1798. | 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
OBSERVATIONS: Firff, ON TAKEN- 
WORK IN PARTICULAR; AND Se- 
condly, ON LABOUR IN GENERAL, 
SIR, 
N looking over the feventh volume 
of “ Letters and Papers”’ publifhed 
by the Bath and Weft of England So- 
ciety for the Encouragement of Agri- 
culture, &c. I perceived the fignature of 
a baronet, whofe character.I truly refpect, 
attached to fome ** Remarks on Mr. 
Pew’s Obfervations on the Poor Laws.”’ 
Will you permit me to make the follow- 
ing extrat? <“* I believe it will be ge- 
nerally admitted,” fays Sir MoRDAUNT 
MarTIN, “ that thofe who earn moft, 
fquander moft. May not theevil be often 
traced to taken-worr which people agree 
to, to fave themfelves the trouble of 
watching their workmen? Theconfequence 
is, the work is ill done, the workmen 
boaft at the ale-houfe what they can 
fpend in ¢ a wafte againft the wall’, and 
make men at moderate wages difcontent- 
ed.’ Bath Papers, Vol. VI. page 108. 
I muft take the liberty of enteriag a 
proteft againft Sir Mordaunt’s opinion, 
that taken-work is prejudicial to the 
morals of the labourer, nor can I, by any 
means, affent to the general truth of the 
axiom, ‘* that thofe who earn: moft, 
{quander moft.”” It is obvious that, 
ceteris paribus, thole who earn moft are 
the moft induftrious; but induftry and 
extravagance, though fometimes, per- 
haps, they may join hand in hand, in 
common, furely, are not upon terms of 
amity. It Sir Mordaunt is prepared to 
fupport his opinion, he muft have been 
very unfortunate in his labourers: it gives 
me pleafure to have formed, from expe- 
rience, a different opinion. I have two 
Jabourers, each of whom earns by taken- 
work, on an average throughout the year, 
one-fourth more than others who labour 
by the day; that is, they earn about 
twelve fhillings a week inftead of nine. 
Thefe men are remarkably fober and 
frugal: the oné has enabled himfelf to 
purchafé and maintain a few fheep, and 
the other a few pigs: they are both mar- 
ried and have families: the wife of one 
keeps a little fhop in the village, where 
fhe fells flour, candles, bacon, cheefe, 
butter, &c. &c. they both live in com- 
fortable and commodious cottages. Were 
thefe men {tinted to day-labour, they 
would each lofe about feven guineas a 
year, and in all probability would be 
feen at the ale-houfe much more frequent- 
, MONTHLY Mas, NQ &Xx¥1, 
Obfervations on Taken-Work and Labour. 
169, 
ly than they are now; from their earlieft 
infancy unaccuftomed to leifure, and to 
the utter diferace of that proud character 
which we arrogate of a civilized nation, 
having within themfelves no fources of 
‘rational amufement, every idle hour hangs 
heavily upon them, and were the number 
of thofe idle hours increafed, they would 
probably foon fly from themi{clves, 
through mere reltleffnefs, and {eek tocie- 
ty inthe ale-houfe. . 
My obfervation has led to conclufions 
precifely oppofite to thofe of Sir Mor- 
daunt Martin: in addition to the two in- 
ftances already mentioned, the neighbour- 
hood in which I refide, affords many 
others in corroboration. We have four 
or five little farmers—I mean farmers of 
from fifteen to five and twenty pounds 2 
year—we have a bricklayer, a carpenters 
a blackfinith, and a miller, all of whom, 
to the diftrefs of their families, are in a 
very frequent habit of drinking the king’s 
health. Thefe men, like my labourers, 
are totally uneducated, and incompetent 
to find amufement in themfelves; their 
employment is unequal: fometimes they 
are full of bufinefs, and fometimes they 
have none; generally they have many 
leifure hours, becaufe, unlefs their work 
be urgent, the hardeft part of it devolves 
to fome” man whom they hire, and of 
courfe muft pay, whether he be employed 
or not. Was the thing practicable, 
would it be juft to withhold from thefe 
men, becaufe they have acquired a de- 
ftructive habit of drinking, the extraor- 
dinary wages of one week, which may, 
and occafionally, no doubt are, employed 
to fupply the deficient wages of another ? 
If this treatment be inequitable to a man 
even of acknowledged extravagance, where 
would be the juftice in faying to a la- 
bourer, on the ground of anticipated ex- 
travagance, “* Yes: I know that you 
are quite able to earn more than your 
common day-wages, and I know that 
you are quite willing to earn more, but 
it is neceffary to check your indultry left 
the fruits of it fhould lead you to extra- 
vagance.”” Where would be the juftice 
in depriving my two labourers, each ox 
feven guineas a year, by fuch an argue 
ment as this? by fuch a degrading, ig- 
nominious, and unwayrantable reflection _ 
on their character ? : 
Taken-work will, in moft cafes, be 
found to be no lefs advantageous to the 
farmey than it is to the labourer: in no 
cafe can it be injurious to him, for it is 
his own fault if the work is} as Sir Mor- 
daunt fays, * ill done;’ the farmer mut 
pa blame 

