In the second of a three-part series, on consecutive Mondays, examining the history of agricultural workers’ conditions of employment and the continued case for the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board, the focus is on labour relations in 19th century farming.

By the middle of the nineteenth century there were about 200,000 wage-earners working on the land in Scotland, two-thirds of them on the 10,000 farms with the largest staffs.

According to George Houston in his interesting article "Labour Relations in Scottish Agriculture before 1870" the great majority were hired for periods of six months or one year, new engagements often being arranged at feeing markets held regularly in many districts.

All types and grades of farm workers received a large part or in some cases the whole of their wages in kind. Unmarried servants generally boarded in the farmhouse or lived in an outhouse ("bothy"), while married servants lived in "tied" cottages on the farm.

As I explained last Monday, although workmen were nominally free, the level of wages and conditions of work were regulated by law, and the workmen's freedom of movement, even at the conclusion of a contracted period of service, was severely limited. Justices of the peace set conditions and terms of employment for their counties.

By the end of the eighteenth century the level of farm wages in Scotland was no longer regulated by formal decree and workers out of service were free to choose their masters or their work without interference by the justices. Labour contracts in farming were invariably informal and verbal, and, apart from the cash element in the wages which often varied, were based on the customary practice of the district.

The influence of the justices was exerted through their interpretation and operation of the law on master and servant. Offending employers and workmen were not treated equally under this law, the former being liable in a civil action for damages or wages owing, whereas the latter could be sent to prison as criminals.

Prior to the act of 1823, disputes between masters and workmen in Scotland were settled under common law, a feature of which was that servants could be imprisoned in order to enforce a contract of service. The practice was to send the servant to jail until he found security to fulfil his contract - a procedure which might mean a fairly long sentence.

After 1823 action against servants in Scotland, as well as in England, was generally taken under the statute in that year which allowed three possible methods of dealing with offending workmen. They could be sent to a house of correction and held to hard labour for any period up to three months; their wages could be abated, or they could be discharged.

In his evidence to the Select Committee set up in 1865 to consider the law on master and servant, Sherriff Barclay of Perth stated that servants in Scotland were still occasionally imprisoned under common law "as a sort of terror".

Contemporary accounts of a number of disputes between farmers and their servants taken to courts of law provide useful evidence on the state of labour relations in Scottish agriculture in the nineteenth century. Farm workers were at an initial disadvantage in such disputes, for the cash part of their wages could be retained by their employers until the end of the agreed term of service. If a disagreement arose and the worker left his employer or was dismissed, he found it very difficult to obtain the wages owing him for the period actually worked.

If he had taken the initiative in leaving his employer he would not only lose his wages but would run a serious risk of being brought to court by the farmer and might be sent to prison, fined, or ordered to return to his service and provide surety for his good conduct.

If he had been dismissed and took his master to court, he had to show that the dismissal was unjustified, which generally meant proving that a certain order of the farmer was "unreasonable". Even when the servant managed to convince the court on this point, he might find that he had to pay a sum for his own and the farmer's legal expenses which exceeded the wages owing to him.

A farm worker had to leave his tied house when dismissed - if he considered the dismissal unjustified he could sue for damages but must leave his house.

Sadly, the individual farm servant was in a very weak bargaining position with his employer and could expect little assistance from the law or the courts in any attempt to improve his position.

Next week: The formation of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board.