88 



ROTAL^COMinSfilON OHjAGRICULTURE. 



, 1919.] 



MR. CABTEI.L WREV. 



[Continual. 



" Boto' Fen, Peterborough, August 25th, 1919. Dear 

 Mr. Wrey, In answer to your letter, if I can give you 

 any evidence as to the decreased work of labour, I 

 shall be glad to do so; it may be difficult to give con- 

 crete cases, but it IB a well-known fact that can bo 

 vouched for by almost every fanner and employer of 

 labour in this district, that the men do not work HO 

 well as they used to do; they come late and go homo 

 early, and if the farmer says anything they toll him 

 they can get work somewhere else. In fact, the 

 farmer has not been in a position to keep the men up 

 to the mark and has to turn his back when he should 

 speak, consequently the men have got slack. In ttie 

 Crowland area the men do not come till seven and go 

 home many of them at 2.46, and last winter they 

 demanded and got 15s. per day for threshing. I 

 shall no doubt be seeing you in Peterborough." 

 That is signed by him. The next is a case from my 

 own farm: " A lad of 18 years of age employed on 

 the Home Farms at Apethorpe, was engaged to 

 supply water to the engines when steam ploughing, 

 also coals (when the water was sufficiently near to 

 the engines to leave him to do so), at a weekly 

 wage of 42s. On one occasion when hay-making 

 a cart stood with coals within 20 yards of the 

 engine, and he refused to supply the engine with 

 coal, consequently I had to take a man and horse 

 from the hay-carting and cart the coal to the engines. 

 He absolutely refused to coal the engines and was, 

 therefore, dismissed for wilfully refusing to do work 

 which he was engaged to do." That statement is 

 signed by my bailiff. Here is another ease, also from 

 my own farm: " An experienced shearer, was asked 

 by the bailiff to help with the shearing this year 

 and he would not. I went to see the man myself, 

 and asked him to, and the answer he gave mo in 

 front of one of my assistants and one of the men 

 working with him was that shearing was too hard 

 work, and if he sheared all day he could not do 

 his garden at night, and that he preferred to keep 

 himself fit to do his own garden." I have a cutting 

 hero out of the " Agricultural Gazette " of August 

 18th, 1919, which I would like to read to you, if I 

 may. 



7872. I do not think that is quite evidence. You 

 made a statement on the last occasion that you 

 would bring forward evidence to support what you 

 said, and, as a matter of fact, I do not think a 

 report from a newspaper is evidence? Very well, 

 Sir, I will leave that out. I have another case here 

 " Mr. R. L. King employed a man during haytime 

 dismissed at end of haytime as Mr. King did not re- 

 quire him. Mr. King got this man's name from the 

 Local Labour Exchange for harvest work. Offered 

 him 25s. per acre for cutting peas the same price 

 as his other men were receiving and were earning at 

 the rate of 15s. per day. He agreed to come but did 

 not turn up and has done no work since." Bolow that 

 is written: " I have read over the above statement 

 and certify it to be correct," and that is signed by Mr. 

 R. L. King of Cotterstock, Peterborough. I have the 

 original of that if you want it. Then, again, I have 

 a letter from Mr. Samuel Moore of the Manor Kami, 

 Thornhaugh, Peterborough, addressed to my*lf. It 

 is dated the 30th August, 1919: " Dear Sir, Re- 

 ferring to our conversation in regard to agricultural 

 hands witholding production, the following two cases 

 have occurred on this farm recently. On August 

 10th last I sent a horse (one of a pair) to the smith'.- 

 shop for shoeing. When this horse came back I 

 arranged that it should go harrowing with the <>th>'i 

 bone that had been idle all day, thesto horses were 

 yoking out at 2 o'clock p.m. when the waggoner < am.. 

 in the stable with the horses (half an hour before ho 

 ought to have dont) and remarked if I kept the horses 

 out he should not look after and care for them as he 

 did not want tln-m to go to work at all and \><- -li<>ul'l 

 leave: this man is a member of the Agricultural 

 Workers' Union. Another ruse, on August 12th last. 

