WHAT OF THE HARVEST? 245 



or two farmers in 1915 who refused to cut their hay rather 

 than pay soldiers 4?. 6d. a day. 



On the farmers' side, it is only fair to say, that they had 

 to put up with a number of useless substitutes, but eventu- 

 ally these were removed and the skilled agricultural labourer 

 in khaki became a feature on a great number of farms ; 

 and it is undoubtedly the- fact that the 43. 6d. a day usually 

 paid to soldiers became a powerful lever for raising wages 

 all round. Another factor in raising wages was the 25s. 

 a week instituted later on by Mr. Neville Chamberlain in 

 his ill-fated National Service Scheme. 



A sinister feature of the farm-tied cottage cropped up 

 in the spring of this year. Women, whose husbands were 

 fighting abroad, began to be evicted from their cottages by 

 farmers. A memorable case was fought at Tewkesbury 

 Police Court on February 4. A member of the N.A.L.U. 

 was disabled at the battle of Mons, and after receiving hos- 

 pital treatment in England rejoined his regiment in the 

 lighting line. Whilst there, his wife, the mother of four 

 young children, received notice that the farmer was apply- 

 ing for an ejectment order. The Union fought the case 

 for the wife and won it with honours. 



At the Trade Union Congress of this year a resolution 

 was proposed by Mr. J. Coe, and seconded by Mr. R. B. 

 Walker, calling upon the Government to insist upon the 

 " compulsory cultivation of all agricultural land and when 

 and wherever practicable to acquire and retain land to be 

 worked and controlled by the State." This was the fore- 

 runner of the Cultivation Orders worked under the Defence 

 of the Realm Act by the War Agricultural Committees; and 

 in spite of the fact that agricultural labourers showed their 

 keenness for good husbandry before either landlord or 

 farmer did, very few of them were invited at first to sit on 

 these committees. This omission, from the national 

 standpoint, was a bad one, for not only were the skilled 

 farm workers in many cases more intimate with the land, 

 but they would have shown more independence in criticis- 

 ing farmers (those who, at any rate, were not their employ- 

 ers) who were neglecting to cultivate the land pmperlv. 



