MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



17 



14 October, 1919.] 



MR. JAMES GARDNER. 



{Continued. 



13.048. Do you not think that the basis on which 

 they are to decide the valuation of rent is an 

 important question:' I agree. 



13.049. Your Union has not considered that ques- 

 tion? We have left that rather to the gentlemen who, 

 if they are ever appointed, will have to deal with that. 

 That is rather above our heads as ordinary farmers. 



13.050. You prefer a central tribunal to the arrange- 

 ment suggested by the English Chambers? We do. 



13.051. Have you taken fully into account the 

 importance of local knowledge in assessing the value 

 of a farm unless you are to proceed on some basis such 

 as the cost of production ? We have ; we have taken 

 into consideration the advantages. 



13.052. But you think the disadvantages are greater 

 than the advantages? Yes. 



13.053. Still the absence of local knowledge would 



be a serious impediment to such a tribunal? It 



could be overcome by calling witnesses. 



13.054. It would involve the calling of witnesses 

 and presumably the employment of counsel also, would 

 it not? I do not see that that necessarily follows. I 

 am speaking at large without our Union having gone 

 into the scheme detail by detail, but I do not see 

 why even the Court of Arbitration should not work 

 pretty much on the same lines as the Agricultural 

 Holdings Act as it is administered at present. If 

 the landlord and the farmer, the tenant, were agree- 

 able to the employment of a single arbiter mutually 

 appointed by the Court, and if his findings were sub- 

 ject to revision if his proposals were not acceptable 

 to cither one party or the other, an appeal could be 

 set up to the Central Court itself. That might 

 economise and simplify the procedure very greatly. 

 I do not see that necessarily that course of procedure 

 should l)o ruled out in such a scheme. We want to 

 get economy so long as the parties are satisfied. 



13.055. But wherever the parties were not satisfied 

 there would be an appeal to the Court? Necessarily. 



13.056. Can you tell us how many holdings not 

 coming under the Small Landholders Act there are in 

 Scotland? I am not just quite aware of the number 

 at the moment; I daresay you may have the figures 

 yourself. 



13.057. Would you accept the suggestion that there 

 are not less than 50,000 of them according to the 

 Board 6f Agriculture list? I accept your figure. 



13.058. Fifty thousand arbitrations would be a con- 

 siderable operation if they were all to arbitrate? It 

 would be if it necessarily followed that they would all 

 go to arbitration, but I think one should take more 

 into consideration the practical effect of what is likely 

 to happen. We think that there will be less litigation 

 if such a Court were established than is the case 

 under the present arrangement. 



13.0.59. That, after all, is only a matter of assump- 

 tion PY. 



13.060. Which is not on the whole borne out by the 

 operations of the Small Landholders Act, is it? That 

 may be so. 



13.061. In your scheme, is the decision of the Couit 

 to l>e binding on both the parties when they differ, 

 as an arbiter's decision would be? Yes. 



13.062. That is to say the tenant would be bound in 

 law to enter upon a lease even if he thought the rent 

 fixed by the Court too high? Yes. most certainly.* 



13.063. Have you heard it stated by owners of land 

 and those who represent them that the effect of legis- 

 lation of that kind would be to make them unwilling 

 to incur any expenditure on the maintenance of the 

 farms? I have heard that view put forward. 



13.061. Do you think it is sincerely put forward? 

 I think it is mistakenly, but sincerely. 



13.065. That is their view of what their course of 

 action would be? Yes. 



1. '1,066. That would be rather a serious matter, 

 would it not? Yes, if it were correct. 



13,067. Quite so, but I presume that those concerned 

 in the matter are the best judges as to what they 



" The witness states that, at the hearing ho under- 

 stood the question to be: "Would the tenant be 

 bound to no on with h : s lease, suppose he thought the 

 rent too high?' As the question was actually put, 

 however, anrl a it i. Mi out in the text, his answer is : 



Vo." 



26370 



would do in certain circumstances? They are entitled 

 to their opinion. 



13.068. You think that is a course of action which 

 they really contemplate that they are sincere in say- 

 ing that that is what they would do? I believe they 

 are sincere. 



13.069. Apart from their disposition what would 

 their position be? Did you observe the. result of the 

 sale of the smallholdings created on, I think, Lord 

 Elibank's estate in Haddingtonshire last year? No, 

 I cannot say that I have. 



13.070. Will you take it from me that in some cases 

 the purchase price was less than 10 years' purchase of 

 the rents? Yes, I will take it from you. 



13.071. The usual value at that time of land in that 

 district good farming land properly equipped would 

 be anything from 20 to 25 years' purchase, would it 

 not? I should say anything from about 18 to 25 

 years' purchase. 



13.072. So that in that particular instance the 

 capital value of the subjects had undergone a serious 

 reduction through their being held on this system? 

 By being wrongly assessed under the system. 



13.073. The purchasers were buying in the open 

 market at what they thought the subjects were worth ? 

 It was an open market, was it? 



13.074. Yes? I misunderstood you altogether. I 

 thought you were referring to a Court, the Board of 

 Agriculture having bought this land arbitrarily. 



13.075. No, the proprietor, not desiring to continue 

 holding that property, sold it in the open market, 

 and the accruing "price was something under 

 10 years' purchase. That was the reduction in value 

 which was brought about. I am not putting it for- 

 ward as a final argument, but there it was. Now I 

 want to take you to this other point : I am sure you 

 are aware that a very large proportion of the land in 

 Scotland is heavily bonded and mortgaged? Yes. 



13,070. If it were all reduced in value by the intro- 

 duction of a different system to that extent it would 

 be very difficult to retain these mortgages, would it 

 not? It would be impossible. 



13.077. Therefore, apart from what they might 

 desire to do, landowners would be really incapable if 

 this change were made of spending any money at all 

 on improvements unless they had other sources of in- 

 come? They are practically incapable, I think, under 

 the mortgage system of spending much money on im- 

 provements at present. 



13.078. Unless they have other sources of income? 

 Yes. 



13.079. That would be very much aggravated, 

 would it not? Undoubtedly. 



13.080. Would that not bring about of necessity a 

 great increase in the sales of land? It might do if 

 there were plenty of purchasers. 



13.081. There have been plenty of purchasers so 

 far? Yes, principally among tenant farmers, but I 

 suggest if they had security of tenure under a Court, 

 on the condition that they farmed up to a recognised 

 standard, there would be no desire on the part of the 

 farmers to buy. 



13.082. But others, of course, might wish to do so? 

 Certainlv. 



13.083. I do not wish to pursue that further. I 

 take it generally that a great many of the details in 

 this scheme, even the figures to be dealt with and so 

 on, and the general consequences of it other than to 

 the occupying farmer, have not been very fully con- 

 sidered by your body? They have been very fairly 

 considered. 



13.084. You have told us of a number of points 

 that have not been considered? Yes. 



13.085. Some of them fairly important points? 

 Yes, I admit that. 



13.086. Now I come to the question of game. I 

 want to ask you whether you do not really think that 

 something much broader than you propose is neces- 

 sary. You spoke of the necessity for fencing deer 

 forests. I entirely agree, and I think everyone 

 agrees, it is quite a wrong thing that preserved game 

 should be allowed to stray and destroy the crops of 



