Farm and Garden.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 54, 3 February 1872, Page 8

Farm and Garden.

THE UNEMPLOYED LABORER, A correspondence has lately appeared in successive numbers of the “ Chelmsford Chronicle” on this subject. We take the following extracts : 1. Mechanics are much better educated than agricultural laborers, and consequently are more independent, because knowledge is power and teaches them to know their value. The laborer, working by himself, or, at most, with two or three mates, has not the same opportunity of interchanging ideas. There is no institute for them where they can meet together to ventilate their grievances, saving that institution, the tap-room of the village public, where, over a pint or two of “ adulterated,” the little intellect they possess becomes woefully bemuddled, and from which the most respectable of their class keep away. Born and bred to their lot, they accept it ; they are inured to it; they scarcely murmur, because they dare not, because that spirit of independence which every honest man should possess is crushed out of them. Because their murmurs are not heard, it does not follow that they have no grievance to complain of ; because they submit to their lot it does not follow that that lot is not a hard one. The fact is, they aro utterly powerless ; they are under their master’s thumb, who very frequently is their landlord as well as their master, and as they do not wish to be turned out into the street, they submit almost to any conditions that may be imposed on them. And it is unquestionably this system of large landholding and eff hand farming that fosters and increases an undue feeling of utter dependence upon his employer, on the principle that the fewer the number of farmers the fewer the number of hands employed, because the demand for labor is less. This state of things unhappily exemplified in the parish where I live. Here the land is mostly held by a very few large farmers, and the consequence is that except at the busiest times of the year—viz., hay time and harvest—there are always hands out of work, not from any fault of their own, but because little more than three-quarters of the laborers are unemployed that would be were none of the land let offhand ; while in the neighboring parish, where this pernicious system does not obtain, and where the number of farmers is greater, the demand for labor is higher, and consequently it is an exceptional thing to find a man out of work. It would be very interesting if some of your readers would furnish the public with a few statistics, such e.g., as the number of acres there are in their parishes under cultivation and the number of hands employed per acre. For instance, let us take the case of Mr Ofßn, whom I am informed is the largest tenant farmer in the county, and who farms I don’t how many off-hand farms. (I have not the pleasure ot his acquaintance, though report says he is a kind-hearted, liberal man ; but that is not the question. I select him only because he is a very large farmer; and I hope lie will pardon me for using his name, but not in vain.) Does he employ as many laborers as would be employed, were all the land lie holds split up into smaller farms of not more than 400 acres each, with a tenant resident in each farm house ? If he does uot do so, then, kind and good as he may be, lie is inflicting a great injury on the country, lie is diminishing, or is helping to diminish, the amount of the public revenue, and is increasing or is helping to increase the local rates. — Observer. 2. I think it important that there should be a good discussion on the subject of the farm laborer, his condition and prospects. As my contribution to it, allow me to suggest that the laborer’s wrongs are in many oases t-elf-in-fiieted. True, when a farm man lias a family, it is well nigh impossible for him to put up against a rainy day. But take the case oi

young men. Why should not they when earning very nearly, and in some cases fully men’s wages, steadily resolve to save a few shillings weekly towards acquiring a more independent position ? If a family of five or six can live on 12s per week, surely a young man earning 10s or 123, per week might save, say from 4s to ss, which would amount to from £lO to £l3 per year. Various suggestions may of course be made as to the best mode of using these savings, but the most desirable appears to me to use a portion in emigrating to a country where labor is much more highly paid, where the rent of land is merely nominal, where thousands of acres are waiting for the labor with which this country is superabundantly supplied. A small capital spent; in immigration must, if properly managed* yield a rich harvest; and besides providing a comfortable home and income for himself, his future wife and family, the emigrant lessens the numberof workmen in thiscountry, renderingit easier for those who remain to find renumerative employment. But now few are willing to exercise sufficient self-denial to enable them to save even 2s or 3s