MINUTES OF KVIDEXCE. 



U Octubei; 1U19.] 



MK. JAMES GAKH.NEK. 



[Continued. 



that which you have under the leasehold system:'! 

 do. 



12,809. You would agree with me then that if you 

 have a grievance in r-voilnnd. English fanners liave 

 a much greater grievance:" That is tor the English 

 farmers themselves to say. 



12,800. That really folluwo, does it not:' You 

 .say that iu ."Scotland, even with your long lease.-. 

 as the end of tho leases come to within the last three 

 01 four year-, I think you said there was a tendency 

 on the part of the farmer to let down his farm. I 

 took that to mean that he put less manure upon it 

 than ho has been accustomed to do, and he crops it 

 in sueh a way -is 10 extract the manurial value from 

 the land and leave it in a poorer state than he would 

 regard it right to farm it if he was continuing: 1 

 Precisely. I do not mean to say that all the farmers 

 do that, but the temptation is to do that. 



12.861. Let me put it in this way. Those who do 

 not do it lose in consequence, if they have to leave 

 the farm ? Yes ; if they have to leave the farm they 

 lose. 



12.862. Would you agree with me that the present 

 system of compensating farmers for unexhausted 

 manures is inadequate? Yes, inadequate. 



12,86:!. Therefore the farmer who is generous 

 enough to do full justice to the land by continuing to 

 farm it to the end of the lease in the same way as he 

 did in the earlier part of the lease is doing an in- 

 justice to himself? 



12. V M\. - : Tin it ness replied before that 



that was the case, but that landlords took into con- 

 sideration that tact and voluntarily made arrange- 

 ments with their tenants, but he doubted whether 

 the in w race of landlords would do so. 



1'JXit. Mi. L'liu,/,,,,! ; In stating that the land- 

 lords voluntarily enter into an arrangement with the 

 farmer, do you mean by way of giving him compensa- 

 tion that is not provided for in the Act? In the past, 

 \">'i refer to? 



12,864A. Yes: 1 - No. I merely referred to his tenure 

 be uas not removed from the farm. 



I :>.->;.".. I Inn he did not suffer if the lease waa 

 n'liewi d I hat was your point. If he remains, he 

 iot suffer by leaving an amount of fertility in 

 tin' farm that he would not leave if lie were 

 out:- That is so. If the landlord does not demand 

 a higher rent at tin- end of his term and he remains 

 on his farm, ho does not lose. 



12.866. What happen! to the man who goes out, 

 and who has maintained the land in a high condition? 



I'nder the Agricultural Holdings Act with regard 

 -otland, and I believe also with regard to 

 Kngland. there was a well meant endeavour to give 

 the. tenant his own when he left, but it has failed in 

 that respect. It is admitted both by the landlords 

 and tenant-, and b\ everyone who has to do with the 

 administration of the Agricultural Holdings Act. and 

 it has be>me practically a dead letter. Neither 

 farmers nor landlords care to try to get their rights 

 under the administration of the Act. 



12.867. Then the tendeii'-y is to lift from the farm 

 tho fertility that the farmer has put into it before 

 he gives up the farm? The tendency is in that 

 direction. 



12.868. That is not in the interests of the State, 

 is it?It is bad. 



12.869. And, from the national Standpoint, the 

 method of valuing- the compensation given needs to 

 be revised? Yes. 



12.870. With regard to game, I thought your 



. Mr. Thomas Henderson were somewhat 

 vague. Would you agree with me that the only 



'isfactory to the farmer, and which you 

 would be likely to agree to, would be for the farmer 



'be right to kill any kind of game upon 

 bis ! .MI- 'Mint i.s |,art of our policy. 



12.871. I did not understand you to say so? 

 That, is the demand that our Union has made from 



' . ivei nineiit in our |H)licy at the last election. 



