M 



ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 



, 1919.] 



A 1.1. i -v .IM: V. NIOII.. STKWART, DAVIDSON, McL*RiN. 



<></. 



tin- landlord ' duty ur tin- duty of the iarmci I 

 Uunk it would be loo farmer's duty to bring it bnck 

 il jou r referring to the deterioration of the land. 



I4,i2'j. I am rtlcmilg to the whole iinili-i taking. 

 The buildings and the drain* would bo the landlord's 

 duty to put into condition!' (Mr. \lr\icot): I think 

 the conditions of the leaee would gorcrn it with re- 

 gard to the buildings. 



14,423. Air. Thomas //./,././ -i.-c -. Taking iln-M 

 figure* of your cost of prodm -lion, they arc from the 

 most successful fanners in Si-oilaml \\ V ;m- assum- 

 ing that. 



14,434. On the basis that the figures show a good 

 yield? Y. 



14.4i5. Take the figures for Scotland of |M>tat<x-.. 

 0-44 ton*. You have nt least Uiroo below that? Yes, 

 that is only three out of tlio number. If you refer to 

 those three there may he c<<ruiiu conditions \\hich 

 explain that, and 1 would like to go into those par- 

 ticular three. 



14,436. Yes? They are Nos. 13, 30 and 31. No. Kl 

 hows a production of 6 tons per acre. There i< a 

 reason for the fact that he has got six. II. has a 

 fair cost; this man is growing early potatoes, and he 

 says the buyer digs them, and he further is SOUK- In 

 miles from the nearest point of despatch, and he has 

 considerable expense in connection with thai. H. i- 

 denling with land over on the Campbeltown side. 



11,127. What about the others? No. 31 gives a 

 production of 5 tons per acre. This man's costs in 

 several cases have been examined by the special Com- 

 mittee, and they hare expressed doubt as to their 

 accuracy. One of them, as a matter of fact, wo had to 

 discard because it was quite evident there were figures 

 omitted. I addressed a letter to this man a fortnight 

 ago asking him to explain any reasons which give him 

 such a low production, but I have obtained no aiisw or 

 from him. The Committee thought there was some 

 reason for that, but I have not been able to get the 

 reason up till now. 



14.428. What about the other one, No. 30? This 

 farmer explains his low production on the grounds 

 that his soil is below the average. He says his actual 

 production was even less than six. I wrote to him, 

 and he has since gone into his actual figures, and 

 what he actually sold was 5 tons IS rwt. He says 

 he knows the average in our survey ib eight, hut he 

 did not produce that, as his soil is much In-low the 

 average. It is a Stonehaven farm. 



14.429. There is a case with regard to turnips, too 

 No. 35. The costs are very heavy there? You 

 will bear in mind, in the first place, that we consider 

 our estimates as regards turnips are not very sound, 

 because of the fact that the crop of turnips la.si 



was a partial failure. Many of the farmers en- 

 deavoured to produce a crop of turnips, and tl,.-y 

 were such a failure that they practically did not lift 

 them out of the ground, and they got nothing for 

 them. That accounts for the violent fluctuations in 

 the turnip crop. 



14.430. Some of them l.avc been quite successful? 

 Yes, but I think those must have been grown under 

 special conditions. Some were grown for a special 

 purpose and were specially fortunate. This man's 

 figures appear to be reasonable, but he only gets a 

 yield of aliout 5 tons. 



14.431. Where is his farm? Down in Haddington- 

 hhire. He must be one of those farmers who had a 



..- . rap 



14.432. I see you give an instance of the cost of 

 production of wheat, and you mention an Aherdei-n- 

 hire caseF That is No. 12. 2 16s. 8d. 



14.433. What 1 want to get at is whether this is 

 the sole representative of Alierdeenshire in the wheat 

 production line? -That is the solo cost we have got 

 from Aberdeenshire. 



14,4.'U. You arc (|iiifi. fc.itisfied that these figures 



pretty I.,. f farmers 



in .Scotland ?_- They nro. For example. <,no of the 



put in from Fife appears to I*, the on!-. 

