From Crow-Scaring To Westminster; An Autobiography Part 5

There was a great crowd gathered outside the hall, my opponents being certain of victory, which they had made every preparation to celebrate.

A bra.s.s band was there in readiness, and a torchlight procession was formed. I was informed the next morning that the band was worked up to such a state of excitement that the drummer broke in the end of his drum, which caused much amus.e.m.e.nt and comment not altogether to the credit of the performers.

The result, however, did not give much satisfaction to the aristocratic party; in fact, they were more bitter than ever. For a working man to run the gentlemen's party so close was more than they could tolerate, for they were afraid that at the next trial of strength Labour might win. Owing to Mr. Bond Cabbell's death another election had to take place, but I decided not to contest the seat again so soon, and my late employer, Mr. R. W. Ketton, came forward and was returned unopposed.

I then turned my attention to perfecting my organization. In the autumn of that year I opened some strong branches at s.h.i.+pdham, East and West Bradenham, Saham Toney, As.h.i.+ll, Earlham, Barford, Grimston, Wood Dalling, Swanton Abbott, Hockering and Weston. We were soon doomed to more trouble. Early in 1893 the men got restless. The employers seemed determined to reduce wages further. Arch's Union was seriously involved.

Strikes took place at Calthorpe, Erpingham, Southrepps, Northrepps and Roughton, and our Union became involved, as we had members on the farms.

Our members also came out at North Barningham, Aylmerton and Alby. A great deal of hard work and anxiety devolved upon me, as I was the only paid official in the Union. Mr. Z. Walker, the only organizer the National Union had at this time, was hardly pressed, as both Unions had members on most of the farms affected, and we frequently met and held joint meetings. I also met Mr. Arch and addressed many meetings with him and we became great friends from that time. We both saw that to have two Unions with the same objects and catering for the same cla.s.s was a source of weakness, but how to find a way out of it neither of us could see.

We decided, however, so long as the movement lasted, we would work side by side without any friction.

The dispute lasted many weeks. The greatest use was made by the employers of the weapon of the tied cottage and many evictions took place.

The magistrates never hesitated when the opportunity presented to grant an eviction order.

In 1893 the Government appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into the administration of the Poor Law. Amongst those appointed to serve on the Commission were the late King (then Prince of Wales), the late Lord Aberdare, Rt. Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, M.P., Henry Broadhurst, M.P., Joseph Arch, M.P. and others. I was invited to give evidence before the Commission upon the following points: Relief in kind; its quality; the amount of allowance; the question of compelling children to support their aged parents. I obtained my facts and prepared my evidence and was called up to London to give it in March 1893. To prove the poorness of the quality of flour allowed by Boards of Guardians I obtained some of this flour and I also bought some of the best flour sold on the market.

Needless to say, the contrast was enormous. The members of the Commission were astonished beyond degree at the poorness of the quality of the flour doled out by the Guardians, and I was requested by the Commission to go back and ask my wife to make some bread from the two cla.s.ses of flour before completing my evidence. This I did, and the following week I took the bread with me before the Commission. The contrast in the bread was more marked even than in the flour. The late King expressed himself as shocked that such stuff was served out to the poor to eat and thanked me for the trouble I had taken in the matter.

Dealing with the inadequacy of the relief, I was requested to give cases of hards.h.i.+p that had come under my personal notice. I presented several cases. One came from the parish of Aylmerton, being that of a widow left with four little children, one a baby in arms. She was allowed 6d. per week each for three children and nothing for the fourth; half a stone of flour each for three and nothing for herself. In those days a widow was supposed to keep herself and one child. This poor widow's suffering was beyond degree, but this was only a sample of the suffering and extreme poverty of those who had lost the breadwinner. The case of the aged poor was even worse. I presented cases, giving the names of aged couples living together and only receiving one stone of flour and 2s.

6d. in money, and of widows (aged) receiving only half a stone of flour and 1s. 6d. in money. In fact, my own mother was only allowed 2s. 6d.

per week and no flour and, further, I was called upon by the Aylsham Board of Guardians to contribute 1s. 3d. per week towards the sum allowed her by the Board, although I was only receiving 15s. per week with which to keep myself and my wife.

