.a. 
 
 :--:.^.--:v^
 
 / 
 
 / 
 
 y
 
 !
 
 THE 
 
 ^griailtunil yixbaurer. 
 
 BY 
 
 A FARMER'S SON. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 WILLIAM MACINTOSH, 
 24, Pateuxoster Row. 
 
 Price Sixpence.
 
 ^re 
 
 \
 
 PEEFACE. 
 
 The publication of an essay on tlie question of the agri- 
 cultural labourer has long been in contemplation by the 
 writer of the following pages, in order to meet — though 
 it may be only in a small degree — the unfair representations 
 to wliich agriculturists have so long been subjected. 
 
 The substance of what is contained in this Essay was, 
 
 in great part, written several years ago ; and it has been 
 
 carefully re-considered in connection with the events 
 
 which have recently taken place in the agricultural 
 
 world. 
 
 F. H. D. 
 
 June, 1873.
 
 THE AGEICULTUEAL LABOUEEE. 
 
 In the present day, much is said about advance, progress, 
 and civilization. And with these ideas constantly before 
 the mind, people are apt to indulge in a feeling of profound 
 self-satisfaction when they read of the fallacies and false 
 beliefs of earlier ages. And, doubtless, this is a feeling 
 very gratifying to human vanity. 
 
 Yet, at the present time, there are multitudes of people 
 in this country, who, with all simplicity and sincerity, 
 are cherishing beliefs almost as baseless and absurd as 
 some of those of earlier ages. The popular idea respecting 
 the agricultural labourer is little better than a myth. 
 
 Nor need we w^ondcr at the existence of false beliefs at 
 the present time. There is nothing new under the sun, 
 neither is there anything old. All ages have had their 
 false beliefs, and it is not surprising that this fact is true 
 of the nineteenth century. 
 
 But false beliefs cannot last for ever in England, any 
 more than they could in ancient Greece or ancient Home. 
 It requires a hard struggle to get people to accept the 
 truth, especially when the truth makes against their own 
 interest, or their own self-esteem. And, in this country, 
 such has been the feeling with regard to the land, that it
 
 seems almost as though people would for ever close their 
 ears against hearing the truth on agricultural questions. 
 Still, (but, oh! how late!), people are beginning to open 
 their eyes to the truth respecting the agricultural labourer. 
 There are signs of hope when an advanced liberal paper 
 says, " There are counties where the agricultural labourer 
 can live in decency and comfort ; " and when an organ 
 specially devoted to the interests of the working classes 
 says, ''It is the opinion of the Industrial Employment 
 Association that agricultural labourers, as a class, have 
 the surest prospect of ultimate competence and prosperity 
 at home and in the colonies." 
 
 The extension of education, cheap postage, the electric 
 telegraph, even the press, and especially increased facilities 
 for inter- communication, have done something to open 
 men's minds to the truth on this question, and towards 
 dispelling those grotesque ideas of rural life which have so 
 long held possession of the public mind. There has been 
 an interminghng of persons, and there has been an inter- 
 change of thought. Many of the agricultural population 
 have come from the country to town ; and many of the 
 town population — such as those who formerly were shut up 
 in towns, and often almost confined to their own streets — 
 have gone forth and seen for themselves something of real 
 rural Hfe, and are beginning to learn with their eyes that 
 which formerly their ears refused to hear, or which reached 
 them only in its misrepresented form. The meetings of 
 agricultural societies have greatly aided the process. And 
 the recent movement on the part of the labourers themselves, 
 has done more perhaps than anything else to show the 
 falseness and absurdity of the popular views respecting the 
 agricultural labourer.
 
 And so, by various means, and in various ways, rays of 
 light on this question are being diffused. Gradually the 
 the truth is forcing itself home. Still, the myth lingers, 
 and is likely to linger — as all fallacies do — long after the 
 general belief has passed away. But, though it lingers, it 
 is going, and must soon be practically gone. Many old 
 ideas have given way to new ; and this old belief is giving 
 way to a truer and a more accurate estimate of the 
 agricultural labourer, just as the belief in witchcraft and 
 in portents of nature, has given way to a truer and purer 
 belief, both rehgious and scientific. With the advance of 
 the knowledge of facts, the truth — the real truth — will 
 force itself to the front, in spite of all opposition. And, 
 if once the truth on this subject is known, the public mind 
 will be disabused of one long- cherished error, and an act 
 of justice will be done to the employers of agricultural 
 labour. 
 
 The subject of the agricultural labourer has long engaged 
 public attention ; and the events of the past year have 
 brought it forward with especial prominence. We have 
 been constantly hearing comparisons between his position 
 and that of other labourers, much to his disadvantage. 
 We have been constantly hearing of the prosperity and the 
 intelligence of the town labourer, and of the poverty and 
 the ignorance of the agricultural labourer. The former 
 has been held up as the embodiment of prosperity and 
 intelligence, the latter as the embodiment of misery and 
 stupidity. Comparisons have been drawn to show that the
 
 position of the agricultural labourer is wretched beyond 
 that of all others ; and he himself has been represented 
 as physically, mentally, and morally inferior to all other 
 classes of' the community ; while charges, j:he most grave, 
 have been brought against landlords and farmers in con- 
 nection with this subject. "Writers in public papers, 
 religious teachers, platform orators, and a host of lesser 
 magnates, have joined in the same outcry. No terms have 
 been too strong to represent the state of the agricultural 
 labourer as degraded and poverty-stricken; and no terms 
 too strong to denounce those who are charged with having 
 brought about, or at least perpetuated, this state. 
 
 But, unfortunately, only one side of this question has 
 hitherto been heard. The press, the pulpit, and the 
 platform, have been almost entirely in the hands of people 
 not engaged in agriculture ; and who, to say the least, 
 have spoken with insufficient information. Except that 
 occasionally some one has, in the face of public opinion, 
 dared to defend the position and character of the agricul- 
 tural labourer, the public discussion of this question has 
 been carried on mainly by people who neither know the 
 agricultural labourer nor have to pay him, and who, 
 unhappily, have too often made it their business to be 
 antagonistic to everything and everybody connected with 
 the land. Agriculturists have had no chance of defending 
 themselves, and that has been accepted as truth which has 
 been the most loudly proclaimed. 
 
 And it is a melancholy thought that the statements 
 made on this subject have gone forth to the whole country, 
 and not to this country only, but to the whole world, and 
 have been actually believed.
 
 Xow, we ask, is it right, is it just, nay, is it wise to speak 
 on questions before investigating the facts? Surely the 
 first thing to be done by a man who would discuss a 
 question is to make himself thoroughly acquainted with 
 the facts. And on agricultural questions, facts have been 
 systematically ignored. 
 
 Now this is a question which requires to be looked 
 at fully. 
 
 It is well known to those acquainted wdth the subject 
 that agricultural affairs, to be understood, must be taken 
 as a whole. They are unique. They stand on a basis 
 separate and distinct from that of all others : in fact, 
 persons not acquainted with them have not the slightest idea 
 of them. To form a correct judgment on the question of 
 the agricultural labourer, there are many points to be con- 
 sidered. To deal fairly with it, it must be looked at in 
 all its entirety. It is not enough to quote individual 
 cases, or the position of individual labourers ; all the 
 circumstances connected with the general subject must 
 be taken into consideration. And the proof must be 
 proof of its own kind. It will not do to apply commercial 
 principles to the question : and there is nothing strange or 
 unnatural in this. The fact is, in treating of any question, 
 the mode of treatment must be 'sui generis. You can 
 no more judge of agricultural questions by commercial 
 principles, than you can judge of chemical questions by 
 mathematical principles, or a question of religious experi- 
 ence by scientific principles. A mathematical question 
 must be treated on mathematical principles, and a chemical
 
 question on cliemical principles. A mathematical proofs 
 though, perfect in its own case, would be quite useless 
 to solve a chemical question, or a chemical proof to solve 
 a mathematical question. Just so with agriculture — 
 agricultural questions must be treated on agricultural 
 principles. 
 
 We cannot admit, however, that the burden of proof 
 on this question lies on the side of farmers ; for a man 
 is not bound to answer every charge that may be brought 
 against him, otherwise he might be constantly engaged in 
 rebutting charges. The oniiH 2)rohandi lies on the other 
 side. But since these charges have been so long followed 
 up, are still being made, and are of so serious a nature, 
 it may be for their own satisfaction to do so ; and, indeed, 
 farmers gladly accept any opportunity of defending them- 
 selves. 
 
 Nor can we admit that we are bound to meet the 
 demands of self-constituted judges and critics. "We cannot 
 admit that we are bound to accept their standard, any 
 more than they are bound to accept ours. Though we 
 assert that our standard of life for the labourer is quite 
 as high as theirs. 
 
 Farmers are often blamed for the state of the agricultural 
 labourer. But the fact is, it is a state which has gradually 
 grown up in the natural course of events. It is better 
 than preceding states ; and if it is unsatisfactory, all that 
 can be said about it is that the world has not improved so 
 fast as we could have wished. A change has been going 
 on in the agricultural world. This change is due to the 
 general circumstances of the times ; and the causes which 
 have led to it have been quietly working for some years. 
 It will go on in proportion to its own inherent life. It
 
 needs not the assistance of agitators, nor the help of 
 officious friends. And, on the other hand, if it has vitality, 
 resistance will be ineffectual to stop it. Further than 
 this, and a fact of more importance, it does not even con- 
 demn the past. Heart-burnings, recriminations, and hard 
 speeches, are unnecessary. It is the old giving place to 
 new — the new suited to the new circumstaoccs in perhaps 
 about the same degree as the old was suited to the old 
 circumstances ; but in its turn probably destined to become 
 the old, and then give place to a future new. 
 
