io6 Thbttghti on Regulating the Value of Ldhour, M^ 



bour would be again reforted to. We were however difappointedj 

 And although fome fort of combination was evident, yet it was 

 impoITible to prove fuch a combination as could be brought under 

 the cognizance of the law. It alfo unfortunately happened, that 

 there was a confiderable demand for hands about the time when 

 tJie fcarcity ceafed ; and this demand being made by fome of the 

 mod opulent proprietors, they were not aware of the mifehief 

 their liberality would occafjon. I hinted in my letter, that the 

 great undertakings already begun by Government in the High- 

 lands, might be productive of fome mifehief, if proper precaution 

 was not ufed. 'rhe event has juiViiied my appvchenfions ; for our 

 labourers already threaten to forfake us, if w.: (is: not comply with 

 their demands. I have been told, that becaui .; is. 6d. only was 

 the wages given by the fuperintendants of the Caledonian Canal, 

 the workmen have threatened to leave it, or have actually left it. 

 So much for the firft paragraph of your note. 



You obferve, that I might have taken notice of the rife in the 

 price of wood. I intended, by the ' price of building, ' to convey 

 the price of every thing neceflary for the completion of a farm- 

 houfe and offices; and, not meaning to enter at length into the fub- 

 jecl, did not notice each particular article required 'm. the execu- 

 tion of fuch erections. 



Perhaps, when you obferved that one year's rent of an cftate 

 is a moderate allowance for buildings over the whole, you did not 

 perceive that my furprife, exprefled at the beginning of my letter^ 

 was occafioned by the whole rent being required for buildings on 

 one farm only. 



it is a common thing to allow one year's rent of a farm to the 

 tenant for buildings ; but I rather think the giving the whole rent 

 of an eftate to one farm, would be found fomewhat inconvenient. 



From the latter part of your note, a quellion arifes, which per- 

 haps requires more able difcuffion than I can beftow. Whether 

 ought any reftri^lion to be put on the value of labour ? If 

 fome fort of reftriftion was not neceffary for the price of or- 

 dinary day labour, as we call it, that is, where workmen arc 

 paid for their time, and not according to the extent or ufefulnef^ 

 of their labour, I hardly fuppofe that the ftatutcs empowering the 

 Jufticcs of the Peace to regulate its value, would have continued 

 fo long in force, or be fo ufeful as in many cafes they arc iowwA to 

 be. This, however, may be trufting too much to the wifdom of 

 thofe who framed thefe laws. The value of labour, I believe,, 

 may be generally in proportion to the difficulty of acquiring per- 

 fe6tion in the art praclifed, and the time required to overcome 

 that difficulty ; to the dem.and for any fpecies of labour, and to 

 the price of the means of fubfiftencc. The laft of thefe is in a. 

 lefs degree concerned in the appreciation of fuch kinds of labour 



as 



