Keywords: Labour; Standards; Farming; Seventeenth century
1. Introduction
Alongside studies set in the industrial context (e.g. Edwards, 1989; Edwards & Boyns, 1992; Edwards & Newell,1991; Fleischman, Parker, & Vamplew, 1991; Fleischman & Parker, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1997), many illuminatingstudies of the development of accounting have focused on the non-industrial arena. In the English context, for example,Scorgie (1997) has conducted a study of the pre-industrial era, analysing the progenitors of modern managementaccounting concepts and mensurations; additionally, there have been studies of accounting and management in a varietyof agricultural settings ranging from medieval manors, through seventeenth century and eighteenth century farming toeighteenth century landed estates (e.g. Britnell, 1993; Bryer, 1994, 2000a,b; Freear, 1994; Jones, 1985; Juchau, 2002;
Juchau & Hill, 1998; Noke, 1981). However, despite it being one of the most ancient and important forms of organisedhuman endeavour (Roberts, 1988, p. 49), agriculture has been subject to relatively little examination by accountinghistorians focusing specifically on human performance measurement and management. Nevertheless, recent research
n accounting for slave workers is illuminating; for example, in their analysis of accounting on nineteenth century slavelantations in the United States and the British West Indies, Tyson et al. (2004, p. 758) conclude that labour “taskingay be perceived as a thematic precursor to accounting-based disciplinary controls like standard costs and a transitory
lement from pre-modern to modern control systems”.Against this background, the current paper aims to examine human performance measurement, management and
ccountability in the context of English agriculture. In particular, the current research presents and analyses a caseased on the surviving documentation (Note 1) of Henry Best who farmed at Elmswell in Yorkshire, England, duringhe first half of the seventeenth century. Best’s “Farming Book is one of the most important documents (availableo) students of seventeenth century agriculture” (Woodward, 1984, p. 1xix), standing on a par (Thirsk, 1984, p. 190)ith the well-known farm accounts of his contemporary Robert Loder (Fussell, 1936). Both Loder and Best were
thrusting. . . farmers” (Woodward, 2000, p. 142) and “Henry Best’s farming and memorandum books. . . give somef the richest descriptions of farm (labour) organisation available for the early modern period” (Sharpe, 1999, p. 168).hilst Loder’s farm accounts have been subject to much accounting analysis and comment (e.g. Bryer, 2000b; Freear,
994), Henry Best’s books are still largely unexplored by accounting historians despite the value placed upon them bygricultural, social and economic historians. The current paper seeks to remedy this deficiency and, specifically, hashe objective of extending research into the history of labour cost management by conducting an analysis of Henryest’s approaches to the measurement and management of human performance. The remainder of the current paper isresented in five sections: Best in context; Best’s operational farm management; Best’s approaches to the measurementnd management of human performance; Discussion; Summary and Conclusions.
. Best in context
Henry Best farmed at Elmswell, in Yorkshire, England, from 1617 until his death in 1645. Although he may belassified as a member of the ‘middling’ gentry (Wrightson, 1993, p. 25), he was a ‘muddy booted’, working gentlemanarmer (Woodward, 1984, p. lvii). The manor of Elmswell amounted to just under 1300 acres, plus the rights of pastureor 360 sheep in a neighbouring area of 500 acres. Of the 1300 acres, Best farmed approximately half himself andented out the remainder to tenant farmers. Sheep and arable farming were important activities for Best; on the arableand his main cash crops were barley, wheat and rye, while oats, peas and hay were farmed to provide fodder for theivestock. Additionally, Best kept bees and a small number of cattle, as well as horses and oxen for farm work. Duringest’s lifetime, English agriculture was a highly commercialised environment (Thomas, 1984, p. 3) which experiencedoticeable improvements in labour productivity. Although the precise timings and extents of improvements in labourroductivity are subject to analysis and debate (Allen, 1991, p. 240), there is agreement that these improvements ingricultural labour productivity enabled not only the feeding of the population but also the release of workers from theand and into industry, thus providing the basis for industrial change and advance (Clark, 1991, p. 212). However thenalysis of improvements in agricultural labour productivity has its complexities: for example, “a rise in average outputer worker. . .could reflect greater efficiency, but could also the consequence of the number of hours or days worked”Overton & Campbell, 1991, p. 14), or of changes in technology or in the mix of human and animal inputs. Wrightson2000, p. 163) argues that although agricultural output rose in the late sixteenth-early seventeenth centuries, “farmersnd those whom they employed raised output above all by intensified effort”. Throughout the seventeenth century,griculture was a highly energy intensive activity and virtually all energy requirements were provided by human andnimal muscle power. Since the amount of energy available was highly related to nutritional levels (Wrigley, 1991, p.25), the farmer who provided meals as a part of employees’ pay packages was not simply acting altruistically: the usef farm-grown food not only reduced the need for cash payments, but also ensured that the farmer had a potentiallyroductive workforce at his disposal.
