K'-V.M. r.iMMlssliiN ON A. I Kl< 'I I.TI.'IJK. 



23 Stfiemhtr, 1919.] 



MR. JAMES DONALDSON. 



[('Hitinuril. 



which I would prefer to bring forward at a later 

 stage, when you h:iv<> i.-:i. li.-il the question of tlio 

 poll 



11,:149. You also |M>int out that if prices full, tin- 

 law of il.minithiiig returns must come into operation, 

 that is to say. it is only \\hen prices nro good 'hat it 

 is profitable to .-VIM-MI! large sums mi prodm lion .- 

 That is so. You cannot get away from the law of 

 diminishing returns. 



11.. 'IV l. You think that Inw will operate in tin- 

 future, as it has always done in tin- past - 1'n- 

 doubtedly. 



11.351. Of course. thafwill all tend to the laying 

 of land down to grass and to decrease employment ? 

 Undoubtedly. 



11.352. Do you think there is much room for 

 improvement in farming generally that a large pro- 

 portion of land is not producing what it ought to do? 

 Are you taking it at the present moment or are 

 you going hack to the pre-war period? 



11.353. I am rather speaking generally, including 

 the pre-war period? I think the cultivation was as 

 intensive as the prices would allow us to make it. 



11.354. 3/r. Orrrman: I am very anxious not to 

 infringe upon the question of policy which I think 

 you rightly keep out of this preliminary statement 

 that you have given us. I think T may take it that 

 you. representing the Farmers' Union, put this for- 

 ward i.s the considered view of the large body of 

 farmers which vou represent, as the, alternative to 

 what may happen if farming is not conducted and 

 carried on in the interests of the State as it should 

 be? That is so. This statement I may tell you has 

 been before the Council of the National Farmers' 

 Union and has been discussed and endorsed by them. 



ll..V>.~>. You really are introducing Mr. Wyllie, 

 who i* bringing forward figures as to the cost of 

 production? That is so. We were asked to concen- 

 trate our attention first on cost, next on results, and, 

 thirdly, on policy. We have done so, so far as costs 

 re concerned. 



11 ,3.16. I am very much struck with one remark 

 you make in paragraph 7. because it bears out what 

 we who are get ing into old ago have been through : 

 that high farming is no remedy for low prices and 

 that the alternative to that is the cutting down of 

 costs which means the cutting down of production? 

 Yes. that has been and still is my view. 



11,357. Is it your experience that land at the 

 present time is going down to grass? Undoubtedly, 

 unless the Government gives some definite 

 agricultural policy for farmers to go upon. 



11.35 1 *. Unless that comes forward soon there will 

 be a good deal more land down to grass than there 

 is already? Yea. it is going down to grass now 

 imply because of the lack of any definite guarantee. 



ll,.'l">9. In answer to Dr. Douglas you said that a 

 guaranteed price would benefit the nation, the 

 farmer, and the labourer. We have no doubt of that, 

 but do you not think that it would benefit the 

 nation a good deal more than it would benefit the 

 farmer and the labourer?- If you ask me which will 

 benefit most I should say the nation. 



11.3T.O It must do that?- V- 



11.361. 3/r. Riitrhrtnr : During war is it the case 

 that a considerable amount of land was put under 

 cultivation which it would have been far better to 

 have left in grass? That depends how you look at it. 

 If you look at the interests of the nation during a 

 war period you have to consider the nation'- 

 interest as a whole. Farmers have lwa\s been good 

 citizens, and I hope they will always continue to l- 

 M, and I think we looked upon it riot as n matter of 

 our own gain during the war. but for the nation'- 

 benefit that we should break up that grass land. 



11.362. What I want to get at is. was there 

 lufficient investigation with regard to the kind of 

 <rass land that wa broken up!- As a member of 

 -.he Committee that wa* responsible for a great deal 

 if gra land being broken up perhaps I may say 



that in some cases it would have been better if a few 

 of the tields had been left down in grass, but in 

 the great majority of cases 1 think we won- quite 

 justified 111 asking the land to be broken up that 

 we did. 



ll..'>.'t. In those cases where it would have I een 

 better i! the land had been left in grass. i\ill there bo 

 great difficulty in getting that land put back into as 

 good graas as it was in previous t<> tin war 



out.- There certainly will be some difficulty, but 

 the question hich arises in m_ mind is whether thai 

 land is going to continue as arable la.-ni. h it i-t 

 going to continue as arable land the great trouble 

 i-. that the ditches and drains have j;>" blocked up. 

 Are you going to improve that land:- Is the nation 

 going to make it worth our while to improve that 

 land and make it a good arable proposition 



11.364. Do you buggest that the bulk of the land 

 which has been been broken should now that the 

 war is at an end continue to be kept under arable 

 cultivation? In the nation's interest, yes, and 1 

 believo farmers would bo quite prepared to do it, 

 provided it was made worth their while. 



11.365. Do you not agree that there is a certain 

 proportion of such land which has 'produced far loss 

 food for the nation in the character of arable land 

 than it would have done if it had lieen left in good 

 grass? That might bo; I am not going to attempt 

 to controvert that statement at all. In some 

 instances I know that is the case. I 'can quite agree 

 to that, but I do not think there was any great pro- 

 portion of it. 



11.366. I suppose you would agree that in England 

 in very many instances there has been a lack of 

 accommodation, buildings and implements and pro- 

 bably also of knowledge on the part of farmers in 

 regard to arable cultivation ? Why a lack of know- 

 ledge? 



11.367. Because of their not having had experience 

 in the past of arable cultivation their want of ex- 

 perience? Experience of cultivating that particular 

 type of land? 



11.368. Exactly? That may be so in a few solitary 

 cases, but not as a whole. 



11.369. In a great many cases of farms which were 

 previously practically grass farms, where could the 

 farmer get his knowledge and experience of what 

 that land was capable of producing under arable con- 

 ditions?- That was a difficulty, but that is one of 

 those difficulties which farmers would .soon get over. 



11.370. Yes, but you have to gain experience? 

 Quite. 



11.371. In many instances in England farm build- 

 ings have not been in the past suitable for arable 

 cultivation on these grass farms? Xo. and they are 

 not yet. 



1 1 .372. To put them into suitable condition would 

 require a very vast expenditure of money- It would 

 require an expenditure of money undoubtedly. 



11,373. Would it not be better and cheaper, in the 

 long run, for these farms to remain in grass than 

 have that great expense to get them into arable culti- 

 vation? You are arguing from the farmer's point 

 of view, and 1 am looking at it purely from tin- 

 national point of view. 



11,371. No, I am looking at it from the national 

 point of view? Take my own county as typical. I 

 know that grass land could be broken up' pr.ifitablv 

 and tinned into arable if it was made worth the 

 farmer's while to do it, and in that ease a good deal 

 more labour could be employed upon it. I do not 

 get away from it if it is made worth while. 



1I.37.V In the making of it worth while, i.s the 

 nation not going to spend more money than it is 

 worth in doing it- That would be for the nation to 

 judge. 



11,376. What would you say? I am not going to 

 give you my idea, because I am not competent. If 

 the Cabinet is not competent to form an opinion as 

 to that, then I am sure my meagre knowledge would 

 be of no use to them at all. 