I also named several cases of extreme hards.h.i.+p of children being called upon to support their parents. I gave the cases of two agricultural labourers named Hazelwood, living at Baconsthorpe. Both were married men with large families, one, I believe, had eight children. They were both summoned before the Cromer magistrates by the Erpingham Board of Guardians to show cause why they should not contribute towards the maintenance of their aged parents.

I was cross-examined on my evidence for some hours by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. At the close of my examination I was thanked by the late King and the other members of the Commission for my evidence. The Commission held their sittings in the Queen's Robing Room in the House of Lords. When my evidence was published it caused quite a sensation in the country, and I think the report of this Commission hastened on the pa.s.sing of the District and Parish Councils Act. About this time I grew so disgusted with the treatment meted out to my mother that I absolutely refused to contribute any more towards the sum granted her by them. I told the Board they could stop the miserable 2s. 6d. per week and this they did forthwith. My wife and I at once gave notice to the landlord of the cottage in which my mother had lived for fifty years, the rent of which we had paid between us, and I decided to take her to our home and look after her. My sister had the furniture with the exception of the bed on which my mother slept and an old chest of drawers. I kept my mother until she died on February 5, 1892, without receiving a penny from anyone.

In 1894 the Government brought in a Bill known as the District and Parish Councils Bill, which provided for the establishment of a Council in every parish having a population of 300 and over, and the placing of the obtaining of allotments for the working cla.s.ses in the hands of the Council, together with the appointing of trustees for Parish Charities.

It also sought to abolish all property qualification in election as Guardians. Mr. Z. Walker and I jointly entered into a campaign during the pa.s.sage of the Bill through Parliament, Mr. Arch paying as many visits to the county as his parliamentary duties would permit. We also had the valuable a.s.sistance of the English Land Restoration League, as it was then called, Mr. Frederick Verinder being the General Secretary.

The League sent down one of their vans and a lecturer.

The Trades Union Congress was held in Norwich this year (1894). I attended the Congress as delegate from the Norfolk and Norwich Amalgamated Labour League and moved a resolution on the tied cottage system.

At the end of the session the Bill became law, and by the instructions of my Executive I set about preparing to put the Act in force. I held meetings in every village where we had branches of the Union and explained the provisions of the Act. By the time the first meetings were held to elect the Parish Councils in many of our villages we had got our men ready and well posted up in the mode of procedure as to nominations and how to carry on.

The first meeting was held in December in the village in which I lived.

We held a preliminary meeting in the schools to explain the Act. This meeting was attended by the Rev. W. W. Mills, the Rector of the parish, who caused some little amus.e.m.e.nt by his constant personal interjections.

For some years for some reason he had shown a personal dislike to me, and he never lost an opportunity to manifest this spirit of dislike.

What influenced him I never could understand, but he always seemed jealous of my influence in the village as a Nonconformist. A few days after this meeting was held the Rector came to my house to inform me that Mrs. Mills was being nominated as a candidate for the District Council, and I informed him that I was also being nominated. He expressed a wish that the contest might be friendly. I informed him that so far as I was concerned it would. He then accused me of being the cause of the meeting referred to above being disorderly, which I stoutly denied. He then called me a liar, and it looked for a few moments as if we were in for a scuffle, for I threatened to put him out of my house and began to take steps to do so. He at once rose from his seat and rushed to the door before I could lay hands on him, but in getting away he caught my hand in the door and knocked the skin off my knuckles. My wife was in the next room, and had she not appeared on the scene I do not know what would have happened. She got between us, took the Rector by the collar and put him out of the yard. This event caused some little excitement in the village.

At the meeting held for the election of Parish Councillors all the Labour members nominated were elected. We had nominated sufficient candidates to fill all the seats but one, and this was taken by Mr.

Groom, the schoolmaster. The parish of Felbrigg was also joined to Aylmerton for the purpose of forming the Parish Council, and it became known as the Aylmerton-c.u.m-Felbrigg Parish Council. At the first meeting of the Council I was elected chairman. I was also elected on the Beckham Parish Council on which I served for some years, and I was also one of the charity trustees. One of the first things we did on the Aylmerton Council was to obtain allotments for the labourers in the parishes of Aylmerton and Felbrigg. In fact, our enthusiasm to do something was so great that it was the cause of our undoing, for at the next election we all got defeated, and I took no more interest in the affairs of the parish while I lived there.

