ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 



88 O**r, 1919.] 



Ml. THOMAS WILLIAMS. 



i nueJ. 



exactly that; but it is just an instance ! .\li.i: 

 the rtwult of this extraordinary competition. It is 

 partly due at least to shortage of IIOUMN- ... . om- 

 in. K| at in n .ill. -ii it come* to thane small placet. 



16.027. Supposing tho idea of u financial hiil..sidy 

 for agriculture had never been raised, you fully 

 recognise that there arc .-eiiani cnciim^iam-*-. und r 

 tthi-li the farmer would not bo ahlo to pat* on th.it 

 difference to thi< COIIMIIIUT in tli>- shape t ): 

 1 ilo not think I quit> follow your qut~.ti.ni. 



16.038. Do you realise that the pri<v of products 

 which tho farmer is selling, determines his n -111111101:1- 

 tion OK worker and as tuanuger :ind as a capituli 

 Ye*. 



16,099. You realise that under certain circum- 

 stances on market prices, the farmer might in one 

 instance pass that 25 on to the consumer or in 

 tli.' other might have to stand tho loss? Yes; it 

 all comes on to the consumer now both tho producer 

 and the middleman. It has to oome on to the con- 

 sumer. 



16.030. But do you really suggest that that differ- 

 ence in this case of 25 on these small holding. 

 should be passed on to the taxpayer? Everything 

 that the Government supplies is passed on to the 

 taxpayer. 



16.031. Not passed on to the taxpayer unless there 

 is some form of financial subsidy'' No. I person- 

 ally and farmers generally do not favour subsidies. 

 If the position of the whole thing were sound, wo 

 should not require subsidies. 



16.032. What do they favour? I do not think they 

 favour it in that way. They like a fair return 

 on their business in tho ordinary way. 



16.033. I understood you to say, I believe in answer 

 t-. Mr. Anker Simmons, that the small farmers in 

 Wales hod not been getting more than their 

 labourers, and that in addition to that fact they were 

 in an uncertain financial position. Is that so? Yes. 



16.034. Under those circumstances, what are the 

 influences which lead them to take small farms? 

 Of course, I was speaking then about past years, 

 and I have said that things have gradually improved. 



16.035. But in any case in which a man has a 

 business under his own control a certain amount of 

 land or capital or whatever it may be, whether it is 

 in farming or in any other business his position is 

 always uncertain in that sense, is not it? Yes. 



16.036. He takes the risk, so to speak? Yes. 



16.037. Is it your opinion that they have been 

 taking undue risks? I have said in this evidence 

 that they have been so attached to their home that 

 they have to take risks or go out with nowhere 

 to go to and no suitable business to turn their 

 hand to. That is the main trouble. 



16.038. Mr. Kihnn/h : You have a statement here 

 that of the farms of Wales about 70 per cent, are 

 under 50 acres? Yes. 



16.039. Have yon paid any attention to what is 

 the actual difference between Wales and Kngland 

 in that respect? You mean as to tho figi: 



16.040. Yes? No; I have not the figures. 



16.041. Would you be surprised to hear that tho 

 corresponding figure in England is 66} I"' 1 ' cent.? 

 No; I should not be surprised at that. I know parts 

 of Kn^land have many small holdings. 



16.042. And would you be surprised to know that 

 thero are a number of big Knglmh count i 

 which the proportion of small holdings under .Ml 

 acres is larger than in W.il.-- : take, for instance, 

 Chester. The figure for Wales is 70 per cent. ; in 

 the County of Chester it is 72 per cent. ; in Derby 

 73 per cent.; and in Holland. Lincolnshire 79 per 

 cent.: in Staffordshire 7'J per cent.; and for the 

 West Riding of Yorkshire 75 per cent. So that there 

 are large areas of England in which the proportion 

 of small holdings under 50 acres is larger than in 

 Wales, and in that respect Wales is not peculiar as 

 compared with Kngland? I am taking the whole of 

 Wales together. Of course, as you have read out, 

 there in a higher percentage of small holdings, com- 

 paring the whole of Wales and the whole of Kngland. 



