1 



. "MMI>M.'N "S .M.UIfl I.'ITKK. 



14 



MK. JAMBS GAKHNKR 





would not do that. 1 would take it somewhere about 

 the middle; and while admitting quite frankly that it 

 does not at all suit the man with tin- low piodii- lion 

 and the high cost per unit, if you are going i i> 

 munerate that man. then you art* going to set up a 

 vry impossible projxwition for the community in tl.e 

 tvent of price* coming back. 



12.979. May I suggest to you, if you take a medium 

 figure, that mint of necessity give an advantage to 

 the man occupying land which gives the higher yields, 

 and would then make it impossible for the man with 

 the poorer land and tin- loner yields to continue farm- 

 ing, and, therefore, it is no solution of the difficulty: 

 In connection with your question there is quite a 

 vast area of land in tin- country which, under any 

 system of guarantee, or at least with any reasonable 

 system of guarantee, could be kept economically in 

 cultivation. There is a very large area of land, more 

 particularly in England, I think, and in Scotland 

 also, that could not be kept under arable cultivation. 

 On the other hand, if you fix the average that you 

 have just now under the Compulsory Orders, you 

 would be then remunerating and making it possible 

 fnr the man who is farming to continue, while the 

 man who has been forced to break up his land goes 

 out, if that answers your question. 



12.980. Does not that mean that the State has got 

 to determine a particular kind of land upon which it 

 run be considered advantageous to grow corn, or to 

 farm under arable conditions? Yes; if there is a 

 guarantee of that kind given, the line would require 

 to be drawn, but I think you will find that the Govern- 

 ment, or the Executive Committees, do not require 

 to draw the line. The economic situation will settle 

 it. 



12.981. Yes; but in fixing the standard for a 

 guarantee, they must have something in their mind 

 in guiding them as to what is a reasonable standard 

 of cost, and, therefore, it seems to me they cannot 

 .-cape considering that question as to what class of 

 land is to be taken as a standard? One cannot tell 

 at the moment what developments, under research and 

 under the other advantages I have outlined, there 

 will be, and what effect those might have in the future 

 on land which might, at present, be considered wholly 

 uneconomic. I can imagine any statutory body, or 

 body in authority for limiting or drawing the line 

 with regard to cultivation, requiring to be extremely 

 careful in making any pronouncement as to what 

 land should be cultivated and what land should not. 



12.982. Yes ; but in considering the question of the 

 guarantee and having regard to the great variation of 

 the productivity of different soils, is not that bound 

 to be a question of difficulty that must arise? If you 

 are going to guarantee the lower yielding soils, then 

 you are going to give an enormous premium to the 

 higher yielding soils: 1 I said if you guarantee the 

 middle class of land, the lower class of land passes 

 out, and you are able to keep the men who have the 

 middle class of land sufficiently remunerated to curry 

 on, and the lower land you referred to with the- high 

 cost per unit passes out. Undoubtedly the man who 

 is farming the better proposition has an advantage 

 over the man who is farming the secondary class of 

 land; but he will pay for it in rent and other things. 



12,963. Would yon agree that all this shows that 

 the question of guarantees is a very difficult one, and 

 does not solve this question as to the future of agri- 

 culture? I admit it is a most intensely difficult ques- 

 tion, and it does not perhaps solve itself just exactly 

 as we would like; but if you take the disadvantages off 

 this imperfect solution and compare them with the 

 disadvantages of no guarantee, the other side is also 

 no use. I think anyone who is acquainted with (lie 

 whole circumstances would say they would prefer to 

 take the disadvantage* of the imperfect solution such 

 as it is. 



12,984. Would you agree it would be a better policy 

 to help the industry by improved transport, by scien- 

 tific research, and things of that deseriptio'n. and 

 then let it work out its own policy rather than have 

 a system of guarantees? I would'; but. on the other 

 hand, yon have to consider the fact that building 



equipment, cottage*, stables, building, drain* ami 

 ditches are all more or less derelict, even in good 

 cropping country. You have to consider tho effect 

 oi the present values with u -.ml to all theeo things. 

