62 



ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 



21 October, 1919.] 



MR. E. M. Ni SSH.EY. 



[Continued. 



r. With regard to your figure of JU1.7H7 for 

 last Noai's profits, taking tin- art mil uatimat 

 vour average nniiunl profit << i'l l!*s 



that is mi Homcthing lik>> -' n acres, in it n 

 -."" nr --"ill "i something of that sort. 



18, That is. roughly speaking, about I 

 ukin.; ti te tl V.i- I'M I . which i.s m>t an 



a-tu:i' '> . it mi^ht Ivr. 



IV-'I'.>. You hail a special profit mi MIIIK- -I acre* 

 nf peas last \.-ar- I hail last \ear, hut I (hi lint Bay 

 tnv othrr 'anil paid mo that. 



'l.'i.-.'-.tl. X.i. hut ill.-.- peas H.IU'.I! figure ill the 

 average ..f 1 l!>s. (id., would they not? No. 



1.V.-JI. How inui-h total profit did you make mi 

 tin- |M>a? I raiinoi -ay. I in v.-r i-an say what any 

 on.- crop ha- cost MII-: I can -a\ what it jirmluc.Ml 

 hut nut what it actually cost me. 



l.'i. ---'. V.HI cannot gixc a (inure for tin- cost of 

 product inn- No. It I remember right the cos; of 

 pnMluction of tin-so j>cas was not high, f think tho 

 land for that crop was only ploughed once and Jiart 

 of it manured and part artificially manured: it was 

 hoed once at ah.uii LI an aero hut 1 have never 

 reckoned up the actual cost ; there is so much manu- 

 rial value especially left from a previous crop, and 

 KO cm. 



15,223. You have not worked it out? No, I do not 

 think it is possible to do it. 



-'iM. You stated in reply to another Commis- 

 sioner thai v.iu were in favour of a return to a 

 state of freeilom for farmers? Yes. I think 1 would 

 go as far as that, but I want an alteration in other 

 ways. 



15.225. That would involve some limitation of your 

 freedom, would it not? No, I think it would give 

 us more freedom. I should want better security of 

 tenure- -security of capita! perhaps I ought to ca'l 

 it and I should want a drastic revision of local 

 taxation. I consider we nre jiay ing enormously more 

 than we ought to do for that. I should also want 

 a revision of railway rates, and to be put upon a 

 fair basis in other ways. I believe that we could 

 then hold our own against the world, but it would 

 be only by growing corn on the most suitable land 

 and under the best conditions. 



1 ' '-"-'G. I take it that you are not in favour of 

 reverting to the previous very low standard of wages 

 in Knsiland- I hojio never to do that again. 



1.V -"_'". Vour freedom will not be limited in that 

 direction, at anv rate- No. 



l.Vl'--. You do not propose to use your freedom 

 for the purpose of reverting to the low wages of tho 

 past? No. I have always said that farm labourers 

 have not been properly paid, but at the same tinio 

 I have also sai.l I was tln> worM paid labourer on 

 my farm for 2" \ears; I paid my labourers better 

 than I wa paid in- 



l"i.22!l. The nirniers in the [>ast jmid very low- 

 wages? --Yes. 



15.2UII. You do not propose to use your freedom to 

 revert to that ? Thev were forced to pay low wages. 

 I hope we shall be able to pay more in the future if 

 we get fair conditions which we have never vet had. 



l.'i'-^tl. You think if you get security of tenure 

 you will he able to pay siillieieni wa^<-- Yes, hut 

 mind you. I do not think the price of our produce 

 is ever coming down no low as we have had it in (In- 

 put. 



1.VJ.TJ. You said you wen- in favour of sweeping 

 awav the Wages Hoard, not so much because thev 

 fixed high wages, hut because they fixed the ho;i 

 I think the wages would have gone up practically to 

 the extent that thev have done without the Wages 

 Board, but not the hours; that is tin- point which is 

 injuring us. 



l.VJ:t:<. I)., Mm think it is likely that the lalxmrcrs 

 in the agricultural industry would lie content to 

 work lone hi. I think so. 



U. (In what d.i you base your experience- H, 

 some one or two of my m,.n have told me that 

 thev d'i in. I < insider thnt last year's hours I do not 

 go back further than that wore too long, and I havn 

 had any demand from my labourers for shorter 

 hour*. 



Have anv nf your neighbours had anv do 

 mand for shorter houM? I bnve never heard of it. 



