Tlie Labour Bill in Farfiiintj. 
Ill 
•smldenlv left without hands at a week's notice. It would also 
give the labourer and his wife no temptation to squander what 
to them is a large sum of money now earned at harvest time. 
One incidental advantage of such a contract would also be that 
the labourer's position, in respect of wages, would then be much 
clearer than it is, both to himself and outsiders. 
The co-operative system of labour which I have described as 
prevailing at harvest-time on the Knettishall farm has great 
recommendations in theor}', as in practice. Under the usual 
system which prevails throughout the Eastern Counties in harvest- 
time — that of giving each man a lump sum for the harvest — it 
becomes the labourer's interest to get the work out of hand as 
quickly as possible. Still there is then not the same bond of 
interest between the workers ; they are dealt with separately by 
the farmer and are not brought into the same close relationship 
with each other as when they join in contracting for the job. 
The sense of a common interest in the work in hand not only 
supplies a wholesome stimulus to exertion, but is a good edu- 
cator. Whatever system of labour brings out of a man all his 
power, or, let us say, most of his power, must be the best system, 
Ijoth for master and man, in agriculture as in all other callings. 
Economy in farming is, I am convinced, not only compatible 
with higher wages, but will be promoted by higher wages,* 
the condition precedent being always understood that the wages 
paid are for work actually done, and not for work merely 
supposed to be done. In modern farming, I repeat, there can 
be no more important point for study to-day than the introduc- 
tion and perfection of a system which shall enable employers, 
according to the circumstances of each district — it may be of 
each farm — to apply this test in the payment of wages, and 
gradually educate both their labourers and themselves up to 
payment by results. 
4. Horse-labour is necessarily a large item in the farmer's 
( labour bill. The double-furrow plough has saved something 
I both in manual labour and in horse-labour. One farmer esti- 
mates the saving at \Qd. per acre in men, and at the same 
amount in horses. Where one man and two horses plough one 
, acre with the single-furrow plough, one man and three horses 
I * " I think we do not often consider how much low-priced labour (which is not 
necessarily cheap labour) Iws retarded agricultural improvements. Low-priced 
' labour has rendered the farmer indiftereut to the extended use of machinei-y, and 
careless of the minutia; of his business. Low-priced labour has in many cases 
contracted the hours of work, and made the work slovenly and unprofitable. 
Low-priced labour has rendered the labourer physically incapable of exertion, and 
! dei^raded him too frequently into habitual pauperism.' ' — Mr. Little on ' Tlie Future 
of Farming.' 
