88 The Labour Bill in Farming. |i 
they naturally become more expert, and in farming, as in pin- 
making, a proper division of labour produces the article at a 
lower cost." If so, good-bye to the handy man about a farm, 
invaluable to employers, who can plough, drill, hoe, thatch, 
stack, drain, clip hedges with an eye to form, and do pretty 
nearly anything. My last correspondent (Mr. Walton Burrell, 
jun., of Fornham St. Martin, Suffolk) considers the increase in 
the farmer's labour bill during the last few years to be from 
20 to 25 per cent., without any corresponding increase in the 
value of produce, though there has been a considerable reduction 
in the rates. " The cost of labour," he adds, " on fair light land 
under the plough would not be much less than on heavy land, 
provided roots were grown on the light and not on the heavy 
land, and that both were farmed under the four-course system. 
Of course upon very poor light-land farms, where a large portion 
of the acreage is left as a sheep-walk, the labour bill would be 
small. If an equal quantity of roots were grown on the heavy 
land instead of clean fallow, the proportion would be about 
3 on the light to 4 on the heavy land. As to the influence of 
machinery upon the cost of manual labour, I question whether 
in many instances work is not done as cheaply by manual labour, 
provided only that men can be obtained in sufficient numbers 
when they are wanted. But the day has happily gone by 
when the farmer could find half a score of men on the village- 
green waiting for a job, to be set on, and paid off, at his con- 
venience." 
" Nearly one-half less horse-power," say the writers of another 
letter, farmers in the Midland Counties, " is required to work 
light land. But although the work on light land may be done 
with much less toil than on heavy land, there is not so much 
less manual labour as at first sight there seems to be ; for a crop 
of turnips and the eating and superintending of a large flock of 
sheep is a very costly method of producing meat in these days 
of high wages. If a light-land farm is well managed, it wilt 
require nearly as many men as a heavy farm. A great deal of 
work on the latter arises from the fact that every article grown 
upon it must be taken into yards to be eaten, and then, after 
a time, must be carted back to the land, in the shape of manure. 
All this creates much wear and tear." 
As to the comparative cost of labour on grass and arable land, 
a letter from another farmer in the Midland district is to this 
effect : — " On grass land the cost of labour is reduced to a mini- 
mum. A man and strong lad can attend to the flocks and herds 
on 500 acres of grass land during the summer months. Oh the' 
same quantity of arable land, at least eight men besides lads 
would be required, to say nothing of horses and implements. 