 Undoubtedly there is much room for improvement in the 
 agricultural world, as in the other sections of the com- 
 munity. And farmers are prepared to meet the requirements 
 of the new condition of things. But when an indictment 
 is brought against the whole body of farmers on the ground 
 of unsatisfactoriness in the state of the agricultural labourer, 
 they repel the indictment. If the state has been, or is, 
 unsatisfactor}^, farmers never caused it ; they had not the 
 power to alter it ; they do not wish to perpetuate it ; and 
 if it is altered they will be gainers by the alteration. 
 
 The facts of the case are simply these : — In times past 
 there was a large surplus population in the agricultural 
 districts. These had to be provided for. Our manufacturing, 
 commercial, and mining transactions were very limited, 
 compared with what they now are. Emigration was 
 availed of to a much smaller extent than at present. Con- 
 sequently the surplus population was not withdrawn from 
 the agricultural districts. The natural result was that 
 wages were low. But on the other hand the number of 
 labourers employed was large in proportion to the work 
 done and to the value of the produce. In addition to this, 
 many who were not employed had to be maintained, to a
 
 8 
 
 great extent, at the expense of farmers. So tliat it was 
 not a cheap state of affairs for farmers. It was not a state 
 which they had any reason to wish to perpetuate on money 
 grounds. The state of the labourer was the natural out- 
 come of circumstances ; and these were circumstances which, 
 so far as regards the farmer, do not seem to be fully met 
 by the ordinary laws of supply and demand; inasmuch 
 as the people had to be maintained, chiefly by the land, 
 whether they were required for labour or not. The problem 
 which agriculturists had to solve was not a question as to 
 what rate of wages would pay best. It was not a question 
 which could be decided by abstract principles of pohtical 
 economy. The state of affairs was an absolute necessity. 
 It may be better to pay six men twenty shillings a week 
 each than to pay ten men twelve shillings each, but then it 
 must be only on condition that the other four are not left 
 to starve, but have been previously provided for. 
 
 At the present time there is great commercial prosperity. 
 Moreover, the facilities for emigration are numerous, and 
 are largely availed of ; consequently the surplus population 
 is drained off from the rural districts. Besides which there 
 have been great improvements in agriculture. The natural 
 effect of these changes is now, and may be still further 
 in the future, an increase in the wages of agricultural 
 labourers. But there is no reason to think that hereafter 
 labour will be relatively more costly to farmers than it has 
 been in the past ; rather the reverse. 
 
 And this new condition of things will be decidedly better 
 both for farmer and labourer ; and the tendency of things 
 should always be towards perfection. And the only point 
 we urge is this, that, though this state may be better than 
 the past, farmers could not have brought it about them-
 
 9 
 
 selves. It is absolutely necessary for people to adapt 
 themselves, to some extent, to the circumstances in which 
 they are placed. It would be unwise to endeavour forcibly 
 and prematurely to break through a system to which 
 labourers have been long accustomed. It would be unwise 
 to suddenly introduce a plan for which people are not pre- 
 pared. It is better that events should be left to unfold 
 themselves in their natural order. Indeed, a radical change 
 in the social condition of a large body of the people, or a 
 radical change in a long- established system, can only take 
 place by a gradual process, and it must be the natural 
 outcome of circumstances. When a movement for such a 
 change does come, it is irresistible ; and if allowed to work 
 in its natural course, both employer and employed fall in 
 with it naturally, or at least they quickly learn to adapt 
 themselves to it. 
 
 But though the surplus population is being drawn off 
 from the agricultural districts, and though the change 
 which is taking place promises to produce a state better 
 than the past, no one knows when wc may have a return 
 of the old state. And it is quite conceivable that in the 
 future a condition of things may arise in which we may 
 be glad to return even to the feudal or co-operative system ; 
 just as in some international disputes we have returned to 
 the system of arbitration. We have no reason to feel sure 
 that our national prosperity will continue for ever. We 
 have no reason to feel sure that trade and commerce will 
 always flourish with us. Our stores of mineral wealth may 
 fail ; and trade and commerce may desert our shores as 
 they have deserted other countries. Should this occur, 
 with a large population in a small country, what would 
 become of the people ? A vast body would be thrown out
 
 10 
 
 of employ. Now, it is not a man's business Lere to amass 
 wealth ; but, at least to some extent, man is his brother's 
 keeper, and is bound to preserve his fellow-creature from 
 starving, if in his power to do so. But the closed factories 
 and the deserted mines could not contribute to the support 
 of the needy, and hence the burden would fall on the land. 
 The people would have to be supported, chiefly by the land, 
 either vdth. work or else without work. The money available 
 for their support would be limited, even though pushed to 
 the extreme point, as it has been in the past in the case of 
 farmers. And if a larger number have to be maintained 
 out of the same amount of money as had formerly been 
 divided among a smaller number, the amount for each must 
 be less. The natural consequence would be a return of 
 that state which has already existed, and which has been so 
 much decried ; not that the farmer wished it ; not that he 
 would be a gainer by it ; not that he had wrong ideas on 
 the subject of political economy ; but because circumstances 
 made it inevitable. If this is not likely to be the case in 
 the future, it is possible ; and at least it helps to explain 
 the past. 
 
 After all that has been written and said on this subject ; 
 after the many and serious charges that have been made ; 
 how is it that farmers still persevere in the same course ? 
 Surely it would have been impossible for them thus to 
 persevere year after year if the case had been as it has been 
 represented. The answer is simple : The spirit of a man 
 will sustain him. There is a faith which will enable a 
 man to face the whole world ; and when a man knows he's
 
 11 
 
 right, you may bring a thousand charges against him, and 
 they will not move him ; if he knows that they are not 
 founded on truth, he will ho able to bear them all. Farmers 
 have this faith. And in all life's problems the men of 
 faith will win. 
 
 Again, if it be true that town labourers are so much 
 better off than agricultural labourers, if it be true that 
 they are in such a thriving condition, how is it that wo 
 hear such a continual complaint ^ Surely it is strange 
 that with all their money, and all their intelligence, there 
 is such a constant outcry, and that often for the very 
 means of subsistence. Whence come all these murmurs 
 which for ever fill our ears ? We hear of distress, discontent, 
 grumbling, strikes with all their attendant evils, trade 
 disputes, ill-feeling between class and class, want of employ- 
 ment or emplo}Tiient which hardly yields the means of 
 subsistence, and other evils. In spite of all that is said 
 about high wages, there cannot be a doubt of the existence 
 in our large towns of a lamentable state of destitution and 
 poverty. 
 
 And if these people are so intelligent, how is it they have 
 not done something better for themselves ? Surely there is 
 something wrong in the system, and agriculturists may 
 well be on their guard against those who wish to introduce 
 the commercial system into the agricultural districts. 
 
 In considering this question, the following points deserve 
 notice ; and they seem almost as though they must in 
 themselves be sufficient to convince any impartial mind : 
 
 The public statements made on this subject come almost
 
 12 
 
 exclusively from people unconnected with agriculture, who 
 neither know the agricultural labourer nor have to pay 
 him. 
 
 As these statements come chiefly from one side, the best 
 cases of town labourers have been given, and the worst 
 cases of agricultural labourers — the highest paid in the 
 former case, and the lowest paid in the latter. 
 
 "When people unconnected with agriculture become 
 connected with it, and thus have a chance of seeing for 
 themselves and of knowing the truth, they generally confess 
 that they have been mistaken on this subject. 
 
 But there are three main points to be considered : 
 
 (1) Money is not a perfect standard by which to esti- 
 
 mate the position of the agricultural labourer. 
 
 (2) The pay and position of the agricultural labourer. 
 
 (3) The ratio of wages to profits. 
 
 Money is not a perfect standard by which to estimate 
 the position of the agricultural labourer. And it is very 
 necessary to insist on this point, for we are continually 
 hearing the money wages (or the supposed money wages) 
 of agricultural labourers compared with the money wages 
 of other labourers, as if it were merely a question of money, 
 and as if money had the same value everywhere. 
 
 It may be very well to refer to the money wages of the 
 agricultural labourer, if the whole subject is understood ; 
 but to quote those wages as a perfect index of his position 
 can only lead to false conclusions. 
 
 Money is not, nor can it be, a perfect standard of com- 
 parison by which to judge of the relative positions of two 
 men, except those two men live under exactly similar 
 circumstances, and the prices of all articles for which they 
 have to pay are the same to each. If money alone is to
 
 13 
 
 be the standard of comparison, then both circumstances 
 and prices must be the same to place two people with the 
 same amount of money in the same position. Thus, if two 
 men are engaged in a profession, under the same circum- 
 stances, and one makes £2,000 a year and the other 
 £4,000, it may fairly be said that the position of the 
 latter is twice as good as that of the former. Or, if there 
 are two tradesmen in the same street, and in the same 
 class of trade, and one makes £300 a year and the other 
 £600, it may fairly be said that the position of the latter 
 is twice as good as that of the former. Similarly, if there 
 are two workmen living and working under similar cir- 
 cumstances, one earning £1 and the other £2 a week, in 
 this case also, as in the preceding two, the relative positions 
 may be judged of by a purely money standard, and the 
 position of the latter may fairly be said to be twice as good 
 as that of the former. In each of these three cases the 
 conditions given are similar : hence the justice of the 
 comparison on a money basis. In all three cases money is 
 a fair standard, because the people compared live under 
 the same circumstances. But, in cases in which the con- 
 ditions are not similar, a just comparison can only be 
 established by taking into consideration all the circum- 
 stances connected with each side, and giving a just weight 
 to each and to all. Certainly, money is not a just and 
 perfect standard of comparison between two classes so 
 differently situated as town labourers and agricultural 
 labourers. It is quite a fallacy to compare these two 
 merely by their money wages, the whole of the circum- 
 stances under which they live arc dissimilar; the whole 
 system of town life is totally difierent from that of agricul- 
 tural life. It is a comparison resting on a false basis.
 
