

 to it. I do not think it would be fair. 



14,89~A. Mr. Duncan: Just on this point Mr. Ed- 

 wards has been asking you about, is the land you are 

 laying back to grass, the. land which you broke up 

 within recent years? Yes, principally; but I also 

 intend, and am laying down, 60 or 80 acres more. 

 J n fact I have made my mind up to lay down to grass 

 the whole of the land that lies under a milo or more 

 from the buildings. 



14.898. Mr. Cautley: I notice that you have been 

 farming this farm for 40 years? I entered on it in- 

 1878, but I left in 1916; that is 38 years. 



14,898A. Y'es, to be accurate; so that the insecurity 

 of tenure has not troubled you very much? No; but 

 I might say that I was farming my own cousin's laud. 

 I knew perfectly well I was practically safe as long 

 as my cousin lived. 



11, --99. Creaking gates last a long time, do they 

 not ? Yes. 



1 l-.iXJO. And, at any rate, it did not trouble you 

 so much as to make you offer to take a lease? I 

 object very strongly to leases, not because of- my 

 iii'-K-iirity, but because I object to them. 



ll.!K)l. Am I right in saying you object to a lease 

 because of the obligations you undergo? No, not 

 altogether. 



14.902. Why then? Because, in the first place, 

 if I had taken a lease of that land when I took it in 

 1878, I should have been in the workhouse in 10 

 years. I will say at once my landlords met me 

 fairly. They reduced the rent enormously. 



14.903. That is exactly what I want to get to? 

 Then I go on to say that beyond that, the whole idea 

 of a lease, I am afraid is, that a man knows how long 

 he is going to farm the land, and ho may farm it 

 fairly well until about three years from the end of 

 the lease, but then he is bound, for his own protec- 

 tion, to run it all he can and take all he can out of 

 it. He knows, if he loaves it in good condition at 

 the end of that time, if he wants to renew his lease, 

 he will only have to pay a higher rent for so doing. 



14.904. I do not want to go into details, but what 

 are the valuers doing? You object to a lease 

 because if you get falling prices it is onerous for a 

 tenant? Yes. 



14.905. On the other hand, you get the security of 

 a lease in case prices go up, so that you can reap the 

 advantage. Is that not it? No, I do not think that 

 would be fair. 



14.906. Neither do I? I have said so all through 

 and I took another farm in 1894 at 13s. an acre it 

 would be absolutely unfair for me to take a lease 

 then ; and I am now giving 1 an acre for it, and it 

 is worth the money. 



14.907. You secure your obligations by taking a 

 lease. If you get further security, are not you trying 

 to get the advantage of a freeholder, without paying 

 for it? That is the trouble? No, I do not think 

 I am in any way. 



14.908. You are aware, arc you not, that owing 

 to the position of a landlord being made so un- 



D 2 



