LABOUR EMPLOYED ON FARMS

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXIII, Issue 7563, 30 May 1885, Page 6

LABOUR EMPLOYED ON FARMS

( Canterbury Times.) Mr Albert D. Shaw, the United States Consul at Manchester, has taken occasion, in his annual report furnished to his Government, to point out what he considers to be the weak link in English farming. He has, in fact, undertaken to give the English farmer the benefit of a little gratuitous advice, for which we have no doubt the British farmer will not feel greatly disposed to thank him. We observe that at least one leading agricultural paper questions whether Mr Shaw knows what he is talking about, and recommends him to study the matter a little more attentively before he ventures upon a further expression of opinion. Mr Shaw comes from a countxy where hands are scarce, and where labour-saving machinery abounds ; and in going about the English farmers and farms he has seen much that “ strikes a stranger,” and which, in his case, does not appear to have struck him with afeeling of admiration. There are many things in every country concerning which a visitor is apt to form an incorrect opinion, not having had time or opportunity to obtain a sufficient insight into the reasons why. Few travellers who go back home and air their opinions in print, are favourably criticised by the inhabitants of the countries they write about, because the deductions drawn from what they have seen are sure to go too far one way or the other, and say what they will, they can scarcely avoid the danger of running foul of the views of either the optimist or the pessimist section of the country in question.

What Mr Shaw finds fault with chiefly in English farming is what he considers the wasteful expenditure of labour to be "seen in every direction. As an example of this he relates what he had recently seen in a hay field of some ten acres in extent. Two horses were attached tandem-fashion to a cart, and a boy to lead the horses. There was a. man forking up the hay, and two men in the cart loading it with their hands, and a boy following with a rake. There were three such sets of hands in the field, or fifteen men and boys to three carts. Now, there may be some profound reason existing in the agricultural mind to account satisfactorily for this multiplicity of hands, but all we can say is that if a Colonial farmer were to go about his work in the same fashion he would run his course in a remarkably short space of time. Mr Shaw considers that in his country, with the aid of the simple haymaking machinery there in use, two men and a boy would secure more hay in one day than the three sets of workpeople he describes were able to manage in the same time. What he describes as having seen in an English harvest field will also be interesting to Colonial farmers, but will not, we fear, tend to increase their admiration of ‘the “ wisdom of our ancestors.” In passing by a field of wheat last season he saw a reaping machine at work, and six men, two women and three boys binding and stocking behind it. The reaper and binder is of course not unknown to the British farmer, but making allowance for heavy crops, and everything else we can think of in connection with the matter, we can only conclude that Mr Shaw’s strictures as to the undue employment of labour are just and well merited. His opinions are shared by most Colonial farmers who visit the Old Country. Not long ago a friend of ours visiting the Old Country for the first time was greatly taken aback by observing, not far from London, a wooden plough at work, drawn by three horses in a string, one man driving the, horses and another holding the stilts. Subsequently he saw many other things just about on a par with this cumbrous turn-out, and being of a somewhat philosophic turn of mind, he felt convinced that things could not be quite what they seemed, and therefore began to make enquiries of the aboriginal inhabitants. The farmers, he found, had what appeared to themselves, eminently satisfactory rea-, sons for their way of doing things. They admitted that men were frequently employed where boys would do as well because the supply of the latter had been reduced by the preposterous Legislative enactments which insisted that boys should be sent to school. In addition to this they adhered to old customs on account of the extreme difficulty of inducing the labourers to accept every change, and furthermore, if a .large number of men were not employed on the farms the poor rates would inevitably be increased, and you might as well pay a man wages and get some work put of him as pay to keep him in idleness in the poorhouse. It is, however, useless to contend against the current of the times. If a farmer refuses to employ machinery because it will throw his men out of work, it will end in both farmer and labourer going to the wall together. The same thing applies to countries as to individuals. Machinery lessens the cost of production and so brings the necessaries of life within the reach of the great body of tlie population; but after all, to each individual the great and perplexing problems of the age resolve themselves into each T man doing the best he can for himseVl. We fear that the whole matter wfcSn looked at in the light of necessity, becomes reduced to this very low level. If it is found that both ends can be made to meet by grazing, while the same result cahnot be brought about by arable farming, it merely remains for a farmer to go rf for grazing, notwithstanding all the theories in the world, political or otherwise. [ The immediate and direct

results of the employment of machinery is to reduce the number of hands employed on the land, or at least to reduce the ' expenditure in wages per acre; but in a new country it brings more land into cultivation, so that the total expenditure in labour is probably greatly increased rather than reduced. The weak point in the industrial system of this country is that we substitute machinery for men in our fields without proportionately increasing the numbers employed in our workshops. It is a great gain to the whole community to furnish occupation for skilled in the place of unskilled labour, but this unfortunately is what we are not doing, except to a limited extent. The farmer, in self-preservation, is compelled to buy machinery made in other countries which take the place of manual labour, and there is in consequence a great outflow of capital which ought to be retained in the country. The thorough going advocates of protection are prepared with a very simple remedy; but it is obvious that no good can ultimately come from strangling one industry in order to foster another. The only true remedies are to be found in technical education and industrial enterprise.