At the District Council election I beat my opponent by four votes. My wife was elected for the parish of East and West Beckham unopposed, Mr.

Barker was elected for Sustead, Mr. T. Self for Felbrigg, Mr. Walter Towler for Edgefield and Mr. B. Johnson for Sheringham. Thus we started the new Erpingham District Council and Board of Guardians with six direct Labour representatives, which beat the record in all rural England. I was a member of this Council for eighteen years and my wife for ten years.

The reception we received at the first meeting of the Council was rather mixed. Many of the members were rather alarmed at so many Labour members being elected, particularly myself, whom they looked upon as being the leader of the group, and of course I was looked upon as being a rebel, out for revolution, to upset law and order, and to go in for most indiscriminate outdoor relief. Our arrival at the Board was rather late, and on entering the room we found all the other members present discussing the probable events of the day. As soon as I appeared in the room I saw some of the members point to me and remark, that I was "the fellow." Well, it was quite true, we were there for business and to make a great alteration in the administration of the Poor Law. On settling down to work we found the outdoor relief allowed by this Board was as follows: Aged couples, one stone of flour and 2s. 6d. per week, and in a few special cases 3s. per week; single persons, half a stone of flour and 1s. 6d. per week; young widow with family 6d. per week and half a stone of flour for all the children with the exception of one, which the widow was expected to keep as well as herself. We found another shameful practice in existence. If the late husband of the recipient was in a sick club, the widow was requested to show all her bills as evidence of how she had spent her husband's funeral money before any relief was granted.

This seems almost incredible, but it is true. We made an early attempt to alter this scandalous state of things, as the following account of a debate that took place will prove. Although we did not get the improvements we aimed at, still we made some advancement, and it encouraged us to aim very soon at other improvements. We Labour members made strict inquiries into the conditions of the poor. We also found in those days that the Relieving Officers had not advanced far from their predecessors in the treatment of the poor and would take any excuse to deprive the poor of relief. On going to the Board meeting one day my wife found that a poor sick and aged widow had had her relief stopped by the Relieving Officer, the excuse being that the woman had given birth to an illegitimate child. This the officer said he knew to be true as the woman had told him so. This astounded my wife, as she knew it was impossible for such a thing to have happened, and she undertook to investigate the matter. This she did, and was able to inform the Board that the so-called illegitimate child was thirty years of age, married, and a mother herself. Needless to say, we Labour members did not fail to denounce this cruel act for all we were worth and we got the poor woman her money put on again. The Relieving Officer was made to pay her her back money himself and never to come to the Board again with such a story.

The next question we tackled was the relief given in kind. We found that meat tickets ordered by the doctor had been refused in numbers of cases, so much so that the doctors had begun to complain. I raised the question on the Board and I found up a clause in the Poor Law Act that prohibited the Guardians from refusing to give relief in kind ordered by the doctor. It caused a good deal of discussion, but we got the matter put right. The quality of the flour allowed to the poor next came under our notice. One week a poor widow living in my village brought me a loaf of bread she had made from the flour the Relieving Officer had left her that week. One could take the middle out and leave the crust standing like two walls. My wife gave the woman some of her own flour, took the other flour and made it into bread herself, with the same result. I took this bread, with a loaf my wife made from her own flour, to the meeting of the Guardians, and strange to say the Rev. Ca.s.son, living at Mundesley, fourteen miles from where I lived, also took some. We denounced this treatment and all kinds of excuses were forthcoming.