 A boy of 14 years had been working a pair of horstes 

 harrowing for several days ; through this boy becoming 

 ill I had occasion to awx a regular hand of 21 

 of age who had been demobilised n few months i<> 

 go in hii place. He flatly refused, saying he was 1 not 

 going to work hones Although he was used to all 

 farm work. H accepted the alternative and left my 



', 



employ. The former case is a man about 26 years of 

 e, was demobilised in February last, and was em- 

 >yed on this farm several years before the war. 

 trust the above cases will help you and I will 

 say there are many men employed in agriculture at 

 the present time who only want to get time over, 

 and do as little work as possible. Yours faithfully, 

 Samuel Moore." Then 1 have a letter from Mr. 

 Leonard: " Manor Farm, Woodnewton, Peter- 

 borough. August 28th, 1919. Dear Sir, Your state- 

 ment,- I am sorry to say, is only too true. Some 

 men try to do as little as possible since Government 

 and chiefly Union influence. I had to dismiss one 

 man in particular. I don't wish his name to be 

 made public for wilfully doing as little as he could 

 when I was not near. I had to do it as all my 

 other men said they would leave eke, as they said 

 he would not work himself nor allow them, without 

 chaffing them. I can't complain of my present ones 

 but only yesterday a lad of 16 was loading wheat 

 and he refused to load any more after a quarter 

 past seven. The cart was sent home empty. Eight 

 o'clock is the time we work to when carting, so I 

 have to pay all the others three quarter hour work 

 which was not done through hi4 action. I can't speak 

 to him or should be told to do the work myself. 1 

 employ regular, 4 men 2 lads and boy, besides working 

 self. Yours faithfully, John Leonard." I have 

 another letter from Mr. Tate: " Sibson Manor, 

 Wansford, Peterborough. 28th August, 1919. Dear 

 Sir, I shall be pleased for you to make use of my 

 name respecting tenants buying their farms, you 

 must have misunderstood me. I did not say I wish I 

 had never seen the farm " I do not think I said 

 that in evidence " It will ruin many farmers who 

 bought their farms, for the purpose of farming it 

 themselves: many will be short of capital, that will 

 stop production. At the present time everything is 

 done to stop production, farmers must have a free 

 hand for the good of the country. It w very serious, 

 wheat is the cheapest corn grown instead of the 

 dearest. Directly things are settled down the Govern- 

 ment will drop the farmers like a red hot cinder, 

 it is the vote that ia the ruin of England. I shall 

 be much worse off having bought my farm. I had 

 an excellent landlord and an excellent agent, they 

 always treated me well, and I only wish they wen. 

 landlord and agent still. I should be far better off. 

 Yours truly, H. J. Tate." 



7873. Did he say what rent he paid before? No; 

 that is his letter just as he sent it to me. 



7874. Ifr. timitli: Do you not think that shows a 

 spirit which is rather remarkable against the idea 

 which you are seeking to establish when the men 

 themselves make a very strong protest Against the 

 slacker. Is it not rather a remarkable feature in 

 the industry for men to take up such an attitude? 

 Where have they done that? 



7875. In one of the letters you read it says the 

 other men protested and refused to work with the 

 slacker? This actual man was depreciating. That 

 is the subject of the letter. 



7876. You would not suggest that the isolated cases 

 you quote would establish a general rule? I could 

 produce any number more. I have asked any amount 

 of farmers to lot me have cases, but although they 

 have told me they know of such cases, I am afraid 

 they are too lazy to produce them, regardless of their 

 own interests. 



TS77. Does -not that rather show a spirit on the 

 purl of the farmers which may become contagious 

 mid affect their workmen? Possibly. 



7878. If farmers themselves show a lazy spirit, and 

 if they ha\e in the past considered themselves to be 

 sii|M>rior persons as compared witli their labourers, 

 tin -\ ought not to ho surprised' at the labourer follow- 

 ing the example they set, ought they? I have no 

 evidence on that point. 



7879. I submit to you that these cases you have 

 i|ii-ite.| an<l I imagine you havo made fairly exten- 

 sive enqiiirieH in your neighbourhood do not reflect 

 anything very serious, and that it is quite possible 

 in pre-war times a similar number of cases may havo 



,. f |? You say it is not very serious. I think 



