THE FARMER'S MAGAZINE. 



275 



(Hear, hear.) On referring to hia labour-book, he found that 

 last year out of ^800 which he paid for labour there was only 

 £300 for piece-work. From his own observation and ex- 

 perience he had no hesitation in saying that the practical far- 

 mer who was a judge of his business had no difficulty in ob- 

 taining a fair day'a work for a fair day's pay (Hear, hear) 

 The mischief was, that many meu took land who did not 

 know what was a fair day's work (Hear, hear.) Labourers 

 soon found tliis out, and adapted themselves to such a state 

 of thirgs (laughter.) This kind of ignorance prevailed to a 

 greater extent than many might suppose ; and he was induced 

 to think that the amount of work which farmers obtained frcm 

 their labourers was generally pretty much in proportion to 

 the knowledge they possessed of their own business, 



Mr. Coleman (fark Farm, Wol)urn), did not agree 

 with some of Mr. Howard's correspondents, that there were 

 many kiuds of labour on the fann that could not advan- 

 tageously be done by piece-work. There were, in his opinicn, 

 only one or two things which it was not desirable to have done 

 in that manner ; one was the forking of twitch, the other 

 ploughiug by horses, Mr. Howard said, and he thought every 

 one present would agree with him, that it was not only bene- 

 ficial to the master, but also far better for the men, that la- 

 bour should be done by the piece. Why, then, was it not 

 done in that mdde always? One reason was, that on Email 

 occupations, employing only five or six men — and tliere were 

 a great number of farms that did not employ more — it was 

 almost impossible to adopt that system. It would take more 

 time than the farmer had at his disposal to look at the 

 work which each man had done. Nothing would tend more 

 to the substitution of piece for day work than a deficiency in 

 the supply of labour (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Coleman) had 

 changed his occupation two or three times during a short 

 career, and on each occasion had drawn men from day-work 

 to piece-work. Labourers were generally reluctant to make the 

 exchauee ; but if employers would not be too particular, if 

 they would not grudffe a shilling or two at first, the object 

 would soon be arcomplished (Hear, hear,) If the farmer who 

 adop ei piece-work put out his work in such a manner that 

 the labourer could not earn more than an ordinary day's wages, 

 it was no use attempting such a change of system (Hear, 

 hear.) There must be liberality of payment on the part of 

 the employer, and then there would be liberality of work on 

 the part of the employed. On a bright May morning two or 

 three years ago he went to a part of his farm where there were 

 two men who did not know whether they were to work for 

 him by the piece or by the day. On arriving, he found them 

 both very leisurely at work with their coats on. He ofiFered 

 them piece-work, and they accepted the offer. They then set 

 . to work in earnest (laughter.) He sat on his horse watching 

 them for about balf-an-hour, and at the end of that time the 

 oldest of them said, " Master, if you don't go I must pull my 

 coat off." He would advise all farmers who could to adopt 

 piece-work. Piece-work was objected to because it gave the 

 farmer more trouble than day-work. On that point he would 

 remark, that the men did not give bo much trouble, but the 

 quality of the wo'k gave more. 



Mr, J. Thomas (Bletsoe, Beds) was glad that this very 

 important subject had come under discussion in the Club. 

 Having been a farmer for some years, he held that piece work 

 was decidedly preferable to day work. When he first entered 

 on his present occupation, he found that the men employed on 

 the farm had been indulged more than the generality of la- 

 bourers were ; and therefore, for a time, he gave them rather 

 more latitude than he otherwise should have done. For 

 example, they were allowed an hour for breakfast ; and at 



agme of them had to walk to it from one end to the other of 

 a farm, the farm consisting of about a thousand acrea, the 

 hour frequently becsme nearly two hours, After a time, he 

 remarked to his foreman that he could not stand this ; that he 

 would pay good wages, but niu>t have hia work done by the 

 piece. The men, on beii'ff told this, replied that they were 

 not accustomed to work by piece, and did not like it. The 

 reply was that, if they did not work by piece, others must be 

 found, who would. The men soon got into the new system ; 

 and, instead of its now involving more difficulty asregaided 

 supervision, it involved less (Hear, hear). Of course, his 

 foreman had to see what work was done; but the difficulty of 

 keeping men at work, that attended day work, was avoided. 

 He now got all the work he could done by piece, and that en- 

 abled him to get his work forward (Hear, hear). The first 

 time that he used a reaping machine, several of his men 

 etruck. They said they would not tie after the machine. 

 " Very well," he said, " then you must go and reap." He set 

 them to reap at a price agreed upon, and the result was, that 

 they found that they could have done better at the work which 

 they had deserted. 



Mr. J. Bradshaw (Knole, Guildford) thought that 

 practical subjects like this could hardly be too frequently 

 presented for consideration, especially as the improvements 

 which were constantly taking place iu agriculture had an 

 important bearing upon them. He was a novice in the 

 cultivation of laud by steam ; but he had commenced ; and, 

 having paid very great attention to the matter during the last 

 month, he saw clearly the advantage to be derived from pay- 

 ing those who were employed by the piece. He had no hesi- 

 tation in saying that it made a difference of two acres a day in 

 the progress of the work. Speaking generally, he was a strong 

 advocate for piece work on the farm. In his obh neighbour- 

 hood he had seen the benefits of that system strikingly illus- 

 trated. When he entered upon his occupation, fourteen years 

 ago, the general rate of wages in the parish was 93. a week. 

 What was it at present? There was nothing less than lis,, 

 and he himself paid 12a, Last year the able-bodied labourers 

 on his farm earned 13s. 6d. a week. One resu't of such an 

 improvement was the rearing of a superior class of labourers 

 — a class of men who were not seen in his district fifteen years 

 ago. One of our great contractors, in speaking to him about 

 Surrey labourers, said that, if they were put into a gang of 

 regular navvies, they would not live ten days. Piece work 

 tended to alter that state of things, by improving their 

 physical condition. He was convinced that, if labourers were 

 well treated and well paid by their employers, these would be 

 rewarded by their conduct, and also obtain a good money re- 

 turn (Hear, hear). 



Mr. Thomas begged to say one word in explanation-. 

 He had stated that at starting he had great difficulty in getting 

 his men to work by the piece. So far from that being the 

 case now, after they had had experience of piece-work and 

 derived benefit from it, if they did their work badly, in order 

 to punish them he made them do day-work. It was extra- 

 ordinary the effect which working by piece had produced, 

 Meu on his farm who formerly earned 10a. a-week now fre- 

 quently got 153. or 16s. in the same number of hours at piece 

 work, 



Mr. James Howard (Britannia Works, Bedford), having 

 risen in consequence of repeated calls, said, that in farming, 

 as well 83 manufacturing, no matter whether the men worked 

 by the day or by the piece, the more practical knowledge an 

 employer had of his busineaa, the more work would he be 

 likely to get for hia money. Having had some little experi- 

 ence both in farming and of manufacturing, he was sure 