Although agricultural historians have variously defined five different agrarian revolutions between 1560 and 1880Overton, 1996, p. 1), the seventeenth century is recognised as a crucial period of change, but it has been arguedThomas, 1984, pp. 791–792) that “the change which occurred . . . was . . . not so much technological as mental”.his point is emphasised by Bryer (2000b) who argues that from the mid-seventeenth century English farmers began
o think. Robert Loder is one well-known example of a thinking English farmer of the seventeenth century; his farmccounts for the years 1610–1620 were made widely known by Fussell (1936) and have been subject to comment andnalysis in the accounting literature (e.g. Bryer, 2000b; Freear, 1994). Unfortunately Loder’s sophisticated financialnalyses do little to reveal his underlying practical, working approaches to the measurement and management of human
64 T. McLean / Accounting Forum 33 (2009) 62–73
performances; although Henry Best did not undertake financial analysis, his records do reveal a very deep concernand a considered approach to the measurement and management of human performance and, thus, the current researchseeks to shed light on these issues.
3. Best’s operational farm management (Note 2)
Henry Best’s Memorandum and Farming Books do not provide any evidence or indication of systematic financial orcost accounting: there is neither periodic calculation of profit for the farm nor any financial analysis of operating detailson an enterprise basis; there are no financial decision memoranda, nor any systematic listing of revenues and costs;furthermore, there is no reference in either of the Books to suggest that Best maintained accounting of this nature withinother forms of documentation. In fact the Memorandum Book contains Best’s financial records and here he mingles,inter alia, personal and business transactions, details of personal and business agreements and disputes, receipts andpayments, capital and revenue items, hiring of employees and agreed pay rates, barter transactions, specific personaland business debtors and creditors and numbers of sheep entrusted to the shepherd. It is apparent that the estate ofElmswell was not an accounting entity separate from its owner, Henry Best: Best and the estate were one and the sameand, since Best farmed his own lands, he was under no compulsion to produce formal estate accounts for externalreporting. Similarly, in his study of pastoral accounting in nineteenth century Australia, Carnegie (1995) notes that, inthe absence of external accountability relationships and professional accounting, financial records were not generallyused for the calculation of financial performance or financial position but rather to maintain records of transactions withindividuals in case of dispute. However, although Best’s books do not contain any calculation or definition of profit,they do contain his clearly stated objective of making “profitt” from each of his farming activities (Best, 1642a,b, e.g.,pp. 3, 4, 7, 9, 15, 32) and careful personal attention to the management of Elmswell brought Henry Best a comfortablestandard of living, and enabled him to provide good education and legacies for his family (Woodward, 1984, p. lix).
Like the nineteenth century Australian pastoralists studied by Carnegie (1995), Best sought to guide personal atten-tion by the use of non-financial information for operating management. Best’s approach to the operational managementof his estate is detailed in his Farming Book, a comprehensive manual of farm management, being a distillation ofBest’s lengthy practical experience, his experimentation, his reading and his thinking. In this Book, Best sets out adetailed calendar of farming and estate management, charting life in relation to the changing seasons, the phases ofthe moon and the Holy days of the ecclesiastical year. The Farming Book incorporates a detailed plan of action andassociated control mechanisms for the agricultural year: it explains when and how to raise and sell animals, crops, andagricultural products, let property, assess tax liabilities, deal with local communities, and it sets out detailed informationon labour management. It is clear that Best operated in a developing market economy and understood the nature ofmarket forces and their impact on costs and prices as he sought to find ways to manage his farm to the best advantageCarnegie (1995, e.g., pp. 13–14).
It was noted earlier that Bryer (2000b) argues that in the seventeenth century English farmers began to think deeplyabout farming and farm management and break the bonds of traditional custom and practice. It is apparent that, in hissearch for ‘profitt’, Best was such a farmer; he thought about his farming and departed from traditional practice whenhe saw fit. For example, he noted (Best, 1642a,b, p. 23), that “It is usuall. . .and a custome in some places, to clippetheire lambes aboute the latter ende of June, yet hereabouts wee can neaver finde any profitte that way, wherefore weeneaver use it”. Best also commented (Best, 1642a,b, p. 76) that “Many have alledged that White-wheate is the bestto mingle and sowe with rye. . .but wee find experimentally that Kentish wheate is the best”. Thus, in keeping withmany of his contemporaries, Best not only sought “profitt”, but thought deeply and undertook rational scrutiny andexperiment in pursuit it. The changing social and mental climate is noted by Overton (1996, p. 128) who states that“the change from farming regimes where decisions were communally based, with a strong element of custom andtradition, to regimes based on the individual farmer may have given the more able farmers more scope to improve theirmethods”. In particular Overton points to the importance of “good labour management” in raising farming productivity,and Best’s approaches to labour management are examined in the following section of this paper.
4. Best’s approaches to the measurement and management of human performance (Note 3)
By the sixteenth century landowners had realised that a farm required “almost constant supervision of the labourersif it was to be profitable” (Addy, 1972, p. 8) and Best did exercise “muddy-booted, work-a-day” (Woodward, 1984, p.
latmtwBt
we
4
ifJtArt3pttctatwll
TF
S
F
2
3
4
Y
B12
E
T. McLean / Accounting Forum 33 (2009) 62–73 65
vii) supervision of his workers. However, by 1642 Henry Best had had long experience of farm management in generalnd labour management in particular, and wrote his Farming Book as “essentially a work of instruction. . .intended forhe benefit if (his) eldest son, John, who succeeded to the estate in 1645” and did make use of this text to aid his own
anagement (Woodward, 1984, p. xx). In the Farming Book, Henry Best did not merely detail traditional approacheso labour management; he specified what should be; for example he notes that when supervising the workers cuttinginter-corn with sickles “Yow must call to them to stoupe and to cutte lowe and rownd” (Best, 1642, p. 178). Thus,est thought in a systematic and analytical manner about the employment and application of his labour force and, in
he Farming Book, set out the approaches that should be employed on the estate of Elmswell.Best’s labour force consisted of a core group of farm servants employed on an annual basis, and a variety of day
orkers, other workers and sub-contractors and seasonal price-workers. Each of these categories of workers is nowxamined in turn.
