MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



53 



21 Octvler, 1919.] 



Mlt. E. M. NCNNELEY. 



{Continued. 



14.944. Did that include the outgoing crop, or 

 only the tenant right? Only the tenant right. 



14.945. Not the off -going crop? What do you 

 mean by the off-going crop? 



14.946. The, away-going crop? I. was paid for the 

 wheat and so on I had sown in the autumn before, 

 but nothing else. 



14.947. You did not get the crop? No. 



14.948. In all the Lady Day tenancies I know you 

 get the crop? We have nothing of that sort. 



14.949. In Northamptonshire do you have Michael- 

 mas? Principally Michaelmas; but where there is a 

 Lady Day you have no claim on the crop. You are 

 paid for the actual work done, the seed sown, and 

 that is all ; the incoming tenant takes the rest. 



14.950. What about hay? You are paid for the 

 hay you leave on the farm, but only the consuming 

 value. 



14.951. Probably you did not leave the hay? I 

 left very much more altogether. 



14.952. Then it is unintelligible to me? So it is to 

 me, and always has been. 



14.953. Then 1 will leave that. I notice that dur- 

 ing all the War years, like other farmers, until 191P 

 or 1917 if, your bad year you have made a con- 

 siderably larger profit? Yes. 



14.954. Is a large part of that profit made up of 

 the increased valuations of all your stock that you 

 had at the end of the year as compared with the 

 beginning? Yes, and especially that applies to 1910 

 more than any of the other years. 



14.955. .In 1916 there was a larger rise in values? 

 Yes; because in 1915 (I know, as I made my own 

 \ aluation) I did not think the prices would continue, 

 and 1 did not value at all anything like up to their 

 value. 



14.956. If I may say so, I did rather the same. In 

 1916 you camo to the conclusion that the valuations 

 were more permanent, and you wrote them up, and 

 that showed a large profit? Yes. 



14.957. Did you write them further up to show tho 

 profit of 1,797 19s. 8d. ? No, they were quite as 

 high. Speaking from recollection, I think I put 

 everything quite as high at the end of 1916 as at the 

 end of 1917. 



14.958. I understand your view is that these profits 

 are considerably a paper profit? Yea. 



14.959. In other words, although you have had five 

 years good, you have to face the diminution of 

 your stock, alive and dead, all the way down until 

 it gets back to the normal, if it ever does? Yes. 



14.960. And it is not fair to count these as profits 

 which you may expect to make again? No, I do not 

 think so. 



14.961. I gather from something you said to a pre- 

 vious Commissioner, that you take the view there 

 will be a sudden fall in prices? I do not know about 

 sudden ; it would be rather what I should call a rapid 

 fall. 



14.962. I take the view it will not come just at 

 once, but when it does come it will be sudden. How- 

 ever, that is a pure matter of guess-work only. I 

 suppose you have formed your view on the fact that 

 all the outeide producers will very shortly be able to 

 land their cereals and farm produce into this country 

 as in the past? Yes, to a great extent. 



14.963. And that as soon as the shipping can be got 

 to bring the cereals here, we shall have to compete 

 with the Chicago price? I think so. 



14.964. I want to ask you as a man who has farmed 

 for 50 years, what in your view ought to be done to 

 make the tenant farmer's position secure? In his 

 business going on? 



14.965. Yes, in his business. I do not care twopence 

 about security of tenure? I. cannot say, but I agree 

 entirely with the statement put in by Mr. Donaldson 

 on behalf of the Farmers' Union, that it is for tho 

 country to decide which of the two policies it will 

 pursue. 



14.9fi6. I am sorry to hoar you say that, because I 

 think thfi Farmers' Union have made a huge mistake 

 in that statement. I am not going to repeat the cross- 

 examination I put to Mr. Donaldson ; but the leaders 



26370 



of the farmers who are engaged in the industry come 

 to this Commission and tell us: "Though we are in 

 control of this industry, we cannot suggest anything 

 that ought to be done." It is an impossible position? 

 It is hardly fair to say that. We do suggest, or I 

 would suggest, myself. 



14.967. I am not asking you as a member of the 

 Farmers' Union, because we have done with their 

 official witnesses; but I am asking you as a farmer 

 who is farming, I understand, very difficult land. Is 

 it 4-horse land? Most people would call it so. I never 

 use more than 3. 



14.968. I know the district well;' I very seldom use 

 more than 3, in fact never, except when breaking up 

 in the summer, when it is very hard. 



14.969. But it does bake very hard? Yes, so hard 

 that steam will not touch it. 



14.970. Do you keep steam tackle? No, I hire it. 



14.971. At any rate, for a man who has farmed that 

 sort of land for 20 years, which is about as difficult 

 land as you can have, what do you think it is that 

 ought to be done? 1 think it is hardly fair to ask 

 me what ought . to be done. I suggest two courses, 

 and the Government or the nation must decide on 

 which. Either they must give us a very big guaran- 

 tee under the present conditions, or what are likely 

 to be the future conditions, and as I say, such a 

 guarantee as I cannot conceive them giving; or they 

 must leave us entirely alone to go our own way and 

 to go back to the conditions of 1880 to 1890. I may 

 ,s iv. before 1880 the whole of that land was ploughed. 



14.972. What is the average yield of wheat you get 

 from your land? I put it at 4 quarters. 



14.973. Then you need not tell me that a reasonable 

 guarantee cannot keep that land in cultivation? If 

 you will allow me to finish what I was saying, tho 4 

 quarters is the average for the whole of my land, in- 

 cluding the land near to me which is far better and 

 worked -at far less expense. This land I particularly 

 refer to. the very heavy land. 2 miles away from 

 home, I do not think you could get on an average 

 more than 3 quarters from ; but at home I have fre- 

 quently grown 5 and 6 quarters. I was speaking of 

 4 quarters as my average of the whole. 



14.974. I see what you mean. Anyway, to ki-i>j> 

 the 3-quarter land in reasonable cultivation, do you 

 not think 80s. for wheat wouM be all right? Nothing 

 like it. 



14.975. I do not say you would grow rich on it, 

 but you would Have some other crops? As I told 

 you before, my day's work under the conditions which 

 now seem probable to come in on that land for men 

 and horses, would only be about 5 hours. 



14.976. That is because of the action of the Wages 

 Board ? Partly. 



14.977. I do not commend the action of the Wages 

 Board ; but you must start with the assumption that 

 the minimum wage fixed on the basis it is by the 

 Corn Production Act, has to be tried. We may 

 have some doubt whether 10 years' experience will 

 not show the economic law is too strong for it; but 

 you must start on the assumption that the economic 

 wage for the agricultural labourer is to be more 

 proportionate to the townsmen's wages than it has 

 been in the past. Starting on that assumption, and 

 nlso starting with the assumption that land such as 

 yours has to be kept in cultivation, I want your 

 practical view, not to mislead us but to help us, as 

 to what is the lowest guarantee that would do? 

 You have not yet referred to what I consider the most 

 important part, that is the hours, not the wages. I 

 could face the wages if you would let us go on with 

 the old hours. I can tell you that land 1J to 2J miles 

 from home always takes the men 1J hours to get to 

 work and the same to get back. 



14.978. As a practical man I quite see what a 

 serious thing that is; but suppose you get the Wages 

 Board more reasonable as to the question of hours? 

 I can only say if you went back to the old con- 

 dition of a 10 or 10J hour day, it would make a 

 very considerable difference. 



14.979. You may take it again, I think, that the 

 labourer is not going to work the long hours that 

 he did before, but he will work reasonable hours. 

 He will work longer hours than the present hours? 

 It is not the work. There is so much difference 



I' 3 



