While, however, the low wages paid for farm wor may not be defended, it is not difficult to explain then However reprehensible and, in the light of subsequen history, unfortunate was the resistance of farmers as class to the attempts of farm workers to adopt the onl means, that of combination, whereby they could hope t better their condition, they acted only in accordance wit the principles of business then established, in paying n more than the market value' for the labour the required. The rise in farm wages which occurred durin the latter half of the 19th century was mainly due to th fact that at the beginning of the period the number o men in the villages seeking employment was largely i excess of the demand for their services on the farms, an there was no alternative occupation for them in th country districts. This fact is demonstrated by th figures which I recently published showing the relation of the number of agricultural labourers returned at each census in England and Wales to the extent of lan occupied by farmers:

*

As I pointed out in connexion with these figures:

'The census returns make no allowance for continuou employment. A man describes himself as an agricultura labourer, because that is his sole, or main, occupation; but in the old days large numbers of such men were only employed seasonally, and were idle for a considerable part of their time The general practice of "standing-off" men in wet weather enabled the farmer to employ a maximum number in fin weather, or at certain seasons, and to dispense with them when work was slack. . . . In the earlier period there was, in fact, always a large surplus of labour in the villages, but as time went on facilities for transport increased, and the rura

*Food Supplies in Peace and War' (Longmans).

outlook widened. Labour became more mobile, men passed from the country which offered so meagre a living, and the number of agricultural labourers accordingly fell.'

As the number seeking employment fell the level of wages rose; and, the same causes continuing, the average rate in 1914, as shown by the inquiries made into the Wages and Conditions of Employment in Agriculture in 1918, was 16s. 3d.

The exploitation by employers of the condition of the labour market,' for which causes beyond their control were responsible, did not therefore arise from any exceptional dose of original sin, or any peculiar hardness of heart. Farmers acted, as employers in all other industries acted, in securing their labour as cheaply as possible. In other industries there was no amelioration of the workers' conditions so long as the price of labour was determined by the wage which a man out of employment was willing to accept. Farmers, however, strengthened their position by developing a 'class consciousness' and a class loyalty which they resented when exhibited by their men. Many an individual farmer would have raised wages-and some did, often surreptitiously-but for the feeling that it was unfair to do so unless his fellow-farmers would take the same course. The mistake they made was in failing to realise that what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander, and that the spirit of combination and of class loyalty which they thought commendable in themselves was not less commendable when exemplified in others. Much trouble, in the past and in the present, would have been avoided; amongst other things a legal minimum wage might have been unnecessary.

The demand for the establishment of a legal minimum wage for agricultural employment is quite modern. There is no indication of it in the early records of farm workers' unionism. It was first given prominence in the Report of the Land Enquiry Committee, of which Mr A. H. D. Acland was chairman, in 1913. The Committee stated:

It is not to be expected that (a) the growth of small holdings, or (b) increased agricultural prosperity, or (c) Trade Unionism will lead in a reasonable time to a rise in the wages of labourers sufficient to enable them to live in a state of

physical efficiency and also to pay a commercial rent for the cottages. The evidence goes to show that low-paid labour i not really cheap labour. This is shown by a comparison o the low-paid areas with those areas where wages are high owing to the presence of competing industries, and also b the evidence from those who have had experience of farmin both in low and high-paid counties.

'We therefore suggest: (1) That, in order to secure to th labourer a sufficient wage, it is necessary to provide for th fixing of a legal minimum wage, by means of some form wage tribunal.

'(2) That it should be an instruction to such wage tribunt that immediately or within a short and defined period th wage should be fixed at least at such a sum as will enab the labourer to keep himself and an average family in a stat of physical efficiency, and to pay a commercial rent for h cottage.

'(3) That it should be laid down as an essential featur of any legislation dealing with a minimum wage that farmer who is able to prove that a rise in wages had pu upon him an increased burden should have the right to appl to a judicial body such as a Land Court for a readjustmen of his rent.'