.1. Farm servants
Best details factors relating to the “hyringe of servants” in his Farming Book (Best, 1642a,b, pp. 207–213), pay-ng particular attention to hiring issues, job descriptions and pay rates (Table 1). In addition to working through theormalised and regulated labour market of annual hiring fares, where maximum pay rates were regulated by the localustices of the Peace (Woodward, 1984, p. xxxvii), Best (1642, p. 210) recommended that informal checks be made onhe character, honesty and trustworthiness of potential servants in order to weed out unsuitable candidates.(Table 2).lthough both the formal and informal systems appear to produce a labour market biased in favour of the master
ather than the servant, it may be noted that contemporaries often remarked that, in comparison to other agricul-ural workers, farm servants enjoyed a relatively comfortable lifestyle and financial position (Wrightson, 1993, p.5). When Best’s farm servants were hired they were given a ‘godspenny’ to seal the bargain, sometimes receivederquisites, were paid wages quarterly and received board and lodgings (Best, 1642a,b, pp. 207–213). The job descrip-ions and differential pay-rates of farm servants (Table 1) indicate that Best analysed the labour requirements ofhe farm, distinguishing clearly between male and female, produced specific job descriptions and lists of requiredompetences to fit and then employed the people who met his requirements. The fundamental attraction of serviceo early modern farmers “was that it provided a central core of workers who were available throughout the year atny time of the day or night and that they remained under direct gaze of the master or his foreman most of the
ime” (Woodward, 2000, p. 143). Thus Best exercised direct, personal supervision over his farm servants; however,hen these farm servants were required to work alongside dayworkers in carrying out tasks such as mowing and
oading then Best was also in a position to manage through his knowledge of task methods (Table 3) and outputevels (Table 4).
able 1arm servants
ervant Job description Pay rate per annum
oreman “he bee such as one as can sowe, mowe, stacke pease, go well with fowerhorse, . . . used to marketing and the like; . . . sowing . . . all our seede.”
5 markes and 2s.–2s. 6d. godspenny
nd man “hee bee such an one as can sowe, mowe, goe well with a draught and beea good ploweman, . . . seedesman. . . (go) to markettes with the foreman.”
4 markes (50s.) and 2s.-2s.6d. godspenny
rd man “a goode mower, and a goode fower horse-man, and one that can goeheppenly with a waine, and lye on a loade of corne handsomely.”
7 nobles
th man “good plowman. . . good competent strength for carryinge of poakes,forkinge of a waine, or the like.”
35s.–36s.
outh should be “such an one as have beene trained and beene brought up att theplough, and bee [strong] and [active] for loadinge of a waine, and goingewith a draught.”
4 nobles–30s.
oy “driving of the oxe plough, and (carrying). . . pease.” 20s.st mayd-servante “washinge, milkinge, brewinge, and bakinge. . . sweepe the howse and
wash the dishes.”24s.–28s. and 18d. or 2s. godspenny
nd mayd-servante
xtracted from Best Robinson (1857, pp. 132–136).
66 T. McLean / Accounting Forum 33 (2009) 62–73
Table 2Dayworkers and daily wage rates
Dayworker Daily wage rate
Binders 8d.Cutters of wood and hedges, setters of wood and dykes, wallers and day-taile men
• from the end of threshing time until Candlemasse 4d.• from Candlemasse until Lady-day 5d.• from Lady-day until haytime 6d.• from haytime until threshing time 6d.
Spreaders (women, boys and girls)“bigger and abler sorte” 3d.“lesser sorte” 2d.
Extracted from Best Robinson (1857, pp. 32, 33, 42, 43, 48, 55, 57, 140–144).
Table 3Examples of task methods
Task Method
Mowing “take. . . full breadthes, and cutte cleare att pointe and att heele, otherwise there will be a losse both of time and ofgrasse. . . A good mower will goe the breadth of those broade-landes with a whette, and take a broade-lande and more atfower sweathes, and when he hath done, yow shall scarce perceive his sweath-balke.”
Mowing a good mower of corne. . . “takes a good breadth. . . lyeth his syth well downe. . . settes his corne well”Mowing “In cuttinge of grasse they mowe allwayes outwards, because their sweathbalke shoulde not bee against the standinge
grasse and soe hinder him that cometh next; but in mowinge of corne it is otherwise, for they mowe allwayes into thecorne, and that onely to sette it well against the standing corne for the ease of those that gather after them”
Outligging “A good outligger is knowne by following close unto him that she gathereth after, and likewise by makinge of herbandes; for some outliggers twine theire bandes, and others againe make them of pulled corne; they may make themwell enough either way”
Loading “they first give up the stooke, then doe they with theire forke putte togeather and give up that which is gathered togetherwith the sweathrake; then lastly they sticke down theire forke and take theire wainerake and gather togeather all thatwhich is gathered aboute and likewise that which is lefte in the staddle-stead wheare the stooke stoode.”
