AI. CtiMMIsMiiS "N Al.KU I 1. 1 I I;!.. 



W. I '.'I'.' 



MM. JAMKS 





you ntiik. i:\.ileiit all rouiitl 



could not put u- IM, k to I'.'l.l unleM you take all 

 thr nili. 



l-.^-l. Has your cost ill production increased in 

 !nng like tin- *in rulhi to llir prices of your 

 prod 



l'.'.-.'. So that vi. ui rate ol profit is nut higher 

 tliiiii it wm in 1913." In the sunn- i.>: )> i-haps a 

 littlo b<: 



13,888. Then that is to suy your position. \.n on 

 pre*nt prices, lui- improved slightly? Yes. 



19,824. Suppose the control of prices was removed, 

 11 not think there is ihe jxissiliiljtY. and a .-ix :_; 

 possibility, of tin- pi. -it ic, ti still lurthei improving? 

 I could not iinswT, nor do I think any man would 

 be safe in answering, that question, because nil tin- 

 figures which have been put foruard liy experts a- 

 to what prices will probably be in a year ha\< 

 made utterly ridiculous in the event 



iL'.-l-'.V Hut in what direction ? The upward 

 direction. 



12,826. That i~ my point; that is to say, there is 

 not much ground for fear in any of the figures which 

 have been put forward yet, is there'- That is pre- 

 i isely my fear, that the tendeix y has been up 

 hitherto, and that when the natural reaction comes 

 it is the same in everything, and 1 have never seen 

 j; fail 



12,8l'7. What is that:- The swing of the pendulum. 

 You can compare it in thousands of other ways; 

 according to the action and reaction, the flow and 

 the ebb; it is bound to come. 



12,8%. 1 do not know if thew im :apht.i s will carry 

 us particularly- far:' You have to have them in view. 



12.829. Quite; but you are bound to admit that 

 things have altered radically since 1913 as far as 

 world production is concerned? They may alter 

 again. 



12.830. They may; but they show no signs of it, as 

 you agree, and, on your own showing, your position 

 is slightly better than it was in 1913. even with 

 present costs of production? Yes, but at present we 

 are coming nearer the elimination margin. 



12.831. Possibly. There is only one more point I 

 i*h t.i ask you. and tint i.s in paragraph 12.7.Vi. par. 

 of your rvidciic. -in-chief. You say here that voluntary 

 District Wages Committee* wore ,s.-i up in BootUnd 

 before the Minimum Wages Committees started, and 

 1 ee you i|iiite pay a compliment to those cninmi. 

 You think they have dune useful work?- W-. 



ll'.-:<2. Do you think this is a method of negotia- 

 tion between farmers and their employees that might 

 be extended to any extent?! think it should he 

 extended right away. 



12.833. You have found mutual understanding and 

 goodwill have existed between the two bodies in these 

 matters ?- ! 



12.834. Of course there have been differences of 

 opinion? There always are. 



1 -J.-.H.V Hut they have been able to get over themP 

 That is so. 



lL'>:t'i. I//. Prottei Junes: You are a practical 

 farmer yourself, I take it? Yes. 



12.837. What acreage do you till? 500 a 

 ploughable land; about 540 is on the Ordnance map. 



12.838. You say here that you represent over 50 

 percent, of the tanners in Scotland ? 



12.839. You tell us that the smallholder i.s not in- 

 cluded in that figure. I, h. :- No. 



12.840. Is there any reason for excluding him ! 

 he not allowed to i-omo in?- Y.-s. he is: but hitherto 

 he has preferred his own Association, of which there 



M or two in S'-otland. We have a number of 

 men who might be described as, approximately, small- 

 bolden, Imt we have a lew of the real smal'lh<,l 



lv!.Ml. Looking at 12,746, No. 2, you rein 



to the inefficiency and high cost of rural irans 

 l' ."ir I'nioii <-vor thought out. the 



ndvan: disadvantages of road trans|*,i 



compared ith light railways- \\ , have LMM n the 

 matter some eonsiderat ion. We have not thought 



|H>int 



BJ .on.-ieto i-ei ' -m Ilielida t ions ; lint wo ha\ e 



~-.| it time ami again and agreed uim the 

 nf.-,| there was t < in tin- iiaii-p,,it 



a in CJniit liritain. 



rj.>l'J. Tin ti t-omiiig to tin 1 hours ol employment, 

 .lo they compare with the rest of einployinent 

 in other indiistiies in your liH-ality? In the locality 

 that 1 come Irom, that is the industrial area of the 

 Clyde, the hours of industrial work a than 



those in agi i. ultuo. 



