26 



ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 





MR. JAMES GA&DMEB 



L ( 'iiiliiiiitil. 



the country could carry on. But if agriculture went 

 down nd the land went to grass or three-fourths of 

 it went to gra, if an emergency MI. -li as a great war 

 were to occur again the country would he in a bad 

 way, and if you wan* to make the roost ,,f kgneoltan 

 I think you mut judge it rather .lilierently from 

 what you would do an industrial enterprise su. 

 thiphu'ilding. In otli.T words, eliminate the badlord 

 Iroin \our mind for the moment and eliminate the 

 farmer also, and take it that the whole agrKultiii.il 

 aswt belongs to the nation. What would you do in 

 that rase!' Would you allow it all to go down to 

 grass i 1 Say that the whole of tho land of the country 

 belonged to the nation, do you say it would be a good 

 thing to allow it to go down to grass? I say no. 

 I say that tho thing to do is to do what other count ru- 

 have done hy every fair means in your power, put the 

 industry on a live basis. 



18,304. This is what I am not satisfied about. You 

 in* the impression, as one or two other witnesses 

 we have had before us have also done, that the fanners 

 of this country or the great bulk of them arc just 

 waiting for a 'signal to let the Trhoia of the land of 

 the country go down to grass unless they get 

 guarantees. Is that so? No, that is not quite the 

 case. They may have given you that impression, but 

 don't you believe them. There is always a certain 

 quantity of land in this country the land which 

 M r. Sm'ith and other members of the Commission have 

 referred to which gives a very good return. That 

 class of land will not go down under almost any cir- 

 cumstancee, but what you are after is the secondary 

 land which exists in many parts of the country. That 

 land is really not being made the most of from the 

 national point of view, and it has been a by-word 

 and a hissing to the citizens of every country which 

 are better managed in the matter of farming. 



13,905. You are very modest. I do not think that 

 farmers like you are a by-word or a hissing to the * 

 citizens of any country:'- I do not say that the 

 British farmer is to blame, but I do maintain that 

 the conditions under which lie has had to wage the 

 fight have not been fair enough to give him a chance 

 to win out. I do say that we are as good men as 

 the Germans or the Danes, or the Belgians or the 

 Dutch. I only ask you to give us the same chance. 



13.306. We are asked to give guarantees, but the 

 guarantees we have been asked for up to this moment 

 are in respect :f certain cereals? Yes. 



13.307. I am not quite clear about it. You stated in 

 reply to one of the Commissioners that it would not 

 necessarily follow on the giving of the guarantee 

 that the land should be laid down to cereals that 

 it would not be necessary for farmers to grow cereals, 

 and that they might not grow cereals? The object 

 of having it under the plough, whether it was under 

 cereals or not, would be to nave it ready for cereals 

 if cereals were wanted. 



13,306. If it is not going down to cereals, where is 

 the utility of the guarantee so far as cereals are 

 concerned? Because you have your cottages and your 

 stables and your drains all in good condition and 

 the land in proper condition for arable cultivation, 

 And having had the land under a long rotation you 

 are ready for the cereal* when they are wanted. 

 Though the land may not be for the moment growing 

 <-real. it could be turned down to cereals at a year's 

 notice, and you could have the whole of it growing 

 cereals when it was necessary. 



13,309. Do you not think that in some cases if prices 

 keep up and if there is a profit to be made on cereals 

 the farmers will be " after it," in your own wonU- 

 Therefore, if price* keep up farmers will keep on 

 growing cereals, guarantee or no guarantee, will 

 they not? I do not think ao, because in many parts 

 if the country there will not be the necessary equip- 

 ment. Our farm*, as I have explained to the ( 'mi- 

 ni imion even our bt arable lands an- more or 

 ]fm derelict at the present day. I use the word 

 adriiMxlly. During the war there lias been very littlo 

 done in the way of drainage. The farm buildings 

 re rather better and the cottage* are not very bad ; 