Pulling pease “pease-pullers allwayes lye one of theire handes viz.; theire uppermost hand, juste on the ende of the shafte. holdinge itsomethinge under the shafte; and theire nethermost hande they allwayes lye above the shafte; and soe strike they withtheire hooke neare unto the rootes of the pease. . . and then, as they strike, they rowle them on forwards, tumblinge themover and over. . .”
Loading pease “There alwayes goes two folkes with a pease-waine, viz; one to forke and one to loade; and in loadinge of pease theyallwayes lappe the reapes up rownde which they lye in the corners; and for every course they lye on the waine, theylappe up two reapes for each corner, whearof the loader makes one, and the forker makes the other belowe; and giveth itup ready made.”
Loading corne “they goe allwayes to the farre ende of the landes with the empty waines, and loade homewards. Wee have constantlytwo folkes on the stacke, and oftentimes three, viz: the foreman to lye the courses; another to lye the fillinge and fill afterhim, and the third to treade”
Extracted from Best Robinson (1857, pp. 48, 49, 51, 57, 58, 59).
T. McLean / Accounting Forum 33 (2009) 62–73 67
Table 4The number of dayworkers and loades of hey that were in everie particular close
Name of close Number of dayworkers Yield/output
South Wandell “8 dayworkes or will serve one mower for 8dayes”
“five score and tenne grasse cockes, . . .
almost five loades”North Wandell “4 goode dayworkes” “53 (cockes). . . two good loades”Lords-garth “3 sufficient dayworkes” “94 grasse cockes. . . allmost 4 loades”Cunnigarth “4 large dayworkes for a good mower” “nine score grasse cockes which weare 8
loades”Mount-Sikes “5 dayworkes” “seaven score and two grasse cockes, which
weare 5 good loades of hey”Spellowe “4 indifferent dayworkes” “five score and nine grasse cockes, which
were fower good loades”Chappell-Garth “2 dayworkes” “55 grasse cockes, which weare two good
loades”Hither Longe “6 good dayworkes” “eleaven score and six grasse cockes, which
were nine loades”Farre Longe “10 dayworkes” “seaventeene score and twelve grasse cockes,
which weare allmost sixteene loades”Fower-Nooked “allmost halfe a dayworke” “17 grasse cockes”Carre Lane “not half a dayworke” “13 grasse cockes”Three Nooked “two good dayworkes” “three score and sixteene grasse cockes,
which weare three loades”Bramble Hill “4 large dayworkes” “ten score and five grasse cockes, which
were altogeather eight loades”Horse Close “eight dayworkes” not statedLittle Intake “half a dayworke” “17 grasse cockes”Cherrie-garth “4 dayworkes” “seaven score and sixe grasse cockes, which
were five good loades”Sheepe-garth “not half a dayworke” “17 grasse cockes”South “two small
dayworkes”“46 grasse cockes. . . allmost two loades”
North “had each of them 17grasse cockes”West
Fower Oxgange Close next the Cunni-garth “scarce a dayworke” “28 grasse cockes, which weare a verygreate loade”
Fower Oxgange Close next the howse “one dayworke” not statedLittle “one dayworke” “30 grasse cockes, which weare a very
greate loade”
E
4
dwtoblli(tnp
xtracted from Best Robinson (1857, pp. 38–42).
.2. Dayworkers
Although Best’s Farming Book includes comments upon farm servants by name (Best, 1642a,b, pp. 207–213), theay workers are unnamed and little is known of their lives outside of their working ties with Best. In general, day workersere drawn from the ranks of small husbandmen, cottagers and labourers (Wrightson, 1993, p. 33). Husbandmen were
hose who farmed in their own right, working approximately 5–50 acres of land; those with farms at the lower endf the scale sometimes undertook wage labour, for example working for local landlords at harvest time. Although theetter placed cottagers and labourers might hold an acre or two of land and enjoy the traditional benefits of commonand, they depended on wage labour to a greater or lesser extent in order to make a living. Drawing on this pool ofabour, Best was able to hire day workers to cover the many and varied tasks of farming, each type of day work havingts own specified rate of pay, possibly varying according to the season, and the female rate being lower than the male
Table 2). Having established pay rates, Best then set out in detail the method and good working practice by which eachask should be performed (Table 3). Best also set out distinct expectations of output rates for day workers (Table 4) andoted the way in which work groups should be constructed. Means of intensifying the labour process were a constantreoccupation; for example, Best states (Best Robinson, 1857, p. 108),
68 T. McLean / Accounting Forum 33 (2009) 62–73
Wee have allwayes 6 or 7 shearers on a lande, and one man to binde and stooke after them all; and when there is8 hee will not grudge to binde and stooke after them all. . .When wee mowe haver wee allowe to every 3 sythesa binder, and to every 2 binders a stoker. Wee have had binders that did not grudge to bind up 4 sweathes, andstookers to stooke after 8 sythes.
Moreover, Best used his knowledge of the management of day workers to set out specific required rates of outputand manning levels, noting, for example (Best Robinson, 1857, p. 42) that in a day.
one mower will mowe as much grasse as shall come to a loade and a halfe; and one good spreader will spreadeas much in one day as a mower will cutte in sixe. Look howe many haymakers you have, and you may expecktthat there shall be soe many goode loades raked and cocked in a day, as they are in number.