a week. Instead of this, voting men squander their earnings while single, or marry early, thereby putting it out of their power to save money at all, and then follows the state of affairs described in the letter of “ Observer.” I have no wish to assert that the farm laborer is more improvident than many men in other classes. I know the difficulties with which ho must contend are great, bu! not, as I think, insuperable. What is needed is more provident habit, 3, industry, energy, and self denial, qualities but too rare i n all ranks of life. If a farmer by taking several farms is enabled to discharge a few laborers, without diminishing the annual produce of those farms, the profits are increased by the amount of the wages of those laborers, and the wealth of the country is augmented. But if this increase of wealth is spent by the farmer and his wife on themselves, it is clear that in the end the wealth of the country remains the same as'if he had not discharged the laborers. In the one case the increase of wealth, which might be saved and employed in producing more, is enjoyed by the farmer and his wife, and in the other case it is divided among the laborers. No doubt it would be better for the laboring class if the farmer would forego the hunters, &e., and employ more laborers, but in so doing he would be performing an act of charity —lie would be employing a portion of his income for the benefit of the laboring classes. He might benefit them more effectually by employing his surplus in immigration. —Another Observer. 3. Beyond a sense of Christian obligation, which unhappily is not to be in general expected, what motive has the young farm laborer of 20 for being exceptionally abstenious, frugal, honest and industrious P Why should he take pains to understand soils, cattle diseases, and the best methods of cropping and general farming, seeing that he has no longer the remotest chance of being in a position to think and to farm for himself ? Why not marry before he can keep a wife, and drop his surplus at the tap-room instead of the saving’s bank, seeing that his becoming a pauper is only a question of time, and no character he could earn, or little capital lie could put by, would even give time a chance with the selfish landlord, who neither knows nor cares, nor means to know or care, about him ? I forbear saving what such men are preparing and maturing to do for themselves. All these and other moral coming evils and difficulties connected with bloated farm-hold-ings have been to some extent noticed. The following have not : 1. When tho village blacksmith, and wheelwright, and shopkeeper are gone (the two first reduced to the ranks as mere journeymen on the farm, the last superseded by the co operation farm store), how are parish offices to be filled ? how are coron(U’’s, juries and petty juries to be impanelled ? 2. Will not, and do not useful objects suffer, needing help in or outside the parish ? 1 have in my eye a parish of 1200 acres. There were eight small but thriving farmers, true English stock, none of them ever wanting help, but all more or less ready to give it —now and then a stingy one, but the majority could always be depended on. Now the eight are reduced to t. vo, and both are stingy, so the springs of charity are all dried up.—A Third Observer. 4. I do not intend to follow “ Observer” through all the ramifications of his letters, hut simply to state a few facts for his information. As a farmer holding from 5000 to 6000 acres of land, I have several farms I hold off hand, which have come into my occupation ihrough the landlord not being able to find a resident tenant, in consequence of the deplorable state the farm had been left in. I will just mention one special case. A farm of about “ Observer’s” favorite maximum size for resident holding was occupied to my own knowledge, by five different tenants in fifteen years ; each of those tenants took all he could out of the land, without putting anything into it; they employed little or no labor, and at last it was thrown on tho landlord’s hand, with a loss of two years’ rent. I would ask “ Observer” what the landlord did for his property by allowing such tenants, to occupy it ? and what “ Q.bserver” would have done under the circumstances had he been the landlord ? There can be only one reply, yiz ( to let the farm to a man of skill, with plenty of capital, for a given time at a lower rent, in order that the land, which had been starved to death, should be restored to fie. I ask “Observer” how this could have een accomplished without great additional labor ? Observer” appears toconsider that off-hand farming to a large extent is deterimental to the - laborer, his condition and prospects.” I demur to this. I have cited one case only,

