THE EDUCATIONALIST. 75 



The shepherd, the stockman, or the horse-keeper might 

 receive a slightly higher wage or an allowance or perquisite 

 (such as a cottage), but generally speaking this represented 

 remuneration for harder work or longer hours and not for 

 extra skill. Mr. George Nicholls, in this same discussion, 

 mentioned that when he was a horse-keeper he had spent 

 more than he could afford on books to get knowledge about 

 horses, but however much he learnt, or whatever skill he 

 possessed, he got no more wages than the man on the next 

 farm, who took no interest in his work. 



This question of payment for ability or skill is worthy of 

 very serious consideration. It has been common in the 

 past to say that the experienced agricultural worker is 

 highly skilled. I have often said so myself, and I have 

 frequently quoted the well-known saying of Mr. W. C. Little 

 that " an Agricultural labourer is a man who draws parallel 

 lines across a field with an awkward instrument called a 

 plough and two or three still more awkward instruments 

 called horses." The progress of Agriculture, and the 

 modernisation of its methods, must necessitate more and 

 more the possession of a high degree of skill in the farm 

 worker. Increasing use of machinery, greater variety of 

 crops, wider application of the lessons of science, all involve 

 a raising of the standard of technical skill. As industries 

 become more and more specialised and mass production 

 extends, the technical skill of the artisan may be restricted 

 within very narrow limits. His work may be reduced to 

 the endless repetition of one operation. The farm worker, 

 on the other hand, except on very large holdings where a 

 specialised staff may to some extent be possible, must be 

 able to perform many and varied duties and become 

 proficient in all. 



If this is so the long-standing tradition of a flat rate 

 cannot fairly be maintained, and payment for ability and 

 skill must be recognised as equitable both by employers 

 and workers. 



The maintenance of the principle of a flat rate is frequently 

 attributed to the class loyalty of farmers, and it is no doubt 

 true that an employer who attempts to diverge from the 