 14 
 
 Nor is this a principle whicli touches the labourer alone. 
 It is a principle running through the whole agricultural 
 world. Take the three classes into which the agricultural 
 ^orld is divided ; money alone is not a just standard of 
 their position. It is not so in the case of the landowner. 
 The owner of land gets only a small money return for the 
 ■capital invested in his land — two or three per cent., seldom 
 so much as three and a-half per cent. The merchant and 
 manufacturer, with their money invested in mercantile and 
 manufacturing undertakings, reap a much high percentage, 
 often a very much higher. Yet, taking the men of com- 
 mercial interests on the one side, and landowners on the other, 
 would anyone venture to say that the former are in any 
 true sense better off than the latter ? It is true they get 
 more money, and for the accumulation of capital they have 
 the advantage. And it is a fact that in the commercial 
 "world large money fortunes are made. But if money is only 
 a means to an end, then it is doubtful whether, with all 
 their money, they are really better off. Suppose a landed 
 proprietor with land which produces a clear money income 
 of £10,000 a year. Suppose also a merchant, whose 
 business produces an income of £10,000 a year. AYould 
 anyone say that the positions of these two, even in a 
 material point of view, are at all equal because their money 
 incomes are the same ? Look at the case. Not to speak 
 of leisure, wide-spread influence, and numerous social 
 advantages, the landowner has a mansion, park, and 
 gardens at his command; he has at hand rural sports, 
 such as riding and shooting, and many other enjoyments 
 and pleasures. These he accepts in lieu of a larger amount 
 of money, papng for them by the large amount of capital 
 invested. But on the other side, if the merchant wishes to
 
 15 
 
 have a country mansion and park, and to have all the 
 pleasures of rural life for himself and family, these things 
 will cost him a large sum of money ; and, by the time he 
 has paid for them, he will find his £10,000 very much 
 reduced. The landowner gets a small money return, but 
 he gets many of those things, which, when they have to bo 
 bought directly with money, cost much ; and often, then, 
 can be had only in a limited degree. So that, even in a 
 money point of view, to put the merchant in a position 
 equal to that of the landowner, he must have a much larger 
 money income. 
 
 Thus, it is evident, that money income is not a perfect 
 standard by which to estimate the position of the land- 
 owner. 
 
 It is not so in the case of the farmer. Farmers get very 
 little money comparatively; but they have many things 
 which help to compensate them for the smallness of their 
 money incomes. A farmer realizes only a small percentage 
 for the money he has invested; a good return would be 
 ten per cent, per annum. This would be successful farming, 
 very successful. There is such a thing as unsuccessful 
 farming ; and, perhaps, the history of the last forty years 
 would show that those who have lost money by farming 
 are more numerous than those who have gained money. 
 Tradesmen get a much larger percentage per annum, 
 perhaps twenty or thirty per cent., or even more. But 
 we are not to suppose that they are necessarily to that 
 extent better off than farmers. A tradesman whose business 
 produces an income of £G00 a year is not twice as well off 
 as a farmer with £300 a year. If both wish to live equally 
 well, and to provide for themselves and for families equally 
 numerous, as large a share of the necessaries, comforts,
 
 16 
 
 and enjoyments of life as each other, then the diflPerence 
 in the end will not be so great as at first sight might 
 appear. £600 a year is, in this case, the tradesman's 
 income, and all of it, out of which he has to meet every 
 expense. He gets money, and nothing but money. But 
 the case is different with the farmer, for, irrespective of his 
 money income, he has many things which are generally 
 desired ; which, if the tradesman has, he must pay for 
 them in hard cash and at a high rate : and by the time h.& 
 has paid for them, he will find his money income greatly 
 reduced. 
 
 To put the case in another form : — Suppose two men, one 
 engaged in town, the other a farmer, each with a money 
 income of £300 a year ; and that in other respects both 
 positions were equally agreeable to each. Suppose a 
 proposition is made by the town gentleman to the farmer 
 to exchange positions ; would any farmer accept such an 
 offer, unless however he happened to have some special 
 reason for doing so ? The farmer might reasonably argue : — 
 It is true that we have an income of £300 a year each. 
 But then I have some advantages in addition to my money. 
 I have a good house to live in ; of course you would pro^dde 
 me with a house as good as the one I now have. I have 
 a garden and an orchard, with abundance of fruit and 
 vegetables ; I have a supply of new-laid eggs, and some 
 poultry ; I have a cellar full of beer, and a dairy full of 
 fresh butter, cream, and milk; I have bacon and hams, 
 and what flour I require for my household ; of course you 
 would give me an unlimited supply of these things. Then 
 I have a horse to ride and drive ; of course you would 
 allow me the cost of keeping a horse. And, further, I 
 strongly object to be overlooked by other people ; I have
 
 17 
 
 been used to privacy ; I have fields where I can ride and 
 walk, where my children can sport in the fresh air, among 
 the trees and the woods, can pluck flowers, listen to the 
 singing of birds, play at cricket and other games ; of course 
 you would provide me with some ground, I do not ask for 
 much, say enough for a private cricket- field ; I have all 
 these advantages, and perhaps some other little ones 
 besides; give me these, then give me the £300 a year, 
 and I will exchange with you. And the demand would be 
 reasonable. The farmer might reasonably ask for these 
 things, or else the money they would cost, or at least 
 sufficient money to procure what might reasonably be 
 accepted as an equivalent. 
 
 The case we have chosen is a favourable one on the 
 side of the farmer. And there are doubtless some advantages 
 on the other side. To prevent misunderstanding also, it is 
 only right to observe, as we did in the case of the landlord, 
 that the farmer pays for his advantages and perquisites by 
 the large amount of capital he has invested, in comparison 
 with the small money return he receives. And some 
 farmers set these things at a money value, seeing that they 
 do actually pay for them, by rent, cost of labour, and 
 diminished income ; in which case, the advantage the 
 farmer has, is the difi'crence between the cost in town and 
 the cost to him. But we are now considering only the 
 question of money income. 
 
 People who live in towns know the cost of living. 
 House-rent is raised to the highest point possible; water 
 cannot be had without paying a water-rate, and even a 
 bunch of water-cress or a cup of milk must be paid for by 
 a direct payment in hard cash. If people in towns got 
 only the same amount of money as farmers do, so far from 
 
 c
 
 18 
 
 amassing large fortunes, they would be at their wits' ends 
 to know how to make both ends meet. Tradesmen make 
 larger money profits than farmers do ; and it is reasonable 
 that they should, because they get nothing but money, and 
 the relations of town life are entirely monetary. A farmer 
 gets less money, but then he gets many things which, when 
 they have to be bought with money, cost much. There 
 seems to be a kind of law of compensation, so that one side 
 have those things which they have not the money to 
 purchase, and the other side have the money to purchase 
 those things which they would not otherwise have. 
 
 Doubtless town life has its advantages ; but in many 
 
 cases their exclusiveness is passing away, and they are 
 
 becoming more and more extended to the agricultural 
 
 world. In particular, as in the former case, the one great 
 
 advantage which the man in trade has over the farmer, is 
 
 the opportunity of accumulating capital. He has the 
 
 money ; he may accumulate it ; for the accumulation of 
 
 capital he has a chance which the farmer has not. And 
 
 as a fact, it is well known that tradesmen do amass much 
 
 larger fortunes than farmers, and that often when starting 
 
 with a much smaller capital. This may seem a little 
 
 unequal. But it is to be hoped that the time will never 
 
 come, when it will be the practice to amass large money 
 
 fortunes out of the production of the bread and meat which 
 
 are to feed the people. Though, unhappily, the course of 
 
 events, and particularly the action of " the working men " 
 
 and their "friends," is tending to produce this, by throwing 
 
 everything into the hands of the rich, and by causing 
 
 everything to be estimated by money ; and thus rendering 
 
 it incumbent on people who wish to hold their own and 
 
 who desire to be treated with respect, to amass wealth.
 
 19 
 
 In talking these questions over with a farmer, after 
 having spoken on various points, and particularly of the 
 fact that many people get so much more money than 
 farmers, he concluded with these words, which appeared 
 to the writer of this essay to be a very fair summing up of 
 the case, " 'Tisn't the money you get, 'tis how you can 
 Hve." 
 
 To maintain people in towns in a position as good as that 
 of farmers, they must have larger money incomes. 
 
 Thus it is evident that money income is not a perfect 
 standard by which to estimate the position of the farmer. 
 
 Lastly, it is not so in the case of the labourer. Just as 
 it has been shown that money income does not fairly 
 represent the position of the owner and occupier of land, 
 so also it can be shown that it does not fairly represent 
 the position of the labourer. The principle is a general 
 one, running through the whole agricultural world. It is 
 not doubtful, it is as applicable to the labourer as to the 
 two other cases. 'Tis true, the labourer gets but little 
 money ; but then the farmer gets but little ; and the land- 
 lord gets but little ; in fact, in the agricultural world, no 
 one gets much money ; but all have their perquisites in 
 kind, which are some compensation. And the same in- 
 fluences as those which increased the relative cost of town 
 living in the preceding cases, affect also the labourer. 
 Therefore to place the town labourer in as good a position 
 as the agricultural labourer, he must have as much money 
 as the agricultural labourer, j^lna sufficient to meet this 
 increased cost. If an agricultural labourer were about to 
 exchange his situation for one in town, he might reasonably 
 ask, not simply how much greater the amount of money 
 would be ; but, whether under the circumstances, it would
 
 20 
 
 provide for him as large a supply of the necessaries^ 
 comforts, and enjoyments of life as he gets in his present 
 position. For in this, as in the preceding case, "'Tisn't 
 the money you get, 'tis how you can live." Whether a 
 a man gets ten shillings a week, or ten pounds, or only ten 
 pence, the real question is, — In what position will that 
 money maintain hun ? Whatever money he may have, if 
 the sum will not procure for him as much good food, pure 
 air, healthy recreation, social intercourse, leisure and 
 opportunity for physical, mental, and moral improvement, 
 as another labourer enjoys, then undoubtedly he is in a 
 worse position, even though he may have more money. 
 In such a case, the nominal amount of the money received 
 is comparatively nothing, the actual condition in which the 
 man is maintained is everything. If two people have an 
 article equally good, then in that particular they are equally 
 well off, though, owing to local differences, the nominal 
 value in one case may be considerably higher than in the 
 other. If they have as good a house, as good a living, and 
 all things equally good and equally abundant, then they 
 are in all respects equally well off. 
 