Thus Best not only knew the rates of pay to be applied to each form of day work, but also had expectations of ratesof output. In this way, he was able to establish accountability over the workforce for the level of production. However,he also went beyond this level of analysis in that he also paid great attention to work organisation and methods andthe intensification of labour. Best analysed the structure of work groups, noting how to deploy group members withvarying strengths and weaknesses (Best Robinson, 1857, p. 44) and itemised the skills required of particular typesof day worker; moreover he analysed in detail the methods employed to carry out each particular job. Although Bestdid use piece rates for the payment of sub-contractors and some seasonal workers (Table 6), he followed traditionalcustom and practice in applying day-rate systems for many workers. However, he pursued the control and increasingproductivity of his dayworkers by the specification of work methods and output levels and the intensification of thelabour process, reinforced by his personal supervision of the exploitation of his estate.
4.3. Other workers
Of the “other workers” (Table 5), almost nothing is known of the swine keeper other than his pay rate; the “moorefolks” were seasonal workers who were hired out of the Yorkshire Moors, given board and lodgings as part of theirremuneration and thereafter were subject to normal day work conditions. However, the shepherd was a key worker onbest’s farm, as is reflected by his remuneration package, and much of the Farming Book (Best, 1642a,b, e.g. pp. 1–50)is dedicated to the analysis of sheep farming, dealing with the classification, breeding, management and marketing ofsheep.
4.4. Sub-contractors and seasonal piece-workers
Best’s workforce was supplemented as necessary by tradesmen and sub-contractors, paid on an appropriate day-rate or task basis (Table 6). In the Farming Book, Best presents information on the rates of pay and benefits-in-kindapplicable to each type of labour. Furthermore, even though these people were paid on the basis of day or task rates, Bestmakes detailed analyses of appropriate work methods and expected work rates: for example, in relation to thatching(Best, 1642a,b, pp. 217–219), sheep washing (Best, 1642a,b, pp. 25–29), the greasing of lambs (Best, 1642a,b, pp.46–49) and sheep clipping (Best, 1642a,b, pp. 30–35). In relation to sheep clipping, he states (Best, 1642a,b, p. 31),
An ordinary clipper will make a shifte to clippe three score or threescore and tenne sheepe in a day; but agood clipper; if hee beginne betimes, will clippe fourescore or fourscore and tenne, and that without any greate
Table 5Other workers
“Moore folks”: seasonal workers mowers–3s. per week, plus “meate” and lodgingsbinders–2s. 4d. per week, plus “meate” and lodgingsoutliggers–20d. per week plus “meate” and lodgings
Shepheard 5l. per annum, and 2s. for a godspenny, and “16 ewes and 7 hogges wintered with ours. . . (and) hishogges, ewes and theire lambes summered with ours”
Swinekeeper 12d. or 1s. 6d. per week, depending upon the time of year
Extracted from Best Robinson (1857, pp. 48, 70).
T. McLean / Accounting Forum 33 (2009) 62–73 69
Table 6Sub-contractors and seasonal piece workers
Sub-contractor/worker Rate of payment
Cobblers 6d. per day and “meate”Libbers (gelders) 4d. per colt or bullMolecatchers 10d. per dozen for older moles
4d. per dozen for younger molesMowinge (corne) 2s. 6d. per acreMowinge (oates and barley) 8d. per acreSheep
Clippinge 4d. per score and “meate”Greasinge rate not statedWashinge 2s. per score
Taylors 3d. per day and “meate”TradesmenExperienced apprentice 2d. per dayInexperienced apprentice “meate” only at first, 1d. per day later
Thatchers 4d. per day and “meate”Thatchers’ helpers 4d. per dayThatchers’ drawers of thatch 3d. per dayThrashers
Oates 4d. per quarterBarley 5d. per quarterPease 6d. per quarterWheate and rye 8d. per quarter
Wrights 10d. per day
E
4
huapC1tfnhopa
xtracted from Best Robinson (1857, pp. 18, 21, 30, 114–115, 140–144).
difficulty. . .Our manner is allwayes to look how many sheepe wee have to clippe, and for every threescore andtenne or fourscore to provide a severall clipper. . ..
.5. Social influences
Best was a powerful figure in his small local community of Elmswell, which was inhabited by 70–80 people duringis lifetime. Elmswell was a “closed community, tightly controlled (by Best); there is no evidence of squatters or othernwelcome intruders on the estate” (Woodward, 1984, p. xxxvi). Best’s economic power provided the basis of hisbility to control the local community, but this was enhanced by the existence of his manorial court which had theower to fine those who contravened his rules (ibid, p. liv). However, it is apparent that in this era leading up to theivil War even the less powerful had an already well-established sense of their own individual identity (Macfarlane,978, pp. 195–196): local townsfolk disputed grazing rights with Best (Best, 1642a,b, p. 125) and further oppositiono him arose in 1642 when he built a dyke for sheep-washing in a local brook. The dyke was to be made availableor communal use, and Best requested help from the local community in making it, but “William Whitehead wouldot send any help to make it, but gave the constable, Richard Parrat, ill words, and called him slave when he wishedim to come to help; so that he is not to wash any sheep there” (Best, 1642a,b, Memorandum Book, p. 68). Evenn his own farm, Best advocated some sense of care when dealing with the work-force, for example (Best, 1642a,b,. 70) in seeking to ensure that dayworkers did not suffer financial loss because of the way in which tasks werellocated:
The beste sort of men-shearers have usually viijd. a day, and are to meate themselfes. . . Yett if wee have anyshearinge-worke to doe after that wee are begunne to mowe and chance to take any men from mowinge toshearinge, wee are to give them Mowers wages, viz. xd a day, if they bee such as canne mowe. . . otherwise weshoulde doe them an injury if we take them from theire company, and not make them equall to those in wageswhome they can equallize in work.
