The Labour Bill in Farming. 
95 
tation but for the fact proclaimed bj farmers in every part of 
Ithe Eastern Counties during the strikes and lock-out of 1874, 
that they were able to dispense with much labour which they 
had hitherto been accustomed to regard as indispensable. It 
seemed to be regarded as a new revelation ; but 1 suspect that 
circumstances forced upon the Eastern Counties farmers a dis- 
covery which Scotchmen made for themselves long ago. No 
doubt, the ease with which most employers in the Eastern 
Counties tided over their difficulty last year was due in a great 
measure to the singular dryness of the season. Making every 
allowance, however, for this cause, I think the lesson of 1874 
will have been learnt in vain if it does not teach English farmers 
everywhere to economise production by reducing establishment 
charges. Nor does an economy in this direction mean hard 
measure to the labourer, but the very reverse. It is not the 
interest of the tillers of the soil that superfluous labour should be 
employed. Wherever that state of things exists, wages must 
necessarily be low, and the labour given in return for wages will 
generally be dear labour. 
A recent speech, by Mr. C. S. Read, M.P., has directed the 
attention of farmers anew to the points last mentioned, which 
cannot be too often impressed upon all employers. In addressing 
an Agricultural Association in Norfolk, Mr. Read said he found 
that the average weekly pay of a common day labourer in Norfolk 
was about 17s. 6</., whereas in Northumberland and Scotland he 
was assured that it came to nearly 25s., and he added : — 
" Mr. Barclay, the Member for Forfarshire, is, like me, a 
tenant-farmer . . . He farms 380 acres of arable land, which is 
exactly the acreage of land I have at Honingham. He has 
75 acres of rough pasture, and I have 40 acres of good permanent 
grass. He grows 20 acres more corn than I do ; but he has less 
roots and more grass seeds than I have. Taking the cold, damp 
Northern climate into consideration, I should say he would 
require as much manual labour on his farm as I do on mine. 
But mark the difference. For the four years ending 1871 the 
average annual payment for labour (two-thirds in cash and one- 
third in milk, meal, and potatoes, &c.) was 400/. ; while mine 
was 750/. In 1872 and 1873, Mr. Barclay's had risen to 510/ ; 
but, as he puts 30/. of it down to extraordinary labour, he 
■ considers the real increase to be only 20 per cent. Now take 
my expenditure for those years, which, being about 850/. and 
'750/., would average 800/., and you must surely admit — that 
which I knew long ago — that the Scotchman is a sharper and 
keener man of business than I am ; and I also come reluctantly 
to the conclusion that the highly-paid Scotclji hind is a cheaper 
