I' 



r, KM It.] 



KuVAl. ' "MM1I"N 'N Al.UU'l 1.11 Ul . 

 Mi:. H. AHMI-I-K and M Mi >' i " 



[C'OH/IHII"/. 



f or ,,, , would of course require to see th,v 



wore netting '" bwt result* for it. 



10,880. Mr Caiitli-y . xaminod you on the question 

 of the wheat and oaU. Are you aware that 



tin- pul.ln- -tatistics show that in Scotland the produc- 

 tion of wheat i* greater to tho acre than in England P 

 1 believe that U so. 



10,687. While, on the other hand, the same figures 

 how tluit the production of oats to the acre is lessP 

 Yn, 1 would imagine that. 



10,68*. Do you think the explanation of that ia that 

 in Scotland only the best land is used for wheat? 

 That is so. 



10.689. While oats are grown wherever a crop can 

 be taken at all P Yes; poor land. 



10.690. So therefore the statistics from the two 

 countries are not comparable P No. 



10.691. And there is a fallacy inherent in them? 

 I agree. 



10.692. Do you think that, so far as Scotch produc- 

 tion is concerned, it is very desirable to encourage 

 an increase in the production of wheat : do you think 

 that would be politic? No, I do not think so. 



' 10,693. You think on the whole the Scotch country 

 is more suitable for oat growing? Yes, I think so. 



10.694. Therefore it would be a mistake, as far as 

 the Scotch industry is concerned, to give a guarantee 

 to divert land from oats to wheat? I think so. 



10.695. I want to ask you one or two questions 

 about the general policy of the Chamber as to the 

 guarantee. Would you prefer that I should put these 

 questions to Mr. Mercer? 1 would. 



10.696. Then. Mr. Mercer, you were questioned by 

 Mr. Ashby regarding any demand from Scottish 

 farmers for guarantee. Would you say that there is 

 not any demand from Scottish farmers for guarantee? 

 Did they ever initiate any demand for guarantee: 1 

 (Mr. ^tercfr) : No, I do not think so. 



10.697. Do you remember the proceedings of the De- 

 partmental Committee, generally called the " Wason 

 Committee," in 1916? I remember something of that. 



10.698. Did any Scotch witnesses at that time 

 initiate in their evidence the question of guarantee? 

 Nol that I recollect at all. 



10.699. You do not think that happened at all? 

 \<> I think Scotch farmers, as a whole, would have 

 h. .M pleased to have been let alone altogether. I 

 think that was the position. 



10.700. Do .von think it is the case that the first 

 us discussion of guarantees in Scotland took place 



after the first report of the Selborne Committee in 

 1917? Yes. I think that was just about the time 

 that the matter began really to be looked into. 



10.701. And the idea, I think, was not very favour- 

 ably received? Not at all. 



10.702. There was no enthusiasm? None. 



lo.7o.'J. What i-. the chief event that has happened 



ince, so far as cereal production ie concerned? Has 



it been the great increase in cost between MM 7 and 



the present time? The increase of cost has been 



great since 1917. 



I".7u4. Has it come to be the general opinion of 

 farmer* that if these costs are to continue they mu-t 

 have some security against the return of prices to 

 their old level? That U what has brought about 

 thin feeling. 



lo.'O'j. That ha* ls-n tho history of opinion in 

 SiitlMid? The history of opinion in Scotland is 

 thnt the costs have gone very high, ami tin- farmers 

 naturally, anting that th war is o\. a big 



fall in price*. 



l'i.7(Ki. 1 .1111 coining to that point. I want t-o :i.-k 

 you finst. ha* any responsible body of Scot<-h fanners, 

 within your know!. i put forward a demand 



i giiarontro a* anything that they wore- entitled 

 WfMild you rather 1 limited my question t<i the 

 action of th> Chamber? I do not think any r.-.|,,,,i 

 mhle body have put that forward. 



lli.T II . the ChamW of Agriculture 

 diuin *n'f \ 



1<> 708. C*n * me to anything? What is 



(jurat ion exactly P 



10.709. Whether the Chamber oi Agriculture. ha\e 

 ever said thai apart from Slate policy and tin 

 demands of the public, iaruiert. themselves wen- 

 entitled to claim any xpn-ial prelerelitial L 



tor their industry:- I think the whole argument 

 has been State policy. That waa the point all 

 through. 



10.710. And you say still thut farmers would ha\c 

 I.eeii \eiy !! ~.iti^tie,l t.i have Keen left alone:'- Yec. 



10.711. You >ay that farmers expect that then 

 will be a very -h.np I all in prices as a result of the 

 conclusion of Peace. Is that what you say? Yes. 



10.712. Do you think that belief is general?- I 

 very varied, even at this moment. 



10.713. Do you yourself think it well founded? I 

 think there is bound to come a fall; I do not buy- 

 that it will oouie immediately . 



10.714. With regard to costs, is there any cxpec- 

 i .it ion or desire on the part of the Scotch fai 



for a return to the previous wages conditions? No, 

 none. 



10.715. Is your view, or the view of the Chamber, 

 that the position of tho Scotch servants is much 

 stronger in respect ot their demand for wages than 

 it formerly was? Do you mean that they are in- 

 sisting more strongly ' 



10.716. I mean they are adopting much more of 

 a Trades Union point of view? Cei tainly they 



10.717. And they are coming much more in contact 

 with the industrial population:'- Much mure; ami 

 naturally the contact has its influence on them. 



10.718. And I suppose the war has greatly in- 

 creased that?- V I ^liould say so. 



10.719. So that farmers in Scotland, on the whole. 

 expect that they will have to maintain a compara- 

 tively high rate "of wages if they are to sirure la hour :- 

 That in so; and I think I might say that the 

 farmers are very willing to maintain as high a rate 

 of wages as the industry will allow. We do not 

 want to see wages go down. 



10.720. Do you think farmers in recon t years have 

 become rather more liberal in their views on that 

 subject? I hope so. I have always held these I 

 myself. 



10.721. Yes, but generally? I hope so. 



10.722. As a matter of business, they say if that 

 is to happen and if prices are to fall, they cannot 

 hope to maintain production? That is certainly 

 the case. 



10.723. Is that the .substance of their CM6 when they 

 say that cultivation will decline if there is no 

 guarantee against the return to very low pri- 

 That ia so. That is the general feeling in so far at, 

 I know it in Scotland, that there will be a tendency 

 to put land again under grass if the prices of 

 cereals fall too low. 



10.724. But 1 suppose tanners ould do quite well 

 in many cases with their land back in grass? 5f 

 many of them would. It is not from the farming 

 point of view. 



10.725. They have not a very vit.il interest in main- 

 taining cereal cultivation? In many instances they 

 have not, and farm life would )x> very much easier 

 with the land under grass. 



10,736. I should like you to como a little closer to 

 the question of what is meant by a guarantee. There 

 are two possible views of it., "and I want to know 

 which it is that you believe the Chamber to hold. 

 There is the \ iew that such a guarantee should be 

 given lus would enable farmers to carry on their 

 methods, even if world price* were to fall 



for long periods below the level of the piaranlce. 

 Th. re i- the oilier view thnt the guarantee should be 

 on a level to be required only exceptionally and 

 occasionally, as a safeguard against such pn 

 belong to certain years in the early n Which 



in the view of the Chamber:- The view of the Chamlicr 

 is that a guarantee over a period of years would bo 

 more satisfactory 



10,727. Hut, of course, the level nt which the 

 guarantee would be fixi-d. would depend on which 

 view you took? The level of tho guarantee would 

 be available from year to year T think that is our 

 suggestion 