70 T. McLean / Accounting Forum 33 (2009) 62–73
Furthermore Best noted the need to fulfil established social customs, such as holding harvest suppers for theworkforce and giving small amounts of wool to the poor. Beyond this, Best gave substantial support to local people intimes of poor harvests. Also, he was emphatic that the value of food that he provided for his workers was far higherthan that provided on other farms; however, as noted above, this may not have been entirely altruistic as better fedworkers tended to be more productive than poorer fed workers. Nevertheless, it is clear that in writing the FarmingBook, Henry Best sought to instruct his son and heir not only in social obligations and constraints, but also in the waysthat the workforce should be managed. Best demonstrated that personal, “muddy-booted, work-a-day” (Woodward,1984, p. lvii) labour management did not take place in a vacuum, but in the context of the developed job descriptionsand the employment of farm servants to fit them, and specified wage rates, working methods and output rates for thelabour force.
5. Discussion
It is apparent that the concept of a standard was known and applied in England long before Henry Best’s life-time.Scorgie (1997) has discussed and analysed the use of standards in a variety of contexts in pre-industrial England;Overton (1996, p. 135) notes the importance of the setting of standard weights and measures in the Assize of Breadand indicates that there is “abundant evidence throughout the early modern period of attempts to enforce it at a locallevel”. Furthermore, by the thirteenth century, in manorial management it “was customary to set what nowadays wewould call a ‘target’, fixing the (physical) return which the land or stock was expected to produce” (Drew, 1947,p. 28). Drew notes that the purpose of this target-setting lay in the sphere of accountability and the prevention offraud. Bailey (2002, p. 103) confirms that the “policy on some estates was stringent, requiring the reeve/bailiff toachieve a specified yield each year in certain areas of agricultural production, and levying a charge if the actualyield fell short of the target”. However, Best was a farmer who managed his own lands and exercised his own,close personal control aided by the knowledge set out in his system of records; his concerns were not those of thehonesty and diligence of managers, but were those of effective management. Such concerns and their relationship withaccounting have been identified by Bailey (2002, pp. 107–108) who notes that although in the early thirteenth centurythe
main reason for compiling. . .accounts was to minimize fraud. . .by the second half of the thirteenth centurylandlords were demanding more of their accounting procedures: instead of asking are we being defrauded?, theywere beginning to ask are we running our estates effectively?, and by these means were seeking to make moreinformed judgements on the benefits of directly exploiting demesnes.
Further, Bailey (2002, p. 109) that by the fifteenth century “landlords had acquired the expertise and the informa-tion to manage their estates more effectively”. Best’s statements on labour pay rates, working methods and outputrates represent the analysis and presentation of information to aid effective agricultural management in the seven-teenth century; they were not ossified standards as used in some manorial (Drew, 1947) or urban labour (Woodward,1995) contexts but were developed specifically and thoughtfully for the tasks in hand. The current research indi-cates that by setting out statements of required pay-rates, working methods and output levels Best specified aneffective system of labour planning and control. This system was directed to the individual worker and was foruse in the effective management and control of the workforce; the system was implicated in Best’s efforts to inten-sify the labour process and to ensure that surplus value was produced by the workers and appropriated by Best.Best’s approaches to labour control predated and anticipated those used in later industrial (Carmona et al., 1997)and slave plantation (Tyson et al., 2004) settings. In particular, Best’s development of required work methods andoutput levels presaged the “early scientific management” (George, 1972, p. 59) of Boulton and Watt’s Soho Engi-neering Foundry (Roll, 1930) in the early 1800s and managerial concerns with time and performance norms inthe Springfield Armory of the 1840s (Hoskin & Macve, 1994). In the scientific management movement of theearly twentieth century, the work of luminaries such as Taylor (1911) and Fayol (1911) sounded echoes of Best’sapproaches to the development of work methods and output levels. In examining Best’s methods for the mea-
surement and management of human performance, the current research provides a further contribution towardsbuilding our understanding of “the precise sequence of development that led to the widespread adoption of stan-dards for measuring human performance that constitute modern management control” (Fleischman & Parker, 1997, p.218).