 The fact is, money is not really wealth, it is only a 
 representative of wealth, used for convenience, — to facilitate 
 the interchange of commodities, and to enable different 
 people to devote themselves to different pursuits — speciali- 
 ties, rather than that each should have to produce for 
 himself everything he requires. This process is according 
 to a natural tendency, and is found to be advantageous 
 both to individuals and to the general community. But 
 it would be a great mistake to look upon money as itself 
 wealth. It is only a representative of wealth, and even in 
 that capacity is far from a perfect or complete standards
 
 21 
 
 And if you attribute to money a value which does not 
 belong to it, any argument based on this assumption is 
 necessarily worthless. 
 
 Who knows the value of money ? It is not of the same 
 value at all times. Its value or purchasing power is 
 constantly changing, generally decreasing. Blackstone, 
 writing more than a hundred years ago, when speaking 
 of the statute 8 Hen. VI. c. 7 (1430), by which it was 
 enacted that knights of the shire shall be elected by men 
 of the county having freehold property of the value of 
 forty shillincfs a year, says, " This freehold must be of 
 forty shillings annual value ; because that sum would then, 
 with proper industry, furnish aU the necessaries of life, and 
 render the freeholder, if he pleased, an independent man. 
 For Bishop Fleetwood in his Chronicon Frccmumj written 
 at the beginning of the present century, has fuUy proved 
 forty shillings in the reign of Hen. YI. to have been equal 
 to twelve pounds per annum in the reign of Queen Anne ; 
 and, as the value of money is very considerably lowered 
 since the Bishop wrote, I think we may fairly conclude, 
 from this and other circumstances, that what was equiva- 
 lent to twelve pounds in his days is equivalent to twenty 
 at present." It is universally admitted that difference 
 of time makes a difference in the value ofmoney. But 
 if difference of time makes a difference in the value of 
 money, we ask (and surely it is a reasonable question) — 
 May not difference of circumstances at the same time also 
 make a difference in the value of money ? 
 
 Again, it has never yet been conceded that money is 
 the only indication of wealth, or tbat everything ought 
 to be judged of by a money standard. There was a time 
 when a man's wealth was estimated by his flocks and his
 
 22 
 
 herds more than by his money. There was even a time 
 when there was no money at all. And at the present day 
 the money of some nations would be worthless in England. 
 How fallacious then to make money the only standard of 
 wealth. Surely the most ardent advocate of the money 
 principle must admit that at least money is not the only 
 wealth, that there is other wealth besides money. Why 
 should money be reckoned as the only wealth ? It is only 
 useful as it circulates. If the circulation should stop, what 
 would those do who depend for their subsistence on the 
 regular receipt of money ? 
 
 Money is a good slave, but a bad master. It is of im- 
 mense use. And though things usually find some kind of 
 money level, let those who seem incapable of appreciating 
 anything but money remember that after all there is some- 
 thing more valuable than money — life, health, abundance 
 of good food, pure air, mutual intercourse with fellow- 
 creatures, a cheerful heart, and a joyous spirit, are not 
 things to be despised. And to a labourer a lack of these 
 things is not compensated for by a few extra shillings 
 weekly. And possibly the truest view of life, so far as 
 relates to the question under consideration, is — To provide 
 for all as much as possible of those things which are really 
 for man's advantage, to aid in his development physically, 
 mentally, morally, and spiritually. 
 
 "We will now look more particularly into the question of 
 the pay and position of the agricultural labourer. 
 
 As before stated the actual condition is the only true 
 test — the only true standard of the position of the agri-
 
 23 
 
 cultural labourer. And this is a question of fact, not of senti- 
 ment. On this point farmers fear no investigation. They 
 invite investigation. They wish the truth to be known, and 
 hitherto it has been hidden or stifled. If those who talk 
 so much and so strongly about what they term the wretched 
 condition of the agricultural labourer, would come and see 
 for themselves, they would find that facts do not agree with 
 their theories. Indeed, on agricultural questions the party 
 of advance are an age behind the times, and their much 
 boasted intelligence would appear to consist of a non- 
 acquaintance with facts. Perhaps after all it may be found 
 that a clear understanding and a thorough acquaintance with 
 facts constitute the truest intelligence. 
 
 The question of the pay and position of the agricultural 
 labourer embraces many points. Hitherto in dealing with 
 this question people have been content to look merely at 
 the amount of money paid, (which, however, was often only 
 the amount thought to be paid,) without regarding circum- 
 stances. Further, these statements having come almost 
 entirely from one side, the best cases of the town labourer 
 have been contrasted with the worst cases of the agricultural 
 labourer ; which is manifestly unjust. Such a course would 
 be unjust in any case ; but it is especially so in the case of 
 the agricultural labourer, for money income alone, even 
 when correctly stated, is not a just standard by which to 
 estimate his position. 
 
 It would not be easy to make any exact statement 
 suitable to all cases. The wages and earnings of agri- 
 cultural labourers differ considerably in different parts of 
 the country, and to different men in the same parts ; more- 
 over, local customs vary much, and in some districts the 
 plan of payment in kind is kept up to a much greater
 
 24 
 
 extent than in others. Then there are two distinct classes 
 of labourers — hired labourers and labourers who are not 
 hired. Some men, as for example carters, cowmen, and 
 shepherds, are hired by the year. The work of these 
 is of a definite character, and their weekly pay is fixed and 
 certain. But even these usually get something in addition 
 to their weekly wages, as at Michaelmas two or three 
 pounds — sometimes more. On various occasions they get 
 extra money ; and it is they who chiefly benefit by per- 
 quisites. Other labours are not hired. These come in for 
 more piece work. And a good workman may often get 
 more money by this plan than by becoming a hired servant. 
 As far as practicable, it is a plan satisfactory both to 
 farmer and labourer. But obviously it has its disad- 
 vantages for the labourer ; and it is not universally 
 appKcable. 
 
 If we look only at the actual money payments, even in 
 this particular the case has been unfairly stated. The 9s. 
 or 10s. a week so much spoken of is not a fair statement 
 of the case. And 12s. or 13s., or even 14s. or 15s., often 
 falls short of the mark. It is not easy to get exact statistics 
 respecting the pay of agricultural labourers. There is no 
 knowing what they do get. Farmers themselves would 
 often be surprised to see the total amount ; for there 
 are few, if any, farmers who have been in the habit 
 of keeping a strict account of the actual amount of 
 money paid to each labourer. The amount is much 
 larger than it is usually thought. And certainly 
 the public have been hearing only the very minimum. 
 We cannot refrain from noticing such instances as the 
 following : —
 
 25 
 
 A man reaping corn can earn .... Gs. or 8s. a day. 
 „ mowing grass „ . . . . os. or 6s. „ 
 „ hoeing beans, turnips, etc. 
 
 can earn 2s. 6d. or 3s. ,, 
 
 Then there are thatchers, and hay-tiers, and sheep- 
 shearers, all of whom can cam 4s. or 5s., a day. There 
 are hedge- cutters, and men engaged in under- draining, 
 and men who thrash in the barn, who can earn at least 
 2s. 6d. a day. 
 
 And the operations done by piece-work take up nearly 
 six months of the year. 
 
 Besides these there are men who go with machines, 
 for which they get 2s. 6d. a day, and food and beer. And 
 there are various other special operations and special pay- 
 ments. 
 
 And we cannot refrain from drawing a contrast between 
 the position of these men, and that of many labourers in 
 large towns who get only 15s. or 16s. a week. On the 
 subject of clerks yvith. fifty pounds a year we will not 
 dwell. 
 
 But money is not the only point to be looked at. Like 
 other classes connected with the land, agricultural labourers 
 get what are termed " perquisites ; " and they get many 
 things at a cost which is very small when compared with 
 what people in the large towns have to pay for them ; 
 besides which they have some natural advantages which 
 cannot be had in to^vns. And to meet the case of other 
 labourers, or to form a just comparison, these perquisites 
 and advantages must not be estimated at the trifling sum of 
 money they are said to be worth in the rural districts, as 
 is usually done. To place a town labourer in as good
 
 26 
 
 a position as an agricultural labourer in these respects, he 
 must have sufficient money to buy them, irrespective of 
 what they may cost. The only equivalent for them to 
 the town labourer is, not the amount of money they cost 
 the agricultural labourer, but either the things themselves, 
 or else sufficient money to procure them ; or at least some- 
 thing which might reasonably be accepted in lieu thereof 
 
 The perquisites are sometimes of considerable value, 
 though perhaps not usually so. Like wages, they vary in 
 different parts of the country : and they continue by the 
 perpetuation of customs which have come down from time 
 immemorial. The labourers have been accustomed to them, 
 and are often very much averse to any change of system. 
 Though it would certainly make farmers appear in a more 
 favourable light if perquisites were commuted for money 
 payments. Such a process is going on ; many are desirous 
 to extend it ; but it is one which ought not to be ruthlessly 
 thrust upon people before they are prepared for it. 
 
