. A FARM LABOURER'S VIEW OF PROTECTION.
• [To THE EDITOR .05. TRE "srsorkioa."] • Susr—As a farm labourer, I choose to call Protection 'False- trade, and think that what is called. Free-trade might be much freer to the advantage of the bulk of the people. I therefore, wish to point. out in what manner and degree the action .0/ Freertrade has affected the farm labourer since its introduction in England. In the middle of the last century, under the action of import-duties upon corn, flour, 1m., the farm labourer worked seventy-two hours a week on most farms ; gradually the number of working hours has been diminished to fifty-two a week upon one high-class training farm, and fifty-six generally upon English farms. By rough estimate the farm labourer works two days a week fewer than he did under Protection. The cheap railway fares and the penny postage were used in these two days' gain of time a week to look-out, for better- paid work. Under Protection at that time the wages of single men in the Home Counties on farina were 8s. a week, and for married men 10s. a week. StoCkkeepers who had- to work in care of stock received lls, a week. Boys' pay ranged from 2s. 6d. to 7s. a week. Naturally, this class of workers- hail with feelings of gratitude that Free-trade which gave them two working days a week, raised their pay to about double, which reduced the price of bread one-half, of meat one-third, of sugar, tea, coffee, and many essentials of the three meals a dAy to a marked lower price. Clothing, boot; in like
manner have been diminished in price, so that it is an impu- dent pretence of political schemers to say that taxing the necessaries of life is for the benefit of the people. It imposes upon few, and entirely fails to interest the farm labourer, except to make him despise am, Sir, &e., J. CHARLES ICING,,
Previous page