6
fiprfiwFguoaepfaoips
fpot
CBtMrCo(weo1U
W
m
R
AA
BB
T. McLean / Accounting Forum 33 (2009) 62–73 71
. Summary and conclusions
The current paper has examined the case of Henry Best in the context of seventeenth century English farming. Thenancial records of Best’s Memorandum Book were found to encompass both his personal and business interests,ortraying his expansive view of the accounting entity. This together with the absence of external accountabilityelationships and professional accounting meant that Best did not use his financial records for the calculation ofnancial performance or financial position: the records helped him to keep track of his personal and business dealingsith other people. Best’s Farming Book was written for the benefit of his son and heir, who did indeed use it. In thearming Book, Best details his approach to the operational management of his estate, based on personal managementuided by non-financial information. In relation to the measurement and management of human performance, Bestndertook detailed analysis of labour requirements and associated job descriptions, set out rates of pay, required workingrganisations, methods and output levels. Although Best was mindful of social obligations towards the workforce, hisccounts provided him with the means of ensuring they reciprocated by performing their duties diligently. He sought tonsure that his knowledge of labour management was applied to that workforce in order to exercise control and improveroductivity, and to intensify the labour process. By analysing the approaches of an individualistic and enterprisingarmer in seventeenth century England, the current research provides understandings of the measurement, managementnd accountability mechanisms relating to human performance that stand alongside those derived from the manorsf medieval England, the factories of the British Industrial Revolution, nineteenth century slave plantations and thendustrial enterprises of the twentieth century. In particular, the current paper provides further understanding of therecursors of accounting-based standard costs and the transition from pre-modern to modern management controlystems.
Given the relative paucity of accounting histories of English farming, there is much scope for the production ofurther detailed historical case studies in this context and, specifically, for the development of further studies of humanerformance measurement and management. The production of such case studies has the potential not only to add tour knowledge of the historical development of cost management practices, but also to enable accounting historianso enrich the research of agricultural, social and economic historians.
Note 1: The current author has examined the original documentation of Henry Best, housed in the Humbersideounty Record Office, Beverley, Yorkshire, Great Britain HU17 9BA. The documentation examined consists of Henryest’s Memorandum Book (DDHV 75/48) and his Farming Book (DDHV 75/50). The Farming Book, referred to in
he text as Best (1642a,b), was written in 1642. The Memorandum Book, referred to in the text as Best (1642a,b),emorandum Book, covers the period from 1617 until about the time of the writing of the Farming Book. In the current
esearch, use has been made of two transcriptions of the original Books: Best Robinson (1857) and Woodward (1984).harles Best Robinson, an academic at University College, Durham, and a descendant of Henry Best, edited the Booksn behalf of the Surtees Society, an historical and antiquarian society based in North East England. In a single volumeBest Robinson, 1857), the Farming Book was published in its entirety whilst extracts from the Memorandum Bookere published as the ‘Account Book’. Best Robinson also noted that Henry Best’s working almanac was no longer
xtant at the time of editing. More recently, under the aegis of the British Academy, Donald Woodward, of the Universityf Hull, has provided a complete transcription of both the Farming Book and the Memorandum Book (Woodward,984). Woodward’s text includes an informative introduction and also a glossary compiled by Peter McCLure, of theniversity of Hull.Note 2: This section draws on contextual information provided in the introductions to Best Robinson (1857) and
oodward (1984).Note 3: A glossary is appended. This glossary is extracted from Peter McClure’s ‘Glossary and Linguistic Com-
entary on Henry Best’s Farming Book and Related Documents’ (Woodward, 1984).
eferences
ddy, J. (1972). The agrarian revolution. London: Longman.
llen, R. C. (1991). The two English agricultural revolutions, 1450–1850. In B. M. S. Campbell & M. Overton (Eds.), Land, labour and livestock:
Historical studies in European agricultural productivity. Manchester University Press.ailey, M. (2002). The English Manor c 1200–c 1500. Manchester University Press.est, H. (1642a). The farming book. In D. Woodward (Ed.), The farming and memorandum books of Henry Best of Elmswell. Oxford University
Press.
72 T. McLean / Accounting Forum 33 (2009) 62–73
Best, H. (1642b). The memorandum book. In D. Woodward (Ed.), The farming and memorandum books of Henry Best of Elmswell. Oxford UniversityPress.
Best Robinson, C. (1857). Rural economy in Yorkshire in 1641, being the farming and account books of Henry Best of Elmswell, in the East Ridingof the County of York. Durham: George Andrews.
Britnell, R. H. (1993). The commercialisation of English society 1000–1500. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Bryer, R. A. (1994). Accounting for the social relations of feudalism. Accounting and Business Research, 24(95), 209–228.Bryer, R. A. (2000a). The history of accounting and the transition to capitalism in England. Part one: Theory. Accounting Organizations and Society,
25(2), 131–161.Bryer, R. A. (2000b). The history of accounting and the transition to capitalism in England. Part two: Evidence. Accounting Organizations and
Society, 25(4/5), 327–381.Carmona, S. (1997). Control and cost accounting practices in the royal Spanish tobacco factory. Accounting Organizations and Society, 22(5),
411–446.Carnegie, G. (1995). Pastoral accounting in pre-federation Victoria: A contextual analysis of surviving business records. Accounting Auditing &
Accountability Journal, 8(5), 3–33.Clark, G. (1991). Labour productivity in English agriculture 1300–1860. In B. M. S. Campbell & M. Overton (Eds.), Land, labour and livestock:
Historical studies in European agricultural productivity. Manchester University Press.Drew, J. S. (1947). Manorial accounts of St. Swithun’s Priory, Winchester. Economic History Review, 62, 20–41.Edwards, J. R. (1989). Industrial cost accounting developments in Britain to 1930: A review article. Accounting and Business Research, 19(76),
305–317.Edwards, J. R., & Boyns, T. (1992). Industrial organization and accounting innovation: Charcoal ironmaking in England, 1690–1738. Management
Accounting Research, 3(2), 151–169.Edwards, J. R., & Newell, E. (1991). The development of industrial cost and management accounting before 1850: A survey of the evidence.
