

ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 



21 



, 1919.] 



MR. E. M. NDNNELKY. 



[Continued. 



between what is called tho working week and work- 



ing day t. tin- actual li.. ...it is 



what I think most bunt If the men cannot work 

 on that land something like 8 hours a day, it adds 

 t'lmrn. . lv to I'M. expense. 



14,9X1. You Hi. an it the, i annul wurk. tin- rogt of 

 your horse-. ami ploughing is all going on just the 

 am- . oing on the same. Mi.instl,, 



under thoso condition., my horws would not work 

 on that land more ili.ni V to 4} hours. 



14,981. In then- much of that Ian,! in tin- county 

 of Northampton:' There is a big stretch along that 

 road which runs from Kfttrring to Northampton. 

 When you get 3 miles out of Kettering von 

 largo Tillage of Brought mi. ami until you get within 

 3 mile* of Northampton tin- road runs along a ridge 

 with this sort of land stretching about a mile on 

 each side, and the whole of that distance there is 

 not a village. There are several hundreds of acres 

 of that class of land along there. 



14982. Of course, on anything like the figures you 

 mentioned, it is absurd- That i.s what I say. I 

 cannot see the Government giving a guarantee, and 

 I do not think it would be right. 



14.983. If you had a more reasonable week and 

 more reasonable work hours in the day, you would 

 go on pretty much as you have done" in" the past. 

 In that it? Yes; I should be prepared to face a 

 very considerable rise in wages. 



14.984. But even then some very heavy land would 

 have to be laid down? Yes, I think so. A good 

 deal of it ie now being done by men farming 2,000 

 acres or upwards employing their own steam tackle, 

 and employing as little labour as possible. The only 

 men I know who are making a success of it are 

 doing that to-day. 



14,986. Keeping their own steam tackle and using 

 it for everything:* Yes, and using as little labour 

 as possible. My farm is not quite big enough for 

 that. 70(1 or 800 acres is not big enough to run a 

 set of steam enjoin. . 



14.986. There are two views, it stems to me, as to 

 the future of farming in this country. One is to 

 farm by the farmer employing labour at weekly 

 wlges, and the other the small holder. If the system 

 of the farmer employing labour at weekly wages is 

 to continue. I take it you agree with me that 



ihing must bo done to enable the farmer to be 

 put in the position to pay the wages when they are 

 fixed on the present basis? Yes. 



14.987. If the land is to be divided into small 

 holdings where the man works it himself, is that a 

 feasible or appropriate position ? Not for that land. 



14.988. Certainly not for that land; but, taking 

 lie- rountry generally, is it feasible? No, not the 

 land generally, because there is so much of that 

 class of land a long way from any town or station, 

 heavy land which cannot be worked without three 

 horses. A small holder could not do it 



1 !.!-!. From your experience is there a large class 

 of grkraltkTft] workers in the i-oiintrv who w:mt 

 to remain on the terms of the weekly wage rather 

 than Income small holders:- | think so. In fart 



hav.- oil, -ml land to some of mv men and i 

 of them will take it. 



14,990. As a matter of fact, from experience is not 

 iv small hol,|,.rs- life rather a dog's life in that he is 

 r done. and is nla,s at work? Thai is mv 

 opinion and my experience. 



'I. And is then. m,t a largi- proportion I notild 

 the people engaged in agriculture. ,,ho ,,,,,,| ( ] 

 rather remain at the weekly wage with the fixed 

 hours, and have Cm, bed I think so, bnt I do not 

 "" " n(ltl<<1 to ""' thnt more than 



"">' thnt more than 



Nobody ,- enntlcd to say it. You ran onlv 

 rom your n ., BtpvianoeP Then fro,,, ,',- 



I ih il'" , ""' ""'""twin, with the men. 



<t is so certainly. 



1IWI M, |,H, /: YOU .-,,. asked some qOMtfeai 

 (nutley ahont industrial I,,,-,,,, ,.* and the 

 matter of tenant farming He rnther wggited to 

 that you ought i,, Kivi . .,,,, , 1 ,. V K X, M1(> f 

 < attrinnt..* ,,f , fr ,,.|, | (i . , )0 V01| - kn ,, w 

 ... 



O f ,:, lha , 



,,:,,. r O ,, la , is ,. 