a ' thinking it would he sufficient to show “Oby | server” how it is that farms ore held “ offr j hand” to the extent they are at the present'day. . j I could give him many more,instances of the e [ kind. Several of the farms I hold off hand were i pressed upon me under similar circumstances 7 to that I have stated, but by means of capital i I have been enabled to make the land yield 3 me a fair return. f “ Observer” will understand the word capital 3 to mean “ labor,” which is the essence of r capital. Money cannot yield a profit without 7 labor. In my off-hand farms I keep sheep t where no sheep used to be kept; I keep a herd 3 of bullocks where no bullocks were t,j be seen ; . I keep double the number of horses and men , my predecessors kept. I have everything i possible consumed upon the farms instead of . selling everything from them, and the average , wages of the majority of my men throughout , the year upon all my occupations is from 15s . to 16s per week, 1 should not have troubled . myself about “Observer’s” letters but for his r having brought my name bsfore the public in i his letter No 2. , I think your correspondent’s letter No 1. . would have been better appreciated had ho ■ continued throughout to have advocated the i “ condition and prospects” of the labor instead « of showing his dislike to the farmer’s, wives of i the present day, who I have no doubt perform their household duties in their day and gene- : ration quite as well (but in a different way) as . their grandmothers did. “ Observer” tells us what an old man said , to him a few days ago, who had been to every . farmer in the (his) neighborhood in a vain attempt to get work. Well, it may be even so, I but what sort of an old man was it ? Perhaps one who had had as many masters as he had ( seen summers—a man never satisfied. I , regret to eav I have some such in my neigh- , borhood. Good respectable laborers being , scarce throughout the country, it is not neces- ( sary for such to travel far without finding constant employment and good wages. Your cori’espondent apologises for making use of my name in his letter No 2 and states he has not the pleasure of my acquaintance. I therefore invite him publicly to Hutton, and I will introduce him to each of my separate holdings, where old laborers are still alive who , worked for my predecessors, and from whom “ Observer” might get some valuable informa- , tion, so that when next your correspondent ’ sits down to write upon the “ laborer, his con- ’ dition and prospects,” he may be better acquainted with the subject than he at present appears to be.—John Offin, Hutton, July 17. 5. Mr Offin states that in his off-hand farms he “ keeps double the number of horses and men his predecessors kept.” But does this prove that he keeps more than a respectable i tenant and good farmer would keep ? It seems to me merely to prove that his predecessors were not respectable tenants, or good farmers, and nothing more. Indeed he tells us so himself, with respect to one of the off-hand farms which his landlord “pressed on him that “ they took all they could out of the land withont putting anything into it;” that “ they employ little or no labor, and that at last it was thrown on the landlord’s hands with a loss of two years’ rent.” But had his predecessors been respectable tenants, is it not reasonable to suppose that they would have treated the land fairly ? and 1 is it not rather throwing a slur on the charac--1 ter of the Essex farmer to suppose the contrary ? The fact, then, that Mr Offin employs double the number of laborers and horses liis predecessors kept merely proves that he is a respectable tenant and a good farmer, and nothing more. The real question at stake is, does Mr Offin employ as many men and as many horses on these off hand farms as a respectable resident tenant, were there one such in each farm, would employ ? Mr Offin puts two questions to me. First, “ What the landlord did for his property by allowing such tenants (as the five predecessors Mr Offin described) to occupy ?” There can only be one answer. But, perhaps, some blame might be attached to the landlord himself in selecting a tenant. The fact, however, remains ;it was bad for tho land, and unfortunate for the landlord. Mr Offin asks me, secondly, “ What I would have done under the circumstances had I been landlord ?” To this I reply, I would certainly not have let the farm in question off-hand to Mr Offin, hut would have let it at a low rate to some respectable resident tenant —to one who, even though he might not be a man of such capital as Mr Offin, would at all events treat the land fairly. Mr Offin says he could give many more instances of this kind ; but as they would one and all only prove the same thing, viz, that Mr Offin is a good farmer, and that his predecessors were bad ones, I need not stay to consider them. It may then happen that on this one individual farm, or in “ the many more instances of the same kind,” that Mr Offin keeps “ double the number of men, &c, his predecessors keptyet till he informs us what is the total amount of acreage he holds, and the total number of men he employs and horses he keeps, it is impossible to decide whether he employs as many on each of his off-hand holdings as a resident and respectable tenant would employ. Suppose, for instance, Mr Offin to hold ten off-hand farms, and, if lie will allow mo to “ cut him up” (metaphorically, of course), into ten individualities—to place a resident Mr Offin on each of these ten farms, can the indivisible (non-resident in nine farms) Mr Offin | assert that he now keeps as many men, &c, en these ten farms as the ten metaphorical (residents in ten farms) Mr Oflin’s ? This seems the fairest way of putting it. Would not the teu Mr Offin’s each keep a herse and gig ? as it is, the revenue of the country loses the tax of nine horses and nine gigs. Would not those ten families give more work to the village carpenter, blacksmith, &c, ana would they not consume more food, and therefore do more

