96 
The Labour Bill in Farming. 
and better man than the Norfolk labourer, and that, after all, 
there is no such thing as cheap labour." * 
We have not the details which would enable us to generalise 
with entire safety from these figures. But the moral drawn by 
Mr. Read is, no doubt, in the main a just one ; and it points 
to the conclusions I have already suggested — that two elements 
contribute to the smaller labour bill in Scotch farming : a better 
quality of labour, ana keener supervision and regulation of it by 
the farmer. Between the 25s., of which Mr. Read speaks from 
hearsay, and the 19s. ^d. which my Forfarshire correspondent 
actually pays, there is a wide difference. I have no reason to 
doubt that 19s. 6(/. is the market rate paid in the latter county ; 
and as it agrees substantially, in respect of money wages, with 
the report I have received from Aberdeenshire, the most pro- 
bable cause of the discrepancy lies in the different appraisement 
of the bothy accommodation and the doles of food, the latter of 
which may easily vary in different districts. 
It may be that 19s. 6f?. in cash and kind is a lower average of 
wages than exists in other parts of Scotland. If we include the 
perquisites, harvest; money, extra earnings in piece-work, and 
under-rented cottage and garden of the Eastern Counties labourer, 
I doubt whether the latter is not often better off than the Scotch 
hind upon such wages. Comparing the bettet class of cottages 
here with the bothy accommodation provided for the Scotch 
peasant, the Eastern Counties labourer will certainly have a 
more comfortable home. If wages, therefore, are substantially 
equal, there ought, in theory, to be no great disparity in the 
amount of work done by the Forfarshire and the Suffolk peasant. 
Farmers, however, seem to be quite agreed that there is a great 
disparity, and one unfavourable to the Southern labourer; and 
complaints on this score are too general to allow of any doubt 
that they are well founded. But, if this be so, one must surely 
look for the same marked superiority in Scotch operatives and 
industrial workers of all classes. No such evidence, however, 
is forthcoming. I have said that a distinguishing feature of 
agriculture is a happy absence of competition, so that there is 
no reason why " two of a trade " — or why any number of the 
farming trade — should not agree. If the same keen competition 
existed in agriculture as in manufactures, we should long ago 
have heard English farmers complain how heavily they were 
weighted in this respect, compared with their Northern rivals. 
There is a keen rivalry in many kinds of manufacture between 
North and South Britain, yet we do not find that Scotch manu- 
» • The Times,' October 171L, 1874. 