 But even if there were no perquisites, there would still 
 remain the fact, a fact which is of far greater importance, 
 that the general circumstances and the general condition of 
 things, under which the agricultural labourer lives, are very 
 different from the circumstances and the condition of things 
 under which the labourer in a large town lives ; so that 
 15s. a week to an agricultural labourer is quite a different 
 thing to 15s. a week to a labourer living in a large town. 
 The two sums represent quite different values in the two 
 cases, although nominally the same. Look at a few of the 
 facts of the case : — 
 
 House rent is much higher in large towns than in rural 
 parts. "We will for the moment take it for granted that 
 the pay of the town labourer is higher than that of the
 
 27 
 
 agricultural labourer. And wo will take as an example of 
 each an agricultural labourer with 16s. a week and a town 
 labourer with 20s. a week. Now the agricultural labourer 
 gets a house and garden to himself ; and for this he pays a 
 weekly rent of about Is. 6d. or at most 2s. The town 
 labourer could not, as a rule, get such a house and garden at 
 all. He might, however, obtain a house which, under the 
 circumstances, might fairly be accepted as an equivalent. 
 But this would cost 8s. or 10s. a week. Not to put it too 
 high, say only 6s. His income would thus be reduced to 
 14s. a week, i.e., he would have a house and 14s. a week ; 
 while the agricultural labourer would have a house at least 
 as good, and 14s. a week also. Thus by this one item the 
 money wages would be reduced to an equality. And there 
 are other items to be considered. And the case is still worse 
 when we remember that there are many, very many, 
 labourers in towns who do not get 20s. a week. Nor will it 
 do to say he need not have so expensive a house, unless 
 however it can be shown that a house as good as the one 
 we have supposed can be had for less money ; otherwise you 
 might as well say that he need not have as good food or as 
 good clothing as the agricultural labourer. But, if he has 
 a right to expect as good, then to put him in as good a 
 position he must have things as good, irrespective of the 
 money they may cost. And if he cannot get as good, then 
 that very fact shows that he is worse oflf, however much 
 more money he may get. 
 
 Wc are however far from saying that there is no room 
 for improvement in the houses of agricultural labourers. 
 
 Again, most provisions, notably the first necessaries of 
 life, reach the town labourer after passing through the 
 hands of several people, all of whom have to make some
 
 28 
 
 profit. Many things which the agricultural labourer has 
 first hand, and therefore fresher and purer and less costly, 
 come to him at an enhanced price, less fresh, and sometimes 
 adulterated. 
 
 Then, in large towns a vitiated atmosphere produces 
 exhaustion, both physical and mental; and this renders 
 necessary a larger amount of nourishment, or else stimu- 
 lants, to support the system. And medicine is constantly 
 required to counteract the evils induced by this state. 
 
 In fact the high wages so much boasted of are in very 
 many cases a farce ; for if a shilling is put into one pocket, 
 fifteen pence is taken out of the other. 
 
 Further, if other labourers get more money, they do more 
 work for it, and their work is often of a less agreeable 
 character. Not to speak of the many people who in shops 
 work on regularly to eight or nine o'clock at night, some- 
 times till twelve o'clock, and occasionally even later ; there 
 are vast numbers of labourers whose regular hours are from 
 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., whereas, except in special cases and at 
 special seasons of the year, the usual hours of attendance of 
 agricultural labourers, at least in some parts of the country, 
 are from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. 
 
 Besides this, the work in a factory and in many other 
 departments, is as regular as machine work. And the 
 amount that is accompUshed by a labourer is enormous. 
 If it were possible for agricultural labourers to accomplish 
 as much work as this, farmers would even now be able to 
 pay them higher wages ; and increased profits would probably 
 soon enable them to make a still further increase of pay. 
 
 But the question is one of wider range than we have yet 
 taken. Life to be truly blessed must be something more 
 than a mere vegetable existence. In estimating a man's
 
 29 
 
 position, we ought to regard not only his material circum- 
 stances, but also everything which, tends to make life happy. 
 A man ought to have some enjoyments, and some recreations, 
 to prevent his falling into a state of despair ; and since the 
 natural enjoyments which are had in the country are not na- 
 tural in towns, to place town labourers in a position equal to 
 that of agricultural labourers, such ought to be provided for 
 them, or else they ought to have money over and above 
 what agricultural labourers have, sufficient to procure such 
 enjoyments for themselves, or at least something which 
 might reasonably be accepted as an equivalent. 
 
 And the worst feature of all in the case of the lower 
 classes of the town population is the utter absence of all joy. 
 A man is employed for long hours, in dingy places, in a 
 poisonous atmosphere, at dull, monotonous work, often calling 
 forth hardly a spark of intelligence after the first effort. 
 When his work is over and he returns home, it is to some 
 back street, to a dismal house which, may be the abode of 
 several families. He has not a garden to himself. He has 
 no healthy amusements or pleasant recreations. He has 
 not the chance to stroll in the green fields ; to listen to the 
 singing of birds ; to see nature in all its freshness and glory ; 
 and to draw in the pure air of heaven, and with it health 
 and contentment. No wonder that his leisure time is often 
 spent in grumbling over real or fancied social and political 
 grievances. A strange contrast this to the agricultural 
 labourer as he shouts the harvest home. 
 
 Then there is a total separation between employer and 
 employed, between rich and poor. An employer takes on 
 so many hands, at market price ; they work, he pays them. 
 The transaction is purely commercial. Employer and 
 employed live in separate districts. There is Uttlc or no
 
 30 
 
 personal knowledge of each, other. There is no freedom of 
 intercourse ; but a total separation. 
 
 But the case is very different with the farm labourer. 
 He is engaged on work which often tests his skill, and calls 
 forth judgment and insight; and though some of it is 
 rough, much is pleasant. His occupation is among the 
 ever-varying scenes of nature — scenes the very thought of 
 which calls up before the mind pictures of loveliness, and 
 sends a thrill of joy through the soul. At the close of his 
 day's work he has a home of his own to go to, with the 
 evening before him ; and, at least in the summer season, the 
 means of enjoyment at hand. To one who has been witness- 
 ing the teeming masses in the dingy, crowded streets of a 
 large town, it is cheering, on passing into the country, to see 
 the labourers in their gardens, to watch the sports on the 
 village green, or to listen wbile for miles round the heavens 
 echo with their joyous shouts. 
 
 For all disadvantages there ought to be some compen- 
 sation. If a man is to be stifled and poisoned in a foul 
 atmosphere, he ought to have some compensation. So, 
 also, if a man is to go down in a coal mine, with a chance 
 of being crushed to death, buried alive, or blown up by an 
 explosion, he ought to have something for the risk. Or, if 
 a man goes to sea and endures the hardships and dangers 
 of a seafaring life, surely he ought to have some special 
 reward. 
 
 Thus, to place other labourers in as good a position as 
 agricultural labourers, they must be paid as much money ; 
 and over and above this, sufficient to meet all extra 
 expenses, to provide some enjoyments, and to compensate 
 for disadvantages ; and when this has been done, they are
 
 31 
 
 in a position equal to, but not better than, tbat of agricul- 
 tural labourers. 
 
 Finally, on this point : while it is true that many to\STi 
 labourers get high wages, it is also true that many get very 
 moderate, or even low wages ; and there are many of the 
 town population who get no wages at all, but are in a state 
 of destitution, and rise in the morning not knowing where 
 they can get a morsel of bread for breakfast. Many of the 
 labourers who are in actual employment get only 17s. or 
 18s. a week, some even less than that, and there are 
 vast numbers with only a pound or a guinea a week. 
 On the other hand, while the money wages of the 
 ordinary agricultural labourer appear low, there are in 
 the rural districts such men as blacksmiths, carpenters, 
 harness 'makers, bricklayers, and perhaps others, who, 
 though not exactly in the ordinary acceptation of the term 
 agricultural labourers, are employed and paid almost 
 entirely by farmers, and in work absolutely necessary for 
 farming operations; and might fairly be called skilled 
 agricultural labourers, though, in fact, a great deal of farm 
 labour is skilled labour : and these earn more money than 
 the pay of ordinary agricultural labourers. So that, 
 beginning and going through the whole of the strata of 
 those who are employed and paid by agriculturists for 
 agricultural purposes, and the whole of the strata of 
 labouring classes in other departments, it is by no means 
 certain on which side the average pay is higher. If we 
 take on the one side only agricultural labourers pure and 
 simple in the ordinary acceptation of the term ; and, on the 
 other side, only those who have regular and definite employ- 
 ment, both skilled and unskilled labourers, the average 
 amount of wages would probably be higher in the case of
 
 32 
 
 the town labourers ; thougli tliis has not yet been proved. 
 But, if we grant this, if we grant that their wages are 
 higher, it by no means follows that they are of necessity 
 better off. For, if they get more money, they get nothing 
 but money, and ever}^thing they have has to be paid for 
 in hard cash ; they have many expenses extra to those of 
 agricultural labourers ; many things, notably the first 
 necessaries of life, have to be bought at greatly enhanced 
 prices, coming to them after several people have made a 
 profit out of them ; and they are placed at some natural 
 disadvantages affecting their material well-being. So that 
 possibly the extra amount of money they receive (if indeed 
 they do receive more money), may not be sufficient to meet 
 the extra expenses which must necessarily be incurred to 
 maintain themselves in a position only as good as that of 
 agricultural labourers. 
 