good to the village butcher, baker, and in fact to all the locul tradesmen, than the one indivisible Mr Offin could or can possibly do ? (I am leaving the fact of a great number of laborers being employed purposely out of the question for the nonce). And, lastly, would not Mr Offin’s brother farmers who have sons and daughters growing up have a better opportunity of getting the former into farmers and of seeing the latter married than they now possess by the ten farms being in Mr Offin’s holding ?—Observer. 6.. Does not one great reason of the want of efheiency in the laborer arise from the miserable deficiency of cottage accommodation. I feel sure that the limited room in 1 He cottages of the laboring poor is the sad cause of the ! low state of morals so evident among them. How is it possible that the hording of the sexes while young can have any other effect? I fear their best feelings are tainted in the early period of childhood. Is there not also another cause—that is, the almost entire absence of a good moral and mental training ? True, many, perhaps most, of the children attend some school, but are they not withdrawn from such influence long before they are at all instructed in the rudiments of even reading, writing, or the first I rules of arithmetic ? Moreover, can the moral j taint that so many so early imbibe he eradi- I cated by three or four years of school training ? | It may well be replied, but this is the effect of j taking them away from school to agricultural j pursuits; and it appears to me that the ! Factory Acts as regards women and children j might be brought partially into operation ; I ; say partially, because from the waul; of ! laborers at certain times of the year they must j be called from the school to the field, or most serious results will follow to tho producers and consumers of fariw produce. To a certain extent the truth has been told as to the ocucpation of large farms having an unfavorable influence, but I cannot think it has much ; for on inquiry it will bo found that such occupiers being as a rule better cultivators of land, employ more hands than small occupiers. Here i let me however state that a more serious injury, arising from large occupations, is the fact that so many families of the tenant class are deprived of the opportunity of having farms, a class too, which by its kindly influence would greatly increase tho sympathy which should exist between the employer and the employed. This, however, only indirectly touches the subject in question, though it must be evident to all that au occupation, say of 400 acres, with the farmer and his family as occupiers, must exercise a more healthy influence, and be locally more beneficial, than the same occupation with perhaps only a bailiff in the house and the rest let off to a moveable population, who only reside at the busy seasons of the year. I ask, can “ Observer” have made himself acquainted with the condition of the labor market when he asserts that there is a surplus of efficient laborers ? I think not, for I cannot agree with him. True, there are times when there are laborers out of employ, and localities where there is an excess. But I do think that this arises, not so much from the deficiency of labor as from the fact that the vast proportion of partially employed laborers are a class of men who cannot be trusted to do their w r ork efficiently. Such men are justly mai’ked, and do not remain in permanent employ for that cause. It is too true that in some localities the labor market is glutted, and that low wages are the result, but the young laborer has his remedy if he will avail himself of it by seeking work elsewhere. From my experience I think that a comfortable cottage and good early moral and mental training would greatly remove from the laboring classes the results all must deplore. I cannot but hope that a healthy public opinion will soon be brought to bear on all classes, for it cannot be denied that there are bad landlords, bad tenants, and bad laborers ; and I trust we are approaching a time when it will be kept in mind as an active feeling that all classes are dependant tho one on the other ; for what would the landlords do with their broad acres without the tenants’ capital, or the tenant without the brawny arm and willing service of the laborer and artisan ?—A.B.C.