During the discussion it came to light that the contractor was only a journeyman, and that he took the contract for his master. The result of this exposure was the stopping of all relief in kind so far as flour was concerned. The following report of the debate appeared in the _Eastern Weekly Leader_:--

The Rev. Ca.s.son brought up some bread and flour from Mundesley, and Mr. Edwards brought two loaves of bread and three samples of flour from Aylmerton, and they were laid on the table for the Guardians to inspect. The bread had a very bad appearance. The Rev. Ca.s.son moved that the contractor who supplied this flour to the poor in the Southrepps district be named, and that early steps be taken to bring him to punishment, and that his name be for ever struck out from the list of contractors of this Union. The rev. gentleman said that the man who could be villain enough to supply the poor with such stuff as this called flour deserved to be punished to the utmost limit of the law. (Cries of "Prove the flour is bad.") The Rev. Ca.s.son: "I have brought a sample of the bread and flour here, and I will ask any Guardian if he thinks it is fit for human food, and are we as Guardians going to sit quietly by and see our poor served with such stuff as this? It is not fit for the beasts to eat." At this stage the rev. gentleman grew very excited, and was exhibiting his sample of bread and flour, when Mr. Richard Mack, a co-opted member, took the bread and put it into the fire. The rev.

gentleman then moved excitedly that Mr. Mack be named and expelled for the day for his dastardly and cowardly act--(great disorder).--Mr. Mack, he continued, had destroyed the only protection these poor people had.--Mr. Edwards said he rose as a protest against the conduct of Mr. Mack. He had been brought into contact with a large number of people, and he must say he never saw a more ungentlemanly act in his life. He was surprised that any gentleman should so forget himself as to treat another gentleman as Mr. Mack had treated the Rev. Ca.s.son when he was advocating the rights of the poor. (Cries of "shame.") Mr. Edwards: "It is a shame, and I appeal to the Chairman to protect the Rev. Ca.s.son and obtain for him a fair hearing." (Loud applause.) Mr. Edwards added, "Let anyone dare to destroy my sample of bread and I will soon show them what course I will take."--Mr. Towler said he thought it was most unfair that the Rev. Ca.s.son should be interrupted. Surely gentlemen were not afraid these things should be brought to light.--The Rev. Ca.s.son said he felt it very much that Mr. Mack should throw his bread into the fire, as it was the protection these poor people had whose cause he was advocating. Speaking on the flour, he said the complaint did not come from one person only, nor yet from one village, for the same complaint came from Trimingham, and his friend Mr. Edwards had brought the same complaint from Aylmerton, miles away from Mundesley, and he hoped the Guardians would bring the man to punishment that had been guilty.--Mr. Edwards said it was with mixed feelings that he seconded the Rev. Ca.s.son's resolution. He was pleased that he was on the Board to watch the interest of the poor, and he was pleased that the Rev. Ca.s.son had spoken out as he had. He could a.s.sure the Rev. Ca.s.son that he would receive the warm grat.i.tude of hundreds of poor people for the course he had taken. At the same time he very much regretted that any man could be found in this country calling itself Christian so cruel as to act as this contractor had done.

He, Mr. Edwards, had been very careful to bring flour as well as bread, and he had also got bread and flour from different persons so that it could not be said that it was all of one make and was the fault of the maker.--Mr. Waters moved as an amendment that we have some of the flour taken from the other sacks and sent to two or three bakers to test it before naming the contractor. Mr.

Waters said he did not wish it to go forth that he did not wish the poor people to have good flour, but he thought they ought to be sure first that the flour was bad, or the Board might find themselves sued for libel. In his opinion the bread produced was baked badly and the yeast was not good.--Mr. Daplyn seconded the amendment.--Mrs. Edwards said Mr. Waters had no right to speak of the bread in the way he had. The bread which her husband had brought from Aylmerton was made of the same yeast hers was made from, and hers was very good--good enough even for Mr. Waters to eat if he wished; and further, she knew the woman that made the bread, and she could a.s.sure the Guardians she was a good bread-maker. She was sure it was not the fault of the maker nor yet of the yeast, but of the flour; and she would challenge anyone that had any knowledge of flour to prove that the flour produced was good. She could a.s.sure the Guardians that her neighbours and sister working-woman could make as good bread as anyone else if they had the flour to make it with.--Mr. Broadhurst said he hoped the Rev.