16.043. Yes; there is a difference of about 3} per 

 cent., to that the fjuction of small holdings after 

 all ii not absolutely peculiar to Wales? No. 



10.044. Having settled that point and put it in 

 a clear light before the Commission, you have spoken 

 about having money at a moderate rate of interest 

 as the only security; that is, y,,u are not aware of 

 any other method. You are forced to that con- 

 clusion. 1 presume, on account of tho fact that the 

 largo estates which at one time appeared to be as 



neiit in their establishment as the mountains of 

 Wales are last giving way? Yes; there is a very 

 rapid change taking place at the present time, and 

 there is every likelihood of it taking place for some 

 time. 



16.045. And in your opinion it is an essential con- 

 dition, we may say, of the future development of 

 farming in Wales, that something should be done to 

 give security to the people, who feel, as it were, the 

 land slipping from under their feet? Yes. I think 

 it will be really most advisable. It will take years 

 at I-Mst for this land to pass into the hands of the 

 tenants in any case, and, seeing that, some measure 

 of further security to the tenant is advisable in the 

 interests of food production. 



16.046. You are aware, I suppose, that many 

 Welsh farmers are drifting in this direction, possibly 

 due to the fact that such a scheme has been working 

 ii Ireland for a great many years. You have already 

 explained, and it is a fact that no Commission can 

 ignore, whether it is for good or for evil, tho attach- 

 ment of the Welsh farmer to his holding, which is 

 true, I think, of all the Celtic nations. There 

 are theso men competing for their farms at 

 auctions and so forth, and buying them at very high 

 prices. It has already been said before this Commis- 

 sion that they are from 30 to 100 per cent, above pre- 

 war prices. Even assuming that they had the 

 money, what would be tho likely economic effect on 

 farming if things should come something like to tho 

 normal which we all expect? Of course, if the 

 farmer has not the capital to buy his farm and stock 

 it, and there is no outside assistance to let him have 

 the money at a reasonable rate of interest, he is bound 

 to pay for it by some means or other, and the result 

 must be that he will have to under-stock it and under- 

 work it and do with less labour. That has always 

 been the result, in my view, where the farmer was 

 short of capital : that he usually did on insufficient 

 labour, and that has always been a very serious 

 matter against good farming. 



16.047. Have you any reason to think that the 

 Board of Agriculture have any sympathy with tho 

 idea? I quite admit here that what you say is quite 

 correct, that there is a strong aspiration amongst 

 the Welsh farmers at the present moment for some 

 organised help to obtain money to buy their holdings, 

 in view of the fact that land is being sold ; but have 

 you any reason to think that the present Board of 

 Agriculture has any sympathy with that idea? They 

 have not doc-la rod it, at any rate. 



16.048. I will read an extract from a speech of cine 

 of the loaders of the Board; they arc the words of 

 Sir Daniel Hall. He said that : " The question had 

 been before the Board, and they viewed with great 

 atarm the immense appreciation of laud at the pre- 

 sent time and the enormous pi ic < > being paid by tho 

 farmers. The value of the land would probably drop 

 H^.iin, and some who had bought at present prices 

 Mould probably lose. But who were forcing up the 

 piice of land? Simply the farmers themselves; and 

 the only conclusion one could draw was that prices 

 were going up amongst farmers themselves because 

 they had a good deal of money at hand. Well, the 

 prico would not go up if they had to borrow money. 

 But suppose tho Government said they would provide 

 cheap money, would not the price paid for farms go 

 nji higher and higher? If the tenant could go with 



i nmeiit money in his pocket he would bid and 

 bid, and he (Sir Daniel) did not know what the price 

 would go to. The only thing that seemed to check 

 farmers buying land was the fact that it was their 

 cuii money." What have you to say to that? I do 

 not agree with Sir Daniel at all. I know any num- 

 ber of cases where they have not one-third of the 

 money ; and I know hardly one, or very few, where 