 They are more than doubled. The present pi 

 draining land is almost the price of tin- hole oi the 

 land itself in certain part* of Scotland, and fairly 

 good second-class hind. How are you going to induce 

 an\ man who is an occupying owner, or a land 

 OH nci . merely on the promise in the future <>l an 

 improvement, in transport and oil these other things 

 in the dim and distant future, or encourage him to 

 put hi- money into buildings, cottages and drain* 

 which, if the land were turned down to pasture, might 

 not h>> required:- I have gone into this question, and 

 I nas agaiii-t guarantee* until a .-horl time ago ; hut 

 the longer 1 have studied the question, the more 1 

 II.IMI com*- to the conclusion tliat if this country, for 

 insurance or any other reason, wants a larger acreage 

 under the plough, a modified guarantoe such as I am 

 advocating to-day is one of the best .soluiion.s. In 

 fact, if you leave it out, you will probably liave more 

 permanent pasture than you had in 1!>IH-I 1 in another 

 two years' time, or when prices begin to come down. 



12.985. Is Home of thus difficulty, such as the had 

 Htuto of the ditches and the absence of proper drain- 

 age, the result of impossibility to do the work during 

 the post five years? During the past 40 years. 



12.986. It is not part of war conditions? No; the 

 i i rains and the buildings, cottages and all kinds of 

 general equipment of on arable farm are matters of 

 long standing. As I mentioned in the earlier part of 

 my examination, it is part of tho great slide, or wash- 

 out, during the very depressing period of the 'seven- 

 ties and the 'eighties. I remember the time very well. 

 I came through it, hut thousand* of I armors went to 

 the wall ; ami it was not much of a proposition to the 

 landlords who remained for them to go on spending 

 money on drains and keeping up buildings and per- 

 manent equipment. 



12.987. A lot of this work would be considered land- 

 lords' obligations and not farmer*' obligations, would 

 it not? Undoubtedly. 



12.988. Do you suggest then, that the landlords have 

 not been able to do this work? In many cases I 

 understand they have been quite unable to do it; 

 and in most cases unless a man bad a hobby for im- 

 proving his land, there was not any reason why he 

 should do it. The whole of liritish agriculture has 

 been in a congested, stagnant condition no life in it. 



12.989. I do not see any particular reason why a 

 man should purposely allow his own property (<> 

 depreciate? Not if it was being turned dow'n to 

 grass. If he could get a quite decent rent for it in 

 grass, and the buildings and equipment for arable 

 cultivation were gradually crumbling, he was prac- 

 tically suffiering no loss. His taxation was less. In 

 this country the taxation is on improvements, so that 

 he had less to pay in taxation. Ho could perhaps let 

 it as a sporting or game proposition. He. had a 

 tenant who was thoroughly satisfied and was making 

 money in his way; but his arable equipment, his per- 

 manent equipment in drains, buildings and cottages, 

 had gone down. We, as f armors, cannot, farm unless 

 we get the permanent equipment. There are di.^ 



in Scotland that have not been drained for 10 < r 

 SO years. 



12.990. But if this land goes down to gross to the 

 extent that some farmers seem to think is possible. 

 would not that recreate the same problem in another 

 form? I mean, if we get the bulk of the land, or any 

 amount of it, going down to grass ami agriculture 

 taking a turn in one particular direction, that is. 

 pa -tu re. would it not create another problem which 

 will |K> just as bad as the prvsent problem? What 



hiit problem? 



12.091. Tbat e are. producing loo much of one par- 

 ticular thing in agriculture. 1 mean if you are. 

 grazing for tin at. there is a possibility of meat in, 

 portation just as of corn importation? I do not 

 think you will rentrire any guarantee for meat. The 

 meat stocks of the world are down, and you ran 

 increase the cereal production of the world in two or 

 three years from being a very meagre proposition 

 to being the full production of the world. That will 

 be so in throe or four years at the outside if the 