 Fife, I. lit I wan present at a meeting in Fifo of 12 

 representative. farmer*, and win la there is only one 

 cort, it represent* n group of }'2 , more fnrnut. and it 

 in their combined experience, which is shown 

 That particular 1.1 ,r.-. might be tal 



the average cot in Fifevhirc of tlm .,duc- 



tion. and we think the otl.crn are represent at 



the experience in the district or of the particular 

 farmer who is representative. 



ll.l.'Jo. Will >ou turn to your cost of production 

 of oatK. the 1918 crop. I see you have got samples 

 from 10 counties in Scotland? The fifth one of these, 

 namely. Fife, is representative of a large group, 

 alt hough it is only one cost. 



ll.l.'Ki. Is Fori'ar.sl-.ire the .same.- V. |-'.,r tat -hire 



is not representative; it represents one form. 



1-1,437. Do you think tli.it i .-suits ought to be 

 obtained from other farms, or do you consider it is tt 

 fair representation of the county ': 1 think the result* 

 aro rcpnis.'Mt.uivv <>f the licst clii.ss of farm in 

 land. The wider the survey, howc\.>r. the more 

 accurate will the figures become. 



M.I.'iS. v ko these figures as representing 



conditions roughly in the. county? You may take 

 them as being representative probably over a 

 reasonable average. 



14.439. If you were to group the counties specified 

 here with regard to the rate of wages paid, you might 

 take Forfar and Fife and Perth as the groups in 

 which the highest wages are paid? ^ 



14.440. Would you agree to place Haddingtou and 

 Aberdeen in the last category and the other live 

 counties in the second category? Yes. 



14.441. I do not know whether you have worked 

 out the labour pay in the costs per quarter. We 

 have five instances from the highest wage paying 

 counties, Forfar, Fife and Perth, and out of those 

 five instances '"our of them fell into the lowe-: 



of labour and the lowest cost per quarter, so that 

 there seems to be a connection between high wages 

 and low costs? Yes, I agree to that as an accountant 

 from my own experience. 



14,4-12. I would like your impression, Mr. McNicol, 

 of what the effect of the last agricultural depression 

 was in your county? (Mr. McNicol): It had tin- 

 effect of practically ruining many of the farmers in 

 that county. 



14.443. What was the effect. Did you turn the 

 arable land into grass? Not generally. 



14.444. You kept on the arable cultivation? Yes. 

 at reduced rents. 



14.445. You say you find overtime is only worked 

 grudgingly by the workers? Yes, this last year it has 

 been. 



14.446. What is your average working week just 

 now? 50 hours. 



14.447. Plus stable work? Yes. 



14.448. How much would that be, would it be one 

 hour a day? No, not quite. 



1 1.-I-U). Is it 4 hours per week or 5 or 6? I should 

 -av lietween .'! and ) probably I. on an nvern;; 

 the year. 



14.450. Counting Sunday? About 4 counting 

 Sunday. 



14.451. That is a 54 hours' week that your men are 

 working ? Yes. 



14, -152. Suppose the shorter working day is < 

 Hishol, say. IS hours for the purpose of argument, do 

 you think that will have a bearing on the i|iit-tion of 

 the willingncsH of men to work overtime? It is a dif- 

 ferent proposition to ask a man to work overtime who 

 is working 54 hours a week from what it is to ask a 

 man to work overtime who is only working a I- 

 hour week Yi quite. 



14,4-Vi. Sc. that the uiiill.ingncsN to work overtime 

 might disappear with the -IS hours? Yes, it might. 



II, lot. You would agreu 1 tsuppoue, Mr. Stcwail. 

 with the proposition put forward by your chairman 

 'clay that the agricultural industry has got to 

 look to education on a very wide scale being intro- 

 duced in the near future? (Mr. Steinni) I 



14,455. That will cost a good deal of money, the 

 farmers' money as well as other people's? Yen, 

 certainly. 



11. -156. I was interested to soe what your educa- 



,! rate in (Vies parish for this year is 1,4-1'.' a< 



against 380 last yearP Yes. Our parish council 



thought we were being charged too much as compared 



t.> tln> collieries and other industrial district* in Fife 



that we wero paving ix>nsiderablv more for the 

 c nut, of education in our parish than what it actually 

 eostfl. 