These recommendations, with others made by th same Committee, obtained very little support from agriculturists generally, and, indeed, were so immediately involved in the bickerings of party politics, that serious consideration of them, on their merits, became almos impossible. The Report of the Departmental Committe on the home production of food (Cd. 8095) in 1915 referred to the importance of the retention of skilled workers on farms,' but said nothing about their wages In 1916, the Prime Minister (Mr Asquith) appointed Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Selborne with the following reference:

'Having regard to the need of increased home-grown food supplies in the interests of national security, to consider and report upon the methods of effecting such increase.'

The Committee was termed the Agricultural Policy Sub-Committee,' and was instructed to consider post-wa conditions rather than immediate issues. The Repor was characterised by a comprehensive survey of the agricultural problem, and exhibited some recognition of

the fact that the agricultural policy of this country has to be considered from a new standpoint. The Committee expressed the opinion that the conditions of agriculture must be made so stable that out of its profits the agricultural labourer can be assured a fair wage, the cultivator of the soil a fair return for his capital, energy, and brains, and the landowner a fair return for the capital invested in the land'; and they recommended that the State should fix a minimum wage for the ordinary agricultural labourer in each county, guarantee to the farmer a minimum price for wheat and oats, and take to secure the increase of production which is the object of the guarantee.'

steps

This recommendation was at once accepted by the Government, and formed the basis of the policy announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Lloyd George) in the House of Commons on Feb. 23, 1917, and subsequently embodied in the Corn Production Act.

By that Act, an Agricultural Wages Board was established for England and Wales-with corresponding authorities for Scotland and Ireland-charged with the duty of fixing minimum rates of wages for agricultural workers, such rates to be enforceable in a court of summary jurisdiction under a penalty of a fine of 20%., and of 11. per day for an offence continued after conviction. Powers are given to the Wages Board to make the minimum rates applicable universally, to vary them according to districts, or kind of occupation, and to fix rates for overtime. The Board are also empowered to issue permits, exempting from the provisions of the Act workers affected by mental or other infirmity or physical injury. The Board were further authorised to establish District Committees for such areas as they may determine, and they have, in fact, established thirty-nine such

Committees.

Apart from its other implications, the establishment of the Agricultural Wages Board marked a dramatic development in the history of the agricultural labourer in this country. For the first time he was officially recognised, not only as being intimately concerned in agricultural administration, but as entitled to an equal voice with farmers in the settlement of important questions of agricultural economics. It was a sudden change.

Many official bodies had been set up from time to tim to consider agricultural questions, but it never occurre to any one that those who formed the large majority o the agricultural population should be represented in their counsels, or have a voice in their decisions. No and again an individual, such as Joseph Arch, might b called to give evidence before a Royal Commission, o might even have a seat on an official committee. But, i so, he was always in a hopeless minority; and any ide that he had an equal interest, or was entitled to an equa voice, with farmers, would have been rejected.

The constitution of the Agricultural Wages Boar not only establishes the status of the labourer as not les an agriculturist' than the farmer, but it introduces th principle of self-government in agricultural affairs, to degree which is without precedent. Within the limit laid down by Parliament, the Board is independent an all-powerful. Its Orders have the force of law, and ther is no appeal against them or their administration by th Board, except to a Court of Law. Its operations govern in a large degree, the economic relations of over a million employers and workers, and thus affect directly or in directly, the lives of at least five million persons. And this is done by a body consisting of representative equally of farmers and labourers. The pregnant fac that these powers lie, not with a Minister or a Depart ment, not even with the Cabinet, but with agriculturist themselves, is not commonly recognised. It is partly obscured by the presence of a minority (less than one fifth) of non-representative members appointed by the Minister, to whom the actions of the Board are frequently attributed. It is overlooked, however, that if the re presentative members agree-as in the past they have done on many of the main issues-the appointed member are powerless; and that in any case, if they are called upon to intervene, they can only do so by securing & majority of the Board which involves the support, o at least the absence of opposition, of the representative members.

The abrupt intrusion into agricultural affairs of a body so constituted and so armed was naturally very startling. It is not at all surprising, therefore, that the Wages Board has been the subject of severe and