Ca.s.son would not press his vote of censure upon Mr. Mack, for he thought he had no ill feeling.--Mr. Mack apologised and said he only put the bread into the fire through fun. He was anxious the poor should have good flour.--Mr. Broadhurst, continuing, said any contractor or contractors who could be found to conspire together to supply the poor people with such stuff as this called bread ought to be brought to book. He would ask anyone if they thought such stuff as this was fit for human food? Why, he would not give it to his dog, much less offer it to a poor human being. The poor ask for bread and we give them stuff fit only to make paste with.--Mr. Waters: "We do not supply them with bread, but with flour."--Mr. Broadhurst: "Oh, very well. Flour, if you like to call it such. I do not. But we have it here on the evidence of one of the ladies that some of the bread is made with the very same yeast that her bread is made with, and hers is good; and further that she knows one of the women who made the bread, and that she knows her to be a good bread-maker. Why should they doubt this Guardian's words? Further, we have bread and flour brought from villages miles apart, and it would be impossible for them to conspire together for the purpose of trumping up a complaint. This affair to-day is another strong argument in favour of giving the poor money instead of relief in kind, and all honour to those gentlemen who have brought this matter before the Board; they will receive the thanks of thousands of people when they read the debate."--Mr. Kimm, the Relieving Officer, said the sub-contractor had offered to take the other sacks back.--Mr. Broadhurst: "Subcontractor! What, do you mean to say that this Board allows its business to be done in this fas.h.i.+on? Do you mean to say that this Board puts out contracts and then allows the contractor to sub-contract? There is no wonder then that the poor people are supplied with such stuff as this. Why, if this kind of proceeding is allowed to continue, this Board will become the laughing-stock of all the country, and further, who are we to put our hands on if this thing be proved? I would like to ask the Clerk who the contractor is?"--The Clerk: "Mr. Tuck of Hempstead."--Mr. Daplyn: "Why, he is only a journeyman miller and works for Mr. Bird."--Mr. Edwards: "Yes, and he is sweated by someone else; that is how this Board does its business."--Mr.

Broadhurst, continuing, said this was a strange revelation, and he was astonished that business men on the Board should allow this kind of thing to exist. Here is a working man made a tool for someone else to sweat, and then he puts it out to sub-contract to someone else, and this someone else sweats someone else. What ever had the House Committee been doing?--The Rev. Fitch rose to a point of order; the Committee were not to blame, as the recommendation of the Committee was accepted by the whole Board. He was a member of the Committee and never knew before now that Tuck was a working man.--Mr. Edwards said he had just found it out, and he thought the Committee ought to have found it out before.--Mr. Waters said the Committee had put out the contract to Tuck for years.--Mr.

Broadhurst: "If that is so it is most unsatisfactory."--Continuing, Mr. Broadhurst asked who the sub-contractor was, and the Clerk replied, "Mr. Press."--Mr. Robins Cook: "Yes, and a very respectable tradesman too, and he would not do a wrong act if he knew it."--Mr. Broadhurst: "There is no one has said anything about the respectability of any man, but this sub-contractor has admitted that the flour was bad."--Mr. Waters: "No, no."--Mr. Broadhurst: "Mr. Waters says no, no, but the letter states that he would take the remaining sacks back, and what is that but admitting it?"--Mr.

Bugden said that if the mover of the amendment and resolution would consent, he would suggest that a committee be formed to inquire into the matter, and get some of the flour from the remaining sacks and make it up and report to the Board.--Mr. Waters and Mr. Daplyn said they would withdraw their amendment in favour of Mr. Bugden's suggestion.--Rev. Ca.s.son said he was not disposed to withdraw his resolution, for it was only an attempt to baulk the question.

(Cries of "Order.") The rev. gentlemen said the Committee had set up a dummy to shoot at. (Cries of "No, no.") Rev. Ca.s.son: "But you have; you only got us a journeyman miller to deal with."--Mr.

Edwards said if Mr. Bugden could a.s.sure him there would be no delay and the matter thoroughly gone into, he would be disposed to advise the Rev. Ca.s.son to withhold his resolution until this day fortnight.--To this the Rev. Ca.s.son agreed.--Mr. Bugden then moved that a committee of five be appointed to investigate the matter and get some of the flour from the remaining sacks and make up for a test, and that the Relieving Officer go home at once and get the flour and seal it up.--Mr. Waters seconded the resolution, and it was carried that the committee consist of Mr. Waters, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Bone, and Mrs. Johnson. It was further resolved, on the motion of Mr. Edwards, seconded by Mr. Farmer, that the poor in the Southrepps district receive money equivalent to flour for the next fortnight.