 but Mr. Duncan hero will tell you that they are bad 

 enough, probably. But you want the State to en- 



courage the landlord and the farmer to spend his 

 cm thiw things. Many farmers have made 

 mistake*. I <! not put forward tin- ulra that the 

 landlord* an- better than the fanners, or anything 

 <>l the kind, but they have certainly done more than 

 anybody else to inaugurate British agriculture, and if 

 you are going to get these men to advance money for 

 the purpose of arable tillage, you must give them 

 some assurance that they will not be swept com- 

 pletely olf tho map a.s they were lie fore when bad 

 times came. On the other hand, assuming the land 

 belonged to the State, and you wanted the thing put 

 i u an efficient basis-, ymi would have t<i s|>end ten 

 times more money than you will do by the method 

 that is advocated here to-day. 



13.310. It seems to me that the whole thing re- 

 itself into a vicious circle, and that if we arc going 

 to subsidise agriculture we will be immediately asked 

 to subsidise chemicals and all the industries allied 

 to agriculture what are termed key industries 

 and that we shall be landed in for a general circle 

 of subsidising all the industries of tho country? I 

 should say it is an arguable proposition, and it is 

 quite right that every point of view should be put 

 forward. I must admit that your point of view is 

 one that will prevail in cities. I am ell aware, and I 

 resent very much .what us often said about the farmers 

 from the urban side. Every decent fanner resents 

 the remarks that are made, and I know if this 

 guarantee is given that we are open to the charge 

 that we are being subsidised. But I maintain here 

 and now that in that case we are not being sub- 

 sidised, and that it is the community which is going 

 to be subsidised. That is a statement which does 

 not seem to bear its face value, but in my own mind 

 I am certain it is the community that will sub- 

 sidise themselves in this case. 



13.311. The thing at the back of your mind seems to 

 be that the guarantee is necessary by way of pre- 

 paration for some war which may break out at any 

 time? Not quite. I would rather put it as a pre- 

 paration for peace. If you take the progress of 

 agriculture in Germany, and consider what the State 

 was able to do in that country for the agricultural 

 industry and the consequent development of intensive 

 farming that thereby took place and the amount 

 of money circulating in urban areas- resulting from 

 the manufacture of agricultural produce into sugar, 

 motor-spirit, farina, etc., .uid the use made 

 of the by-products in other industries, you 

 will find that the thing paid for itself many times 

 over. The Germans were making the most of Iheir 

 national asset: the land. We have not done no in 

 this country, but this guarantee I maintain is part 

 of the scheme which will have to be adopted if we 

 are to get going on the same lines. 



13.312. The guarantees that we have already had 

 under the Corn Production Act. have never been 

 of any use to the farmer, have they 'r No, undoubtedly 

 they 'have not, because we have had the war prices 

 prevailing, but as I said this morning, the pendulum 

 has swung round, and I tell you frankly sitting 

 here that if I were a landlord I should be very 

 chary to-day of advancing a pound on the likelihood 

 of the present inflated prices continuing. 



I .'1,313. There are not many tenant farmers who 

 have such a tender regard for landlords as you have? 

 I speak of landlords as I find them. I have met some 

 good landlords and tenants, and 1 have met some bad 

 landlords and tenants, and while I admit there has 

 been a certain proportion of landlords who have done 

 farming a great deal of harm that does not in- 

 validate the good work which has been done by the 

 greater jiroj>rtion of them. 



l:i.:tl. I am not challenging that, but- I do not 

 agree entirely with what \ou say about the Scottish 

 landlords. If it. were only a question of keeping the 

 land under the plough so that on the outbreak of war 

 we would be able t:> grow our own food that would 

 -other matter, but do you not think that if we 

 l'ivc a subsidy to agriculture we shall be immediately 

 askeil t i subsidise shipping and maybe shipbuilding 

 U well in order to have a large reserve of shipping 

 which would be also vitally necessary- in the case of 

 war in the interests of the nation? You will have to 

 expend a great deal more money in shipping if you 