Business History, 33(1), 35–57.Fayol, H. (1911). Administration industrielle et generale. Paris: Dunod.Fleischman, R. K., & Parker, L. D. (1990). Managerial accounting early in the British industrial revolution: The Carron Company, a case study.
Accounting and Business Research, 20(79), 211–221.Fleischman, R. K., & Parker, L. D. (1991). British entrepreneurs and pre-industrial revolution evidence of cost management. Accounting Review,
66(2), 361–375.Fleischman, R. K., & Parker, L. D. (1992). The cost accounting environment in the British industrial revolution iron industry. Accounting Business
and Financial History, 2(2), 141–160.Fleischman, R. K., & Parker, L. D. (1997). What is past is prologue, cost accounting in the British industrial revolution 1760–1850. London: Garland
Publishing, Inc.Fleischman, R. K., Parker, L. D., & Vamplew, W. (1991). New cost accounting perspectives on technological change in the British industrial
revolution. In O. F. Graves (Ed.), The costing heritage: Studies in Honor of S. Paul Garner (pp. 11–24). Harrisonburg, VA: Academy ofAccounting Historians.
Freear, J. (1994). Robert Loder, Jacobean management accountant. In R. H. Parker & B. S. Yamey (Eds.), Accounting history, some britishcontributions (pp. 473–489). Oxford: Clarendon Press, originally published, Freear, J. (1970) in Abacus.
Fussell, G. E. (Ed.). (1936). Robert Loder’s farm accounts, Camden Society, 3rd Series, L. III. (pp. 1610–1620). London: Camden Society.George, C. S. (1972). The history of management thought. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.Hoskin, K., & Macve, R. (1994). Reappraising the genesis of managerialism, a re-examination of the role of accounting at the springfield Armory,
1815–1845. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 7(2), 4–29.Jones, H. (1985). Accounting, costing and cost estimation: Welsh industry 1700–1930. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Juchau, R. (2002). Early cost accounting ideas in agriculture: The contributions of Arthur Young. Accounting Business and Financial History, 12(3),
369–386.Juchau, R., & Hill, P. (1998). Agricultural cost accounting development in Britain: The contributions of three men from Wye—a review note.
Accounting Business and Financial History, 8(2), 165–174.Macfarlane, A. (1978). The Origins of English Individualism. Oxford.Noke, C. W. (1981). Accounting for bailiffship in thirteenth century England. In Accounting and Business Research. Spring., pp. 137–151.Overton, M. (1996). Agricultural revolution in England: The transformation of the agrarian economy, 1500–1800. Cambridge University Press.Overton, M., & Campbell, B. M. S. (1991). Productivity change in European agricultural development. In B. M. S. Campbell & M. Overton (Eds.),
Land, labour and livestock: Historical studies in European agricultural productivity. Manchester University Press.Roberts, J. M. (1988). The Pelican History of the World. London: Penguin.Roll, E. (1930). An early experiment in industrial organisation. London: Longmans, Green & Co. Ltd.Scorgie, M. E. (1997). Progenitors of modern management accounting concepts and mensurations in pre-industrial England. Accounting Business
and Financial History, 7(1), 31–59.Sharpe, P. (1999). The female labour market in English agriculture during the industrial revolution: Expansion or contraction? The Agricultural
History Review, 47, 161–181.
Taylor, F. W. (1911). Principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Bros.Thirsk, J. (1984). The rural economy of England. London: The Hambledon Press.Thomas, K. (1984). Man and the natural world: Changing attitudes in England, 1500–1800. London: Penguin Books.Tyson, T., et al. (2004). Theoretical perspectives on accounting for labor on slave plantations of the USA and British West Indies. Accounting
oodward, D. (Ed.). (1984). The farming and memorandum books of Henry Best of Elmswell, 1642. Oxford University Press.oodward, D. (1995). Men at work: Labourers and building craftsmen in the towns of northern England, 1450–1750. Cambridge University Press.oodward, D. (2000). Early modern servants in husbandry revisited. The Agricultural History Review, 48, 141–150.rightson, K. (2000). Earthly necessities: Economic lives in early modern Britain. London: Yale University Press.rightson, K. (1993). English Society 1580–1680. London: Routledge.rigley, E. A. (1991). Energy availability and agricultural productivity. In B. M. S. Campbell & M. Overton (Eds.), Land, labour and livestock:
Historical studies in European agricultural productivity. Manchester University Press.
lossary
inder: one who binds sheavesroade-lande: a length of ridged arable land (or former arable land) between two furrows; in Elmswell this was about 28 feet in breadthaytaile-men: day labourersower: fouraver: oatsooker: a weeder of cornutligger: one who gathers and lays out the cut corn in bands for the bindersoake: a narrow corn-baghearer: a reaper of corntaddle-stead: the place where a stook of corn has stoodtooke: a group of twelve sheavesweath(e): a swath, the stroke made by a scytheweath(e)-balke: a ridge of short grass or corn stubble left between adjacent swaths
weath(e)-ra(c)ke: a large drag rake, the width of a swath, used for gathering the scattered hay or cornyth(e): scytherayler: a dragger of sheep from the penhette: the interval between two sharpenings of a scythe