CHAPTER VII

DARK DAYS

The continuance of bad seasons since 1890, with low prices, had brought about a great depression in agriculture. Thousands of labourers were discharged, and the greatest distress prevailed amongst the rural population. Prices went down to the lowest level. Thousands of coombs of barley were sold at 9s. per coomb and of wheat at 12s. per coomb. Had not the root crop been exceptionally good and feeding stuffs very cheap, which gave them a fair profit on their cattle, many of the farmers must have been ruined. But, as now, the labourer was the first to be called upon to bear the heaviest part of the burden. His wages were reduced to 11s. per week. This greatly dispirited them. They began to leave the Unions in large numbers, and towards the close the Unions had become almost helpless.

The political opponents of the Union saw their opportunity to spread disunity amongst the men. They employed a Mr. A. L. Edwards to start a Union in opposition to the others, and this became known as the Labourers' Independent Federation, which proved to be a free labour organization. The man was employed by the other side. His method of attack was to get the balance sheets of the other Unions. The first Union he attacked was the Suffolk Labourers' Federation, whose General Secretary was Mr. Robinson of Ipswich. Mr. Edwards endeavoured to become a member of this Union, but was rejected. He next attacked Arch in a most unfair manner. After a while he attacked me unceasingly. Hundreds of thousands of leaflets were printed and scattered broadcast, and these followed me about wherever I went for years. This must have cost the Tory Party hundreds of pounds. It had its effect. The leaflets were headed: "How the Labourers' Money is Spent." The men left the Union, and I soon became convinced that the whole movement was going.

In the early part of 1894 a new weekly paper was started in Norwich known as the _Eastern Weekly Leader_. The Rev. Charles Peach became its editor. This was started as an advanced Radical paper; in fact, had it been in existence to-day, it would have ranked as a Labour paper. It was, however, like all other advanced papers, doomed to have a short life. I became a local correspondent and agent, and I at once reduced my Union salary to 10s. per week. This, however, did not save the Union from decay.

The columns of this paper were open to every phase of the Labour movement. Stirring articles appeared in the paper week by week aimed at encouraging the labourers. I worked hard to push its sale amongst the labourers and for a few months it went well, but early in 1895 it became evident that it would have to go under.

By the end of 1894 the condition of the people had become considerably worse. Arch and myself had become terribly disheartened. We met to discuss the best thing to do to keep the Unions alive. His sick benefit side had become insolvent. The trade and industrial departments had borrowed money from the sick fund, contrary to rule. Great friction arose between Arch and the trustees of his sick fund, Mr. George Mitch.e.l.l and Mr. Howard Evans. They locked up the funds, a law suit followed and the two trustees at once resigned. Happily for us we had no sick fund connected with our Union. Arch and myself agreed that we would continue for another year, if we could, and undertook to write an article in the papers pointing out the conditions and urging upon the labourers the necessity of banding themselves together and, if possible, to attract public sympathy. I wrote as follows to the _Weekly Leader_:--

The year 1894 has gone and 1895 has had its birth this week. I propose to still further comment upon the condition of the workers for the purpose of throwing further light upon the subject and enlightening the mind of the public upon this most important problem, for it is every day evident that one-half of the world does not know how the other half lives. First let us look at the conditions under which the agricultural labourer works and lives.

His work is not only laborious but its very nature must necessarily be unhealthy. He is exposed to the scorching rays of the sun during the summer months, but also exposed to all wets and colds during the winter months. During the summer months in many cases the labourer leaves his home at the early hours in the morning to enable him to reach his work by six in the morning, and very often the first greeting he receives is a surly growl from his employer.

He goes to work, and his hours of labour are from five in the morning to five in the afternoon. In the winter his work is from the dawn of daylight to its close. It is only those who have experienced it can possibly have any knowledge of the conditions under which the agricultural labourer works and the suffering and privations he has to undergo in performing his daily task. It is quite fresh to the mind of the writer of these comments when he had to shelter beneath a hedgerow to be screened from the piercing winds, and his teeth have chattered in his head, and many a time has he been soaked through with wet.