 We cannot, however, draw a comparison with mathe- 
 matical exactness. The facts are at present but very 
 imperfectly known ; and much always depends on per- 
 sonal taste, and on private and individual circumstances. 
 But, looking at all the points we have had under con- 
 sideration, there seems strong ground for the conclusion, 
 that, to say the least, the position of the agricultural 
 labourer is not so much worse than that of other labourers 
 as it has been represented. 
 
 Undoubtedly, among agricultural labourers there are bad 
 cases — cases of great poverty. But this is not peculiar to 
 the agricultural world. "Want and poverty exist elsewhere, 
 even in America — the land " where plenty reigns." And 
 there is no reason to suppose that the case is worse among 
 agricultural labourers than among some other sections of 
 the community — possibly the reverse. As a rule, it may
 
 33 
 
 be said, that, in most classes, if a man marries young, and 
 has a large family, he will have a struggle to live respect- 
 ably and make both ends meet ; and it is strange indeed 
 that people should require that one exception to this 
 general law of society should be made in favour of agricul- 
 tural labourers. Undoubtedly an agricultural labourer 
 with a wife and a large family of young children is badly 
 off. But so are most other people so circumstanced. A 
 man cannot have his wealth or his pleasures in two ways ; 
 and it is certain that if a man is rich in children, then he 
 cannot have the money which is necessarily spent in their 
 maintenance. Though, possibly, such a man may make a 
 good bargain. 
 
 But there is another side to this question. ^VTien 
 children grow up, they become a source of help ; and 
 instead of speaking of an agricultural labourer, his wife and 
 six children living on nine shillings a week, it would Toften 
 be much nearer the mark to speak of them as living on 
 £100 a year. 
 
 Complaint is often made that the agricultural labourer 
 has no chance of rising in the world. But, rightly looked 
 at, the agricultural labourer has chances of rising the same 
 as other people have. Take a case : say a porter with 
 18s. a week ; as long as he remains a porter with 18s. a 
 week he does not rise ; but if he gets into a higherjposition, 
 he does rise. Just so with the agricultural labourer ; as 
 long as he remains an agricultural labourer ^vith 12s,, 16s., 
 or 20s. a week, as the case may be, he does not rise ; but, 
 if by industry, thrift, or other means, he gets into a higher 
 position, then he does rise. There is no barrier ; the field 
 is as fair and open to him as to other people We grant 
 that the agricultural world does not offer so many of those 
 
 D
 
 34 
 
 higher positions, or so many chances of rising, as the com- 
 mercial world does. But this arises from the nature of 
 things. It is merely a fact, just as it is a fact that Russia 
 is larger than England. But no praise is due to the Russians, 
 nor is any dishonour due to the English, on this account. 
 It is simply a fact. It reflects neither honour nor dishonour 
 on either party. But if there are more prizes in the com- 
 mercial world, we must rememher that there are also more 
 hlanks. And, further, it is worthy of notice how many 
 people who have risen to real eminence by merit have 
 laboured on the land. 
 
 One thing more. It is a fact beyond all contradiction 
 that, as a general rule, even without moving into another 
 sphere, every agricultural labourer has a chance of becoming 
 a substantial capitalist at the age of 25 or 30 years ; and this 
 he might do with far more ease than many clerks, shopmen, 
 and others could do the same thing. For an agricultural 
 labourer starting on his own account, (say) at the age of 
 18 years, might, if he wished, very well save in very many 
 cases at least 5s. a week, if he were to continue single, and 
 be steady, industrious, and thrifty. And these are the 
 common conditions which have to be complied with by most 
 people who seek to rise in the world. 
 
 It is often represented that there is no such thing as 
 conference between farmers and their men. But this is 
 totally a mistake. There is a conference weekly, and a 
 more formal conference annually. But in. addition to this, 
 and of more importance, there is a continuous conference ; 
 there is a constant intermiugling — an almost daily con- 
 ference. There is freedom of iutercourse. The farmer 
 knows his men personally ; he goes among them, and talks 
 with them. And it is a point of the very first importance
 
 that there should be sympathy between employer an J 
 employed ; and no amount of extra money can compensate 
 for the lack of it. Where it exists there will be many little 
 acts of kindness on both sides, tending to bind together, 
 but which cannot well be put down in writing. There has 
 been much sneering at the state of the agricultural labourer 
 as one of semi-feudal subsemence. As though the normal 
 condition were a state of antagonism ; as though for a man 
 to show an interest in his master's affairs were a thing to 
 be ashamed of. But there is nothing to sneer at in a man 
 looking after his master's interest. There is nothing to 
 sneer at in a man doing a good day's work. There is 
 nothing to sneer at even in a man being content with his 
 wages. The relations between master and man ought to 
 be something closer and purer than can be estabhshed by 
 money. Though a man be the poorest hedger and ditcher 
 in the land, he's a man and a brother, of the same flesh 
 and blood as other people, and perhaps with feelings and 
 sensibilities as acute as those of many w^ho speak of him 
 with contempt. 
 
 Now let us look at the question of the ratio of wages 
 to profits, or what portion of the profits of the capitahst 
 falls to the share of the labourer. 
 
 And this is a very important consideration, because it is 
 some indication of how^ near the employer and employed 
 are together ; and whether the labourer is receiving a fair
 
 36 
 
 share of the profits he helps to create. And it is a question 
 of wide application ; for it is not often that a man attains 
 to wealth by his own unaided efforts, it is usually with the 
 aid of the brains and sinews of other people. Men, almost 
 without exception, recognize a necessity that there must be 
 difference of position and distinctions of office in order to 
 carry on the business of life. But let there be a sympathy 
 of feeling and a community of interest, and these distinctions 
 are not felt to be grievances. Even many of those who 
 speak so much of the wretched condition of the agricultural 
 labourer, have their own servants and their own labourers. 
 And the difference between their case and that of agricul- 
 turists, is, that the gulf of separation between them and 
 their labourers is wider than that between farmers and 
 agricultural labourers. The evil (if evil it be) which is com- 
 plained of in the agricultural world, exists in an intensi- 
 fied degree among those very people who complain of it. 
 
 In an army of soldiers there must be distinctions — officers 
 and men. But this is no grievance. The soldiers of Hanni- 
 bal will follow their leader over the Alps, and up and down 
 Italy, through hardships, privations, and war, faithful unto 
 death, when they see that he, their leader is with them, 
 enduring the same hardships, bearing the same privations, 
 sharing the same lot. The soldiers of I^apoleon will follow 
 him through years of strife and conflict, when fired with 
 enthusiasm for their leader, feeling his presence among 
 them. But the soldiers of Hannibal, and the soldiers of 
 Napoleon would not have done thus,' had their leaders 
 lived apart from them in luxury and pleasure. The result 
 of such separation and distinction would have been envy 
 and dissatisfaction. Without enthusiasm, more or less, not 
 much that is great or good will be done in the world.
 
 37 
 
 Without enthusiasm, a man will do little good for his 
 employer, and still less for himself. Happily something 
 of this feeling has existed among agricultural labourers; 
 happily something of this feeling still exists among them. 
 And this feeling is absolutely necessary to carry on the 
 work of agriculture with any degree of satisfaction either 
 to master or man. 
 
 The question of the ratio of wages to profits is, then, an 
 important one. 
 
 Let us look at a few figures. This is perhaps a favour- 
 able place to observe, as bearing on this and on some other 
 parts of this essay, that it is not possible to give any exact 
 statement on all points universally applicable, or which 
 would be accepted by all farmers. The results of farming 
 operations always depend to a great extent on the skill and 
 industry of the individual farmer ; and not a little on the 
 question whether the rent is high or not. Besides which 
 difierent farmers have different ways of reckoning. 
 
 Take a case like this : a farmer starts on a farm of 200 
 acres with a capital of £2000, and reahzes £10 per cent, 
 for his money, or an income of £200 a year. This would 
 be successful farming, very successful; and, as already 
 noticed, there is such a thing as unsuccessful farming. Now 
 farming is not absolute security for money ; and a person 
 could easily invest his money with security equal to that of 
 farming, so as to obtain at least 7 5 per cent, per annum 
 interest. He could get 5 per cent, with absolute security, 
 or he might invest it otherwise and get much more than 
 7 J per cent. But we will take 7 J per cent, as a fair 
 interest with security about as good as that of farming. 
 A person thus investing £2000, W'Ould have an income of 
 £150 a year, with nothing to do for it. His whole time 
 would therefore be at his own disposal, either for leisure,
 
 38 
 
 or for some other kind of occupation; while the farmer 
 would get £150 interest for his money, and an additional 
 £50 a year for his own labours. And considering that the 
 farmer has to devote his whole time to the work ; that he 
 has the whole responsibility ; has to superintend everything ; 
 has to do all buying and selling; that his judgment is 
 constantly called into exercise ; that he has continual care 
 and thought, day and night, 7 days a week, and 52 weeks 
 in the year, surely £50 a year is not too much for his 
 work. If a tradesman were to establish a business with 
 a capital of £2000, he would expect a much larger income 
 than £200 a year from it ; and if he were to appoint some- 
 one to manage it, with sole responsibility, he would never 
 think of offering so small a sum as £50 a year as payment 
 to the manager. 
 
 To carry this consideration further, a labourer on such a 
 farm could very well earn 16s. a week, or £40 a year. 
 And, certainly, if there is to be any distinction between 
 master and man, £10 a year is not too much to mark it. 
 
 Again, omitting exceptional cases and exceptional seasons, 
 the farmer is thinking and working both earlier and later 
 than the labourer ; in fact, as before stated, his care and 
 thought are constant and unceasing ; so that the sum per 
 hour the farmer would receive for his own work, would be 
 positively less than the sum per hour he pays to his men. 
 
 And this is a specimen of successful farming. 
 
