Tlic Labour Bill in Farmivc/: 
into this controversy, nor is this extract reproduced here because 
of its mention of Mr. Arch, but only because it illustrates the 
result of jiiece-work, both in testing and rewarding exceptional 
capacity or diligence : — 
•' February 22ml, ISGO. £ d. 
Paid Joseph Arch and John Ivcns for laying 2G4 iierchcs 
fencing, Hill House land, Xewton, at Is. 3d 1 13 o 
Paid ditto, 741 perches, Hill House Farm and Newton Court, 
at Is. 1(/ 3 l-i 9 
By J. H. Arkwright, paid their expcn.ses from Hereford ,tu 
Dinmore 024 
Ditto, from Dinmore to Stratford-on-A von 1 10 0 
Note. — The ahove arc Warwickshire men, and have been 12 days each at 
I the ahove, 4s. 6(i. a da}"." 
Mr. Arkwright adds : — " The pay was fair, and the work well 
done. At that date, 14 years ago, our own hedgers could have 
made the same wages, viz., 27s. a week, if they could have done 
the same amount of work. This incident, more than anything 
else in my experience, has proved to me that wages must be 
gauged by individual capability, not by a fixed tariff. Otherwise, 
all being equal, Mr. Arch should have shared with the natives 
here what he earned over and above what they could make at 
the same work." ]\or did the 27s. a week paid to these two 
hedgers represent the whole cost of the work, for it will be seen 
that Mr. Arkwright paid travelling expenses equivalent to Is. 4d. 
a day each, in addition to the wages. We may presume, therefore, 
it must have been worth his while to pay at the rate not of 27s., 
but 35s. for the work done. 
3. It will be gathered from the foregoing remarks that task or 
piece-work is given by many employers in the Eastern Counties, 
as no doubt in most other parts of England, though seldom as 
part of a regular system. Of course, wages are increased by the 
extra earnings thus realised ; and high pay at harvest is another 
addition, and a material addition, to the year's income of the 
labourer. 
The system of payment at harvest time which prevails in the 
Eastern Counties seems open to some question. During the 
harvest month, sometimes a little more, occasionally a little less, 
the men earn nearly three times as much a week as they earn 
during the rest of the year, though they certainly do not work 
twice as hard. One farmer says that the increased work done bv 
his men during harvest would be fairly represented by a fourth 
of extra pay. The men like these " lump " payments, which^ 
however, are generally mortgaged for rent or boot and shoe bills, 
or to meet the claims of the small shopkeeper ; while, if thev are 