12,843. You refer in your /.M.M to tin- dung. 

 reducing tin- hours on the limn? Yes. 



12,tMI. Seeing thai the hours in other inilu- 

 arc shorter, are the men likely to ) . outeiit \\ith 

 lon-er lioiiis <,n the lai -iii r I- it not nalinal ilia 

 should try and reduce their hours? It is 

 natural; but you must take that statement in my 

 I'l-i'iis as referring to the .i.inlilion> I di M>I ilx^l ; that 

 is to say, the men have got an advamc so far as 

 the hours are <-omi'ined within the last six monilr 

 on Saturday afternoon, a half-holiday, and also a 

 half-hour earlier in unyoking at night. When 'I 

 say there must he no further intcrfcicncc. 1 am re- 

 ferring to the' men having achieved that advame. 

 or improvement, in conditions with regard to hours. 



12,845. But still, you will agree they are consider- 

 ably behind the other industries in their hours and 

 wages? They are behind them. 



]_', *!<>. And is it not likely that the ii-ndeucy will 

 be to leave the farm work and take up with some- 

 thing else? I do not think so, on the whole. 



12,817. What I want to find out is this: whether 

 you are likely to suffer from the want of farm labour 

 owing to conditions in other industries being better? 

 I do not think so. 



12.848. In connection with the cost of horse labour, 

 I think you tell us that the cost of horso labour is 

 .C95 10s. Od. Doee that mean the cost for the whole 

 of the ye*.r or for the 220 days? Do you refer to 

 " B," the shoeing? 



12.849. I am taking the cost altogether Th..-e 

 coste under " Depreciation " and " upkeep " are 

 costs for the 365 days. 



12.850. Mi'. Lntjj<inl: I do nut. quite understand 

 your answers with regard to security of tenure. You 

 seem to make a big point in your precis of evidence 

 with regard to the lack of scctuity oi tenure.; and 



ou say you do not object to landlords selling 

 their farms at the present moment. Y'ou say land- 

 lords are doing a wise thing in selling their farms. 

 ] think those were the woids you used. Whom are 

 they wise to the tenant farmer? Whom were they 

 lienefiting in selling their farms, or estates, at tin- 

 present time? Tli> I should say. 



12.851. I want to make that quite clear. They are 

 not benefiting the agricultural industry in soiling 

 their farms? --No. I should like to qualify that la>t 

 answer of mine to a certain extent. If a landlord, 



i of mortgages on his estate, decides to :- II 



; than hold on, and allows the property to IM' 



iHiught by a man who can develop it and put capital 



into it, he is certainly doing the industry goad by 



clearing out. 



1'J.K.VJ. What class of man is buying the farms in 

 Scotland? Principally tenant tanners 



12.<i.'i. Then it is not the class of man who would 

 develop it l>y improving the buildings, such as a 

 landowner used to do in the old days; but- it ; 

 tenant farmer buying in order to noore the farm 

 to himself, rather than turn out:- fern, lather than 



MUM OUt. 



1'J.s.M. You state that one of the Lteou that have 

 not increase-! in the cost of production in Scotland 

 i- tin- rent ? That i.s so. 



!_'.- ii, ,t rents Ux'ti iiicrca-ed much in 



seothtnd then': Noi t.i a very great extent. Where 

 the leas,- !i;,ve run out. they have heen inci-oat-ed her. 

 and there legitimately. 



I'J.-.V.. Hut tl nun- in Scotland is TOTJ 



largely leasehold, is it OOl P \ el ' Iftl 



57. 'I'll' reforo \oiir .-\stein is an improv'm-nt 



on the system in Kngland. wh-re lease, are either 



hurt or there are nolle at all- 1 thin! 



J68. And yet. with an advantage o\i i Kngland in 



>i4ilding of the farms, you still make 



a strong point of the want of gr. ity than 