 Further, if on such a farm as we have supposed only 
 five men were constantly employed ; and if their wages 
 were suddenly and under existing circumstaaices to be 
 increased 4s. a week each — say from 16s. to 20s. — the total 
 extra payment would amount to £1 a week or £52 a year. 
 Thus the farmer would be left without a single penny for
 
 39 
 
 his own labours. His capital he might have invested, and 
 without any greater risk, have realized at least as much 
 interest as his farm pays him, and he would then have had 
 the whole of his time to himself. "We may well ask, who 
 would long continue to till the land under such conditions ? 
 
 Once more, suppose the annual gross produce of a farm 
 is sold on an average for £1,200. The cost of labour on 
 such a farm may be estimated at £400 a year at least, i.e., 
 £33 per cent., or one- third of the value of the total gross 
 produce. And this paid punctually and without fail every 
 week, and before every other payment — even the rent. 
 Of course no exact statement, suitable to all cases, can be 
 made ; sometimes the ratio would be higher than this, and 
 in some favourable instances it might fall as low as twenty- 
 five per cent., or one-fourth of the gross produce. 
 
 Finally, some notice should be taken of the fact that 
 farmers pay large sums to the poor rates. A farmer with 
 300 acres of land, in some cases pays, in addition to wages, 
 as much as £60 a year poor rates. This money forms a 
 kind of sick, benefit, and superannuation fund for the sick, 
 the destitute, and the aged — a costly and inefficient system 
 it is true, but still a system which entails great burdens on 
 the land. Now this means that if there were no poor rates 
 to be paid, the farmer, in the case we have supposed, could 
 afford to pay to each of ten men 2s. 6d. a week all the year 
 round more than he now pays them. £60 a year on such a 
 farm may be an extreme case. But what a well-conducted 
 benefit society would do for members paying a sum much 
 less than 2s. 6d. a week each, is a question worthy of 
 consideration. 
 
 The subject of poor rates is one to which farmers will 
 do well to continue to dii-ect their attention.
 
 40 
 
 It may be that labour, generally, has been underpaid ; 
 but there seems reason to believe that if it were admitted 
 as a principle that the labourer should be paid in proportion 
 to 'the profits made, either many other employers would 
 have to increase very largely the wages of their labourers, 
 or farmers would have to decrease theirs. 
 
 There are a few other points to be considered. 
 
 Of those who complain of the wages of agricultural 
 labourers we would ask — How much would you pay them ? 
 To all things in this world there must be a limit ; and 
 wages cannot permanently exceed the profits made. If I 
 undertake to do a piece of work for 40s. and if, besides work- 
 ing myself, I employ two men to help me, I cannot very 
 well afford to pay them more than 20s. each. Just so with 
 the farmer : the pay of the labourers cannot permanently 
 exceed, or even equal, the total profits of the farm. If 
 a labourer is to be paid for his labours, so must the farmer ; 
 and there are few farmers who, at the best, get more than 
 a small per centage for their money, and a small sum for 
 their own labours. 
 
 If the manufacturer pays higher wages than the farmer, 
 it is because he makes higher profits, and labour of the 
 description he requires is more scarce. Let these conditions 
 fail, and the higher wages will fail also. 
 
 Agricultural labour has been most costly, only farmers 
 have not appeared to advantage. 
 
 Agricultural labourers are better off in England than in 
 most other countries.
 
 41 
 
 The wages of agricultural labourers have greatly in- 
 ■creased of late years. 
 
 Agricultural labour is more liberally paid for than many 
 other kinds of labour. A farmer says : — " At the begin- 
 ning of last harvest I sent my men one morning to peck a 
 piece of peas. I agreed with them for the price. They 
 asked me for beer, which I gave them. About five o'clock 
 in the afternoon they came to the house to say they had 
 finished the job, and to know what they were to go on 
 with the next morning. I had just made out the account ; 
 and found that one man and his wife had earned 9s. 5d., 
 another 8s. 4d., and so on in proportion. Shortly after 
 a carpenter, who had been at work on the farm that day, 
 came to the house for his day's pay — 3s. 6d. I was forci- 
 bly struck with the contrast between the farm labourer and 
 the tradesman in their earnings." 
 
 Mr. Brassey in his book on "Work and Wages," says — 
 " I maintain, unhesitatingly, that daily wages are no 
 criterion of the actual cost of executing works, or of 
 carrying out manufacturing operations On the contrary, 
 experience teaches that there is a most remarkable 
 tendency to equality in the actual cost of work through- 
 out the world." Again, " In point of fact, the amount 
 of daily wages afi'ords no real measure of the actual cost 
 of work ; and it is quite possible that work may be more 
 cheaply executed by the same workmen, notwithstanding 
 that their wages have largely increased." And again, 
 " The condition of the Warwickshire labourer has of late 
 been brought prominently uuder the notice of the pubKc. 
 The internal economy of the agricultural labourer's house- 
 hold has been minutely described in the columns of the 
 * Daily News.' I would ask men of business to examine
 
 42 
 
 this question, not from a philantliropic point of view, but 
 for the purpose of ascertaining what rate of wages will 
 give the best return to employers. It is quite true that 
 the rent received by the English landlord gives a miserable 
 return on the capital value of his property. In no country 
 indeed does landed property give so poor a return. It is 
 equally certain that the business of farmers is not as lucra- 
 tive as that of manufacturers. If the agricultural labourer 
 receives higher wages without doing more work in the day, 
 the farmer and landlord will suffer a diminution of income, 
 which they can ill afford to bear ; and the only result will 
 be that capital will be withdrawn from agriculture, and 
 more advantageously invested in other business. But are 
 we justified in assuming that the labourer is incapable of 
 doing more work. I will not be so presumptuous as to offer 
 an opinion upon the particular case of the "Warwickshire 
 labourers ; but this I* say, that aU experience shows that, 
 with proper supervision, and with an equitable scheme of 
 prices for piece-work, the best paid workman does more 
 work for a given sum of money than the under-paid, and 
 therefore under-fed, labourer can possibly accomplish. The 
 cost of labour, rightly observes Mr. Fawcett, ' is determined 
 by the amount of work which is really done for the wages. 
 Many of our labourers can barely obtain the necessaries of 
 life; and we can all appreciate the false economy that 
 would be practised if a horse was so much stinted of food 
 that he could only do half as much work as he would be 
 able to perform if he were properly fed.' High wages da 
 not necessarily imply dear labour, just as on the other 
 hand low wages do not of necessity make labour cheap. 
 On my father's extensive contracts, carried on in almost 
 every quarter of the globe, the daily wage of the labourer
 
 43 
 
 was fixed at widely different rates ; but it was found to be 
 the almost invariable rule that the cost of labour was the 
 same — that for the same sum of money the same amount 
 of work was everywhere performed. Superior skill, extra 
 diligence, and a larger development of physical power, will 
 often compensate the employer who finds himself obliged 
 to pay higher wages than his competitors." 
 
 In these remarks Mr. Brassey states his conviction that 
 the cost of work cannot be determined by the rate of daily 
 wages; that high wages do not necessarily imply dear 
 labour, and low wages do not of necessity make labour 
 cheap. Perhaps this fact has never before been so clearly 
 brought out and so forcibly exemplified. It is true of 
 agriculture as well as of railway construction. But it is 
 only applicable to those agricultural operations in which 
 work can be done by the piece. One example only will 
 we give : — A farmer says, " I had a piece of beans hoed 
 by the acre. The men earned a little over 2s. 6d. a day. 
 The second hoeing I had done by the day. I gave them 
 2s. per day. It then cost me quite double what the first 
 hoeing did." 
 
 It is gratifying to find the experience of farmers in this 
 respect borne out by an authority so high and so influen- 
 tial as Mr. Brassey, and given to the world in a work 
 commanding so much notice. And farmers are indebted 
 to Mr. Brassey for his testimony, which, though not in all 
 respects applicable to agriculture, must have a wholesome 
 effect in creating a more correct public opinion. 
 
 Farmers have nothing to fear, in a pecuniary point of 
 view, from the movement now going on among agricultural 
 labourers. They cannot be losers by it. They may bo 
 the first sufferers, and some of them may be ruined. They
 
 44 
 
 may suffer for a time, but in the long run they cannot 
 suffer from it. 
 
 The cultivation of the land must be made to pay, or 
 people will not cultivate it. But the land must be culti- 
 vated. This is a necessity. For after all that may be 
 said about trade, commerce, manufactures, mineral wealth, 
 science, art, and literature, the great occupation of life 
 is to sustain life, — the chief work of life is the struggle 
 for existence ; and the means of sustenance must come 
 mainly from the land. There is a certain amount of 
 wages which farmers can pay now. There will probably 
 be a certain natural increase which they can afford. There 
 may be modifications and improvements which will still 
 further enable them to increase wages. But anything 
 beyond this must be paid for by the general pubHc in an 
 increased price of provisions. If labour is made more 
 costly, other people must pay for it. 
 
 There are numerous ways in which farmers may be 
 recouped for any extra wages they may have to pay ; 
 so that though wages may be higher, labour will not be 
 relatively more costly than at present. And under exist- 
 ing circumstances this will be absolutely necessary ; for 
 farmers have only a limited sum of money which they 
 can possibly pay away for labour, even though the amount 
 be stretched to the utmost limit, as it has been in the past. 
 In case of a general emergency, farmers have many re- 
 ^ sources. Hitherto, at the cost of much money, they have 
 not availed themselves of these resources to the fullest 
 extent. Had they done so, many labourers would have 
 been thrown out of employ, and others would have suffered 
 to a greater or less degree. 
 
