Loj'd Derby on Land, Labour, and Game 



403 



process. Moreover, there is another con- 

 sideration which philanthropists are apt to 

 forget. It is very well and it is very just to 

 argue that men never work so hard as when 

 they have a direct personal interest in the 

 result; that is excellent doctrine for pros- 

 perous times, or where there is a reserve to 

 fall back upon. But farmers have losses as 

 well as gains, bad years as well as good 

 years, and inasmuch as labourers must live, 

 and as they have nothing laid by, it seems as 

 if whenever crojDS were exceptionally bad, or 

 prices exceptionally low, the experiments of 

 rural co-operation run great risk of breaking 

 down. Still, I don't say that it should not 

 be tried, or that in some form it may not 

 ultimately answer; only with our present ex- 

 perience I should advise no one to put more 

 money into it than he can afford conveniently 

 to lose. But why should not the question 

 be practically tested? There are plenty of 

 estates in the market, the trading co-operative 

 associations of this country are very numerous, 

 they have a good deal of money made, and 

 their supporters are enthusiastically zealous 

 in the cause. A very little experience is 

 better than a great deal of talk; let them 

 try a few farms and see whether they can 

 work them to advantage on their principle. 

 If they succeed, nobody will grudge them 

 their success ; if they fail, we are only where 

 we were. There is a modified form of co- 

 operation which consists in paying labourers 

 proportionately to the profits made on the 

 farm, and some plan of that kind has lately 

 been recommended to us by very high Parlia- 

 mentary authority. I think, however, that it 

 is liable to a good deal of difficulty. In the 

 first place, it is not always easy for the 

 farmer to know exactly what his profits on 

 the year's business are, and still less easy for 

 him to prove it, as he would be bound to do, 

 to the satisfaction of his men. In the next 

 place, it does not seem to be founded on 

 any principle of justice that I can understand, 

 that a ploughman or a carter's earnings should 

 depend on the state of the crops or of the 

 markets. No doubt he would be willing 

 enough to receive a bonus in good years, but 

 he would not at all like a corresponding 



deduction from his earnings in bad years. 

 And yet it is not easy to see how you can 

 have one without the other. While on this 

 question I would recommend it to your con- 

 sideration, whether it is not both just and 

 politic to distinguish, more than is usually 

 done, between individual labourers, as regards 

 the rate at which they are paid. One man's 

 work is worth half as much again as that of 

 another ; it is a discouragement to the really 

 good worker not to have that difference re- 

 cognized ; and, looking at it in another point 

 of view, by valuing each man's labour sepa- 

 rately, you encourage the spirit of individual 

 energy and ambition, rather than of combi- 

 nation and collective action. Five-and- 

 twenty years ago the theory used to be that 

 if you could only give to every labourer an 

 allotment on which he could grow produce, 

 either for sale or for his own use, you 

 would have made a great step towards im- 

 proving his condition. I think there was 

 reason and sense in that view, though more 

 stress may have been laid upon it than it 

 would fairly bear. There is no doubt that 

 to hold a bit of land in that way attaches a 

 man to the soil, and that it is, so to speak, 

 a savings-bank for his labour. On the other 

 hand it is argued with force that if the 

 allotment is far off from the house, and if 

 it exceed a very moderate size, the labourer 

 is drawn off from his regular work to attend 

 to it, and, being divided between two em- 

 ployments, neither does as well for himself 

 or his employer as he otherwise would. It 

 is a fair matter for discussion, and I hope 

 we may have some light thrown upon it. 



THE GAME LAWS. 



You will expect me to say something on 

 the question of game. It does not much in- 

 terest me personally, and I shall be quite 

 ready to acquiesce in whatever arrangements 

 either law or custom may sanction. But 

 where there is a good deal of prejudice on 

 both sides, a word or two in a spirit of at 

 least intended impartiality may not be quite 

 useless. There are two issues involved — 

 one, what it is wise for every landlord to do 

 of his own free will ; the other, v/hat Parlia- 