I2.*72. Would your I'nioii favour sii|i|x>rting a 



Bill in the House of Commons. I mean bringing 



i H|IOII agricultural representatives in 



il' House of Common*, which would secure to tho 



':i, farmer the same right to kill winged game 



now has t-> kill ground game? Our Union asked 



for that for two successive years in succession, and 

 they have never gone back from it. 



12,873. Then that is your view to-day? That is 

 the Union's view. I had better read the paragraph 

 referring to game laws which we have drawn. up nine 

 months ago: "Game Laws. Occupiers of agricul- 

 tural holdings should be empowered by law to destroy 

 any form of game on the holdings which do damage 

 to crops or pastures thereon. The present powers 

 with regard to the destruction of deer and ground 

 game should be made permanent." That is part of 

 our policy as a Union. 



1-.S74. To have equal right to destroy any game 

 that may be found on the farmer's holding? That 

 are destroying the crops on the holding. That is part 

 of the Union's policy. 



12.87.3. There is no distinction between the crops 

 as to destroying. If he were pasturing, it would be 

 the grass destroyed in, the same manner as the cereals 

 were destroyed? You have to be careful there. 

 There are many parts of Scotland where the land is 

 poor and rocky, and where the legitimate develop- 

 ment of sport could not be objected to, and is not 

 objected to by us so long as the interests of the 

 occupying owner or tenant are protected legiti- 

 mately. As I said before, we do not object to the 

 legitimate development of sport in those districts. 



12,876. Then is it the desire of the farmer to ex- 

 clude himself from taking his fair share in that 

 kind of sport? So far as Scottish farmers are 

 concerned, not many of them share in the sport. There 

 are a number, but the greater number in the arable 

 districts are not sportsmen in the sense that your 

 Englishmen farmers are. 



I- ^77. I have met a good many Scotsmen, and I 

 have always found them real good sportsmen. I 

 want to put this quite clear. You do not want to 

 reserve a sporting right to the landlord that you 

 do not wish to accrue to yourselves as tenant farmers? 

 On our agricultural holdings where we do grow 

 crops, or pasture sheep and cattle, wo do not want 

 our legitimate rights and our financial remuneration 

 to be interfered with or jeopardised by the undue 

 development of sport. 



12,878. I was hoping you would be somewhat clearer 

 -on that point, and join the National Fanners' 

 Union of England in asking for an equal right to 

 kill all kinds of game that the farmer has upon his 

 own holding? You did not put it quite that way at 

 first. You did not put the question so pointedly. I 

 think we, ap a Union, have gone further even than 

 your English Union in the matter of game. I may 

 say in the matter of getting the present emergency 

 clauses under "D" into operation, our Union took 

 the leading part, and we made ourselves very 

 obnoxious in many dire, lions on this question 

 of game; but I do not dissociate myself from the 

 view of our Union with regard to game. But we 

 want to be very careful, while protecting the tenant 

 in every possible way from the disastrous effects of 

 Kame, that the legitimate development of sport in 

 those parts of Scotland where it may be legitimately 

 developed will not be interfered with by us. We hold 

 the opinion that if our crops and interests are pro- 

 tected sufficiently, we do not want to interfere. 



12,^79. Probably the thing is somewhat different in 

 Scotland from what it is in England. You do not' 

 suggest that the landlord should have a right to 

 develop sport upon farms he lets to tenant farmers 

 and therefrom receives a rent, and in the case of game 

 develop it to the detriment of the tenant farmer's 

 interest? Certainly not. We do not want that. 



I'J.KttO. In answer to Mr. Henderson you said you 

 wanted to go back, or you would be willing to go 

 back, to the 1913 conditions. Did you mean to imply 

 that you wanted free conditions, freedom of contract 

 between yourselves and your men with regard to 

 wages and hours? Yes. 



12.881. Do you think you are ever likely to get to 

 that position? It is possible. 



12.882. I see you make a strong point in the last 

 paragraph but one of your precis where you say : 



Under present conditions, however, any consider- 

 able reduction is impracticable." That is speaking 

 of the reduction of hours. What hours are vour men 