 A movement among the labourers will give farmers an
 
 46 
 
 opportunity of using macliinery to a greater extent. And 
 machinery has some advantages. For example, in the 
 case of reaping and mowing, as machinery does the work 
 more quickly, it gives a better chance of escaping bad 
 weather. And farmers, acting on the strictly profit and 
 loss principle, would gain much by more fully adopting 
 this mode of reaping and mowing. But hitherto they 
 have only partially availed themselves of machinerj^ ; and 
 this in many cases, not because farmers are slow to adopt 
 improvements, but on the principle that a good name is 
 rather to be chosen than great riches, because local feeling 
 was against it. Local feeling, like public opinion, must be 
 respected, at least to some extent. But should there be a 
 general strike among agricultural labourers, that would 
 give an opportunity, and perhaps force a necessity of 
 making use of machiner}" to a greater extent. 
 
 Again, farmers have been in the habit of emplopng, 
 at times, more labourers than they have actually required. 
 When men could have been dispensed Avith, they have 
 been kept on, simply for the sake of giving them employ- 
 ment. 
 
 Another consideration is this : If labourers get more 
 money, they will spend more. But if a man has an extra 
 coat during the year, that cannot injure the farmer, for 
 the farmer supplies the wool ; similarly with other articles, 
 if a man wears better boots, the farmer supplies the skin 
 for the leather ; if he eats more meat, the farmer supplies 
 it; if he has more or better beer, the farmer grows the 
 barley which makes the malt. Thus, as one farmer said 
 to the writer, " A farmer is the last man who need want 
 to starve people." 
 
 There arc other ways in which farmers might be
 
 46 
 
 recouped; some of which, however, are better left un- 
 said. 
 
 It should be noticed also that increased wages to the 
 labourer are usually preceded by increased profits to the 
 capitalist. And further, events have clearly proved that 
 in the disputes which have taken place between labour and 
 capital, capital has got the best of it : labourers by their 
 agitations have done more good to their employers than to 
 themselves, i.e.^ if putting more money into their pockets 
 is doing them good ; and similar disputes in the agricul- 
 tural world could only end by putting money into the 
 pockets of farmers. It is lamentable to think how the 
 question of the agricultural labourer is treated as one 
 simply of money ; whereas the money consideration is 
 one of the very least importance. 
 
 Finally, should things come to the worst, farmers might 
 employ their own sons to a greater extent than at present. 
 The sons of farmers cannot all be farmers ; and it is quite 
 as honourable to work on the land as in a shop or an 
 ofS.ce — it is quite as honourable, quite as useful, quite as 
 pleasant, and quite as healthy ; it is a position of far more 
 independence, and it is quite compatible with the highest 
 culture, physical, mental, moral, and spiritual. And should 
 necessity call for it, farmers' daughters might assist in the 
 farming operations. There is nothing undignified or de- 
 grading in the daughters of landholders making hay, milking 
 cows, attending to poultry, and making up butter. It is 
 quite as honourable, and in all respects quite as worthy 
 an occupation as some other engagements which are 
 usually thought proper for ladies. And, moreover, these 
 occupations are quite compatible with riding on horseback, 
 and playing the piano. Hitherto this course has been
 
 unnecessary to its full extent. Farmers have been able 
 to pay, or at least they bave paid, other people to do work, 
 and consequently employment has been given to a large 
 number of labourers who would otherwise have been un- 
 employed. But farming operations are quite worthy the 
 attention of the sons and daughters of farmers; though, 
 in the estimation of some, they may not be dignified 
 enough for agricultural labourers. 
 
 From all these considerations it is evident that, in a 
 pecuniary sense, farmers have nothing to fear, eventually, 
 from the movement now going on. Though the whole 
 movement is much to be deplored, there is strong reason 
 to believe that it will be made to conduce to results, both 
 material and moral, beneficial alike to farmer and labourer. 
 
 The question of the intelligence of the agricultural 
 labourer is one of which great capital has been made. 
 Much might be said on this point ; but happily the question 
 is now settled. It is now acknowledged that on this 
 question people have been mistaken. People have at 
 length found out that the agricultural labourer is not the 
 stupid idiot he has been represented. And the only 
 remark we need make, is that some day or another they 
 will awake to the fact that his material position has been 
 as unfairly represented as his mental abihties have. 
 
 It is not respecting the agricultural labourer alone that 
 these statements have been made. Hardly a decade has 
 passed since the same things were said about farmers ; 
 indeed, they have scarcely ceased to be said at the present 
 day. And, all classes connected with the land have been 
 subject to the same kind of representation. 
 
 The claims of the town population to such extraordinary 
 intelligence and superiority are by no means new to us ;
 
 48 
 
 tbey have been long and loudly put forward; and they 
 strongly remind us of that feeling of the ancient Greeks, 
 who, under a deep sense of humility and of their own un- 
 importance, used to speak of all nations but themselves as 
 " barbarians." The urbane expressions which have been 
 made use of are still fresh in our memories. Crowned with 
 the immortal sentence, "The Lords are a stupid party," 
 a stream of sweet abuse has descended on all classes 
 connected with the land. "We still have sounding in our 
 ears, with true urban ring, such terms as " Stupid " Lords, 
 ''Ignorant" Squires, " Clodhopping " farmers, and "Down- 
 trodden " agricultural labourers. And the same feeling has 
 been expressed in many ways. 
 
 Far be it from us to wish to pluck one leaf from the 
 palm of honour which justly belongs to others. Doubtless 
 our town, friends are our superiors, especially in intelligence. 
 It would be invidious in us to doubt it, for we have it on 
 the highest authority — they say so themselves, therefore it 
 must be true. 
 
 And into such a low state are we fallen, that we have 
 not even the desire to rise to the level of these self-styled 
 intelligent people. "We confess (to our shame be it said), 
 but we frankly confess that we have not the desire to 
 imitate such outbursts of intelligence as have been exhibited 
 by Hyde Park rioters, Trafalgar Square mobs, and Paris 
 Communists, Trades Unions, Reform Leagues, and Fenian 
 Associations. We willingly leave to others the glory of 
 these acts, content that they may be crowned with all the 
 honour which such deeds of intelligence can bestow upon 
 them. 
 
 Strange it is, that even now people fail to see that this 
 insane opposition to everything and everybody connected
 
 with the land, which has been exhibited by some sections 
 of the people, is telling with fearful odds against themselves. 
 And there are strong indications that such is the case ; 
 there are strong indications that their policy has been 
 suicidal — as a narrow policy of seclusion always must be. 
 Surely, if those things which have been said about agricul- 
 turists had been true, it would even then have been better 
 for people to have made to themselves friends of the 
 mammon of unrighteousness. It is marvellous that there 
 should have been this feeling ; as though to be connected 
 with the land were the deepest disgrace. 
 
 But, notwithstanding the reproach, some people have 
 stuck to the land, through evil report, and without good 
 report, content with its small profits; and these are, 
 perhaps, now more truly rich than many who have despised 
 the land and sought more lucrative engagements. Farmers, 
 at all events, cannot be unconscious of this, that though 
 they have not much money, they have many things which 
 tend to make life joyous and happy : and in this respect 
 are, perhaps, more favourably circumstanced than many 
 with more money. 
 
 The past will leave bitter memories, but better times are 
 at hand ; the future is bright with hope for agriculture, 
 and, if farmers have the wisdom to stick to the land in 
 times of prosperity as they have stuck to it in times of 
 adversity, they will reap a good reward. They have no 
 reason to fear for the future : for no change that is likely 
 to be made can injure them. And, after all, people must 
 eventually come to the land. With a rapidly increasing 
 population this is inevitable. 
 
 We have already referred to signs of hope of an improve- 
 ment in public opinion respecting the agricultural labourer. 
 
 E
 
 And, even now, people are beginning to find out that because 
 a man has the misfortune to be born a lord or a squire, he 
 is not of necessity either " stupid " or " ignorant." Per- 
 haps they will find out some day that it is possible for a 
 farmer to have his common senses. And the time may 
 come when even the agricultural labourer will not allow 
 himself to be maligned with impunity. 
 
 It remains only for us to notice one other point. 
 
 The strike of the agricultural labourers was applauded. 
 The news was received with joy, and heralded through the 
 country — the long-wished-for movement had come. But 
 when the London gasmen were wicked enough to strike, 
 the deed was unbearable. It was beyond all endurance 
 that London should be without gas for a few nights — but 
 it is quite unimportant whether the harvest is got in next 
 summer ; and, as for the farmers, they deserve to lose their 
 crops. As though other people would not suffer too ! And, 
 why farmers deserve this, we cannot say. 
 
 The very people who had before supported the working 
 classes, and urged them on, turned round when the strike 
 came home to themselves. The very newspapers changed 
 their tone when their own interests were touched. 
 
 The same fact was true in the case of the South "Wales 
 colliery strike. "Where were the ** friends " of the working 
 men in the time of their trouble ? Where were the men 
 who had patted the working men on the back ? "Where 
 were the newspapers which had courted the working men ? 
 
 And the same will be the case with agricultural labourers. 
 This great friendship which has been suddenly professed 
 for agricultural labourers will cease as soon as the fervour 
 of political action has passed away, or as soon as a time 
 of trial comes. There is this source of satisfaction : the
 
 agricultural labourer will be true to the farmer, as the 
 farmer will be true to the landlord ; they are a compact 
 three-fold cord : and a three-fold cord is not easily broken. 
 But if some agricultural labourers should be so led away as 
 to depend on their new friends, they will presently find 
 themselves left in the lurch. They will soon be at u 
 discount again. A permanent amalgamation cannot be 
 expected by them with people by whom they have hitherto 
 been caricatured and misrepresented, and who, even now, 
 have hardly learned to speak of them without some term of 
 reproach — some sobriquet or nickname.
 
 London : 
 
 "William Macintosh, 
 
 24, Patebnostkb Row.
 
 ■^:.- 
 
 >^^ 
 
 
 jfil:'