 FlWI a tenant ha some ad, ant rig of a. 



freehold:- I think a tenant has advantage over the 



1 I. ehllld. 



ll.'.'i'l. Making it i|iiile plain, do you know am 

 instances in which lor instance shop! .11 tin- 



goodwill ut then, business and pass it, on- 1 knon 

 nothing of that. My lather was a shopkeeper; but 

 I have had nothing to do with it sim I left him 

 '' years ago. 



rt.SHi.'i. l)o you know anything about th.- Kvcsham 

 custom, for instance- No'. I 1m, ,. heard it it. Inn 

 I know very little ol it. From nil I Imvo heard of it, 

 I do not think it is suitable for our class of farm, 

 that is large ln-a\ \ day larm-. 



Mi. Turning 'to statement D," page l.'t. I'rotit 

 and Loss Account, I understand you to say that you 

 had written up the valuation in each til the war 

 years to some extent r } 



1 1.W7. And written it up in the highest proportion 

 in 1916? It got up more to the highest then. I was 

 slow at putting the valuation of the stock that I 

 could not realise up to what it was M ally worth. 

 because I thought, and I still think, it will come 

 down. But when it kept up so long, 1 felt bound to 

 put it up a bit more. 



14.998. As a matter of fact in the earlier years, 

 at any rate, you did not put it up more than you 

 ere justified in doing? I do not think 1 put it' up 

 more at any time than I was justified, if you take 

 the market value-. In the earlier year* I ,li,i not put 

 it up to that or anything like it, and I do not think 

 1 have now. 



14.999. The point I want to bring you to is this, 

 that you did, as a matter of fact in Kiibecqiu nt 

 realise to quite the same extent i( s \,,u v rote up 

 your capital: In what I sold 1 did more. 



15,000. Then to that extent th profit was not a 

 paper profit in your sense? No; hut I mean stock 

 you cannot sell, what you keep in way of imple- 

 ments, breeding stock, and so on. 



lo.lKll. With regard to the fall in the profits in 

 1!U7, have you any explanation to make as t-o that? 

 I do not know why, but I had particularly bad 

 crops. I think the worst I ever had. It was not 

 the. usual experience in my district. (ieneraliy 

 speaking, they were better than ]<MS; hut it was 

 my experience. 



15,008. It was not at all because you were afraid 

 you were writing up too much, and .topped tin- pro- 

 cess? No, I do not think so. In 1! Hi I hail the 

 further advantage that I took the farm in tha 

 in an awful condition, but I was let in without anv 

 valuation at all. The man said if I would tak. 

 could take it as it was, and what liitlc ploughing 

 was done he would not ask me anything for. 

 gave me a certain advantage in 1916. Another thing 

 was that in moving into that farm 1 was uhli- 

 sell rather more of my stock than I should h.u.- 

 done, and therefore r.alis,.,l on rather more .stock 

 at a. higher price than I had valued i 



'.'). Taking a summary of your balance-sheet 

 for the five years quoted and your estimate, of the cost 

 previously given for 1918, it appears that you really 

 made your profit on your arable farming.' Is llui't 

 your general judgment ? No, I do not know how that 

 appears. I do not think so at all. I think I made 

 more profit on tho stock. 



!">.< KM. Do I understand correct ly thai, -on ha,,. 

 -about. 711 acres of land? Yes, about that. 



I.-..IKI:,. Your profit, for 1!IS is JL'1.7!7. which work, 

 mt at about 2 8s. fid. an acre? Yes. 



I"). IKKi. Your profit pet acre on your corn statement 

 i:s. (id., which loaves you'ah.,ut !>N per acre 

 for your live stork. Does not it bring you hack to 

 the point that, ac.-or.ling to your own . 

 yon made your profit on your arable farming? No, 

 I do not we that at all. I do not say that 1 should 



iiat in every year. It is only .i rah-ulati. 

 what I reckon it cost me generally, hut it clopencl* 

 .so much on what cropping I had' that year. I ,|<, 

 not know what it was. Tho whole ot the 7 Id 

 was not under crop. 



1V007. No, I understand that; bnt to take you 

 literally, you do not pUce any reliance on your own 

 estimate? I cannot quite se that. 



15,008. Yon have MV, acres ol :i,al,le h.nd 

 you not? Yes. atmut that. 