I. V_':!i. 'I he Wag.* Board fixed the hours? Yea. 



:7. So that there was no in tin- men 



to make an\ demand on their own ace. unit- 1 hav.- 

 n.".. i heaid >l any dciiuind I'M. in the men lor si 

 hours. 



88. Do vim think it the Wag.-- It. n.l w.-red 



away with that the men would p. l.a. k to the old 

 hours' It is rather a dillicull mailer to alter a thin./ 

 after the men have got usisl to it. 



I.V.!I. S.i that, when \ou go back to vour state of 

 ii, ..!>. in to which MIU arc a.spiring. you will have to 

 put up with what according to you is an artificial 

 dcMrc on the part of ihe laliourers for shorter li 



I !.. not think we can ha\e shorter hours, hut I 



think tin- tendency will I., to go u little bit back to 



\s I s;iv. I w a ! w ith last 



Nour's hours, but I am not content with any shorter 

 number of hours. 



I.VJIO Do you think the men would be . onteiii wii'i 

 last year's hours? So far a.s I have heard and 

 I think they would IM- absolutely content. 



I.VJtl. .l/i. ./. M. Ili-iii I, i-fn n : You said you would 

 lie willing to go back to tho old position without any 

 guarantee, but you make several provisos? Yes. 



1.1.1' 12. First of all you say the railwav rats should 

 he lowered? Not that they should he lowered tiat 

 we should he put on fair terms and conditions. 



l.l.lM.'l. What do you call fair terms in respect of 

 railway rates? You want them lowered, do you not? 

 I should like, to see them if anything rather better, 

 but certainly not worse, than the rates for foreign 

 produce which we comjioto w ith. 



l.V.'ll. So long as the railway rates are raised all 

 round, you do not object? No, I do not think it 

 would make much dilfcrcncc to us, but I do ohj. 

 foreign j>roduce as I know was the caM '-M vear.s 

 ago, and I believe still is should have a preference 

 over our home produce. 1 know it has actually hap 

 poned. when a load has been put on the railway, for 

 the sender to be a.sked : " Is this Knglish prodii' 

 is it foreign.'' and ii' it is foreign it is carried at 

 about two-thirds of the English rate. 



1.1.2 1;1. I do not think you are right there. You 

 are referring to through rates I think from America 

 or other place* abroad? I know that foreign jirodm-e. 

 fruit and so on, ha,s IKH'II brought from Franco and 

 landed at Kolkostone. and carried to London from 

 Koike- . less rate ;haii is charged if tho same 



quantity of home grow n prodm is put on tho railway 

 half-way Ix-twcen Koikes tone and London. That 'l 

 think is emirely wrong. 



I.VJ4G. I do not think you are right about thatP 

 I know il was sn I'd \ears ago. 1 have not. enquired 

 into it of recent Years. 



I.V_'I7. I'nloss the railway rates charged to you are 

 less. YOU do not in any way benefit? The merchant 

 who buys my wheat knows exactly what carria: 

 has to pay on it t.> get it to where he wants it, and 

 if he only has lid. a quarter to jiay instead of Is. for 

 rates. 1 M , will uive me (id. a quarter more. 



l-VJIv You want cheaper rates' I am referring 

 to the foreigner. 



l.'i.-'l'.i. I. CMC the foreigner out? You cannot do 

 that, because, if the rates are higher it adds to the 

 c:ist and the consumer has to pay it; it is the con 

 sinner who has to pay all the costs in the end. 



l.'i.'J'o. Noii know there must he an enormous rise 

 in railway rales in the Cut lire." So I understand. 



l."i.2"il. You want to make a point of the lowering of 

 railwax rates? No. I said I want.d fair rates for our 

 produce in . omparison with the produce of the 

 _'iier. 



1 ">.'-' ''.' V .d.si. want an alteration of the local 



' You want them revjsi .1 .- \ , 



l.'i. 2.11. \V:is not there a thing calhd the Agricul- 

 tural Kalinu Act *> 



l.'i.'.'.Vi. Did that Act not benefit vou- Very slight 



ly. There was aKo what is called th lucation rate. 



which has inflicted a very much higher payment on 

 me than tie -aving from Agricultural Rating Acts 

 of six years before. 



15.2.50. You do not want any education rate? I 

 did not say that. I only want to pay the same in 

 proportion to my income as other people jiay. At 

 present I pay from six to ten times as much in propor- 