The labourer's home after his day's work is done, if a home it can be called, is of the worst kind. Although, through the industry of the wife, it is a great deal more comfortable than one might expect, considering the scanty income and the wretched condition of the cottages in which they have to live. Very often during the winter months the first thing that has to be done after his return home is to strip himself of his wet clothes, and the wife has to place them in front of the small fire to dry them fit for the morning, and the small room is made damp. The houses in which the labourer has to live are neither sanitary, water-tight, nor wind-tight. In a house where I was staying a few days ago the poor people informed me that only a few nights previous they found themselves suddenly awakened by their bedclothes being soaked by the water that was coming through the roof. Can it be wondered at, then, that sickness is so prevalent amongst the workers? This description is no idle fable. In many cases the labourer barely ever sees his children by daylight, except on Sunday. But even those cottages, in spite of their wretched condition, the labourer has to hire under such conditions as cannot fail to place him in a position of the most abject slavery, and cause his wages to come down to the lowest minimum, stunt his intellect, and affect his morals. Under the present social system the labourer feels compelled to look upon the man who employs him as a benefactor, and also to feel himself under some obligation to him. The unscrupulous employer is quick to see this, and soon looks upon it as the natural order of things that it should be so, and that he is quite right in treating his men in this manner, and in paying them just what wage he pleases, without thought or care whether they are able to keep body and soul together.

There have been so many men running about our county endeavouring to impress upon the minds of the working cla.s.ses that Trade Unions are of no benefit, except to keep a few men with a living, that I am prompted to say a word or two. This idea has taken hold of a number of men, and thousands of labourers in Norfolk have become indifferent about the matter during the past year, whilst those who have been the means of upsetting them with their Free Labour Federation have made no attempt to improve the position of the labourers of this county. Everyone sees now that these parties are kept by political agents, and their only object is to get the labourers divided so that they may get a political advantage at the next General Election. The reason I speak out so plainly is this: If you watch the papers you will find that the men imported into this county during the past twelve months to upset Trades' Unions are generally employed at bye-elections. The Brigg election is a witness to this a.s.sertion. We have no cause to be ashamed of the history of Trades' Unions; their object was to demand a living wage for work performed, and also for gaining social and political reforms all along the line. Have we succeeded? I contend we have, and have done more for the improvement of the working cla.s.ses than all the blackleg crew from Suffolk or any other county. We may not have succeeded in every fight that we have been engaged in, but the reason for it has been because the men have not been united. Look at the miners' struggle last year, it was most severe, and showed to the country the power of combination and endurance on the part of the sons of toil. Have not these men benefited by their Union? I contend that they have, and the same benefits might be derived if all the labourers were united in this country. Their object would not be to crush the farmer, but to have a standard wage, which should be a living wage, and not subject to alterations two or three times in the year. By their combination they could enforce this, and it would be more satisfactory to all parties concerned.

Moreover, we should have less petty little strikes which accomplish nothing. It is only by combination that you can demand a living wage, and I contend the present advantages which the men enjoy are mainly due to the work of the Union in the past. We not only went in for the wage question, but also for political power, and to-day we enjoy it. The labourers have the vote and can put whom they choose into Parliament to represent them, and they have had pluck enough in this county to put a labourer into Parliament to represent one of the divisions, and I may say he represents the whole county of agricultural labourers, and is ready to serve them in that house at any time when their questions come up.

Unemployment amongst the labourers increased. The Government of the day appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into the cause of the depression in agriculture and sent inspectors into the various counties to hold inquiries. Mr. (now Sir) Henry Rew was sent down to Norfolk, and I attended before him and gave evidence, upon which he commented in giving his report. Nothing, however, came out of the Commission's report. The fact was it was too big a question for the Tory Government to tackle.

During the winter I attended several meetings and gave advice. I told the men if the employers would not employ them they were not to starve, but to throw themselves and their families upon the rates. Many of them did. On my own Board I moved a resolution to put into force an old Act of Parliament that enabled the Guardians to hire fifty acres of land on which to set the unemployed to work and to pay the men labourers' wages.

This, of course, was defeated, but I warned the Board that the day was not far distant when they or some other authority would have to deal with the problems of the land and the unemployed, for the men would not starve. On May 26th the following article by me appeared in one of the Norfolk papers, showing the acute stage the question had reached:--