workman as the labourer of Northumberland or Lincolnshire, a common standard of daily wages could be adopted; but the truth is that there is as much difference in the value of ordinary labour in different districts in England as there is in the character of labour in different countries abroad, and it is only consistent with sound economy that this difference should govern the price paid. In making this remark, however, I do not lose sight of the fact, that the price of labour must be regulated in some degree by the cost of maintaining labourers and their families in their own districts, so as to perpetuate and retain the race upon which the produce of the land depends.[1] With respect to wages, it has been my duty for the last seventeen years. when reporting on the agricultural operations of the General Land Drainage and Improvement Company, to inquire into the standing wages of every locality in which works have been executed. In addition to these inquiries, I have recently made others, and have obtained such reliable information, that I believe I am perfectly justified in stating that the present average weekly wages of the farm labourer, excluding extra allowances at hay-time and harvest, and all payments for piece-work and overtime, as well as the value of various perquisites in the shape of beer, milk, fuel, &c, are as follows:
| s. | d. | |
| North-Eastern district | 14 | 6 |
| North-Western district | 14 | 0 |
- ↑ Where labourers are superabundant, it is most desirable that the surplus should move into another district where labour is scarce; but to encourage unions with a view to raise wages in low-paid districts, without improving the quality of the work done, is cruel both to the employed and the employer, for the one will be deprived of the only sound ground of independence while the other will be obliged to pay money for an inadequate return.
