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 Mitchell 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 classes 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 assertion. 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 classes 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:--

My friend Mr. Z. Walker, commenting on the labour question in one
of the Norfolk papers, made a statement in reference to the above
question which if true--and my experience will re-echo the same
thing--will cast a stigma upon our boasted civilization. Mr. Walker
stated that he knew of cases in Norfolk of young men who are in the
Union workhouse for no other cause than that the farmers will not
employ them, and that other men are quite willing to work, but find
it hard to obtain employment. Now, the question that presents
itself to one's mind is: Is it right for men to starve and remain
idle while the land is thirsting for labour? And I should say every
right-thinking man will answer "No," emphatically "No"; and those
young men named by Mr. Walker took the wisest course--far better
than migrating to the large towns, to unduly compete with their
fellow workmen. Nevertheless, it is a disgrace to the age in which
we live that men should be found willing and anxious for work, but
unable to find it.

This question of the unemployed is daily taking a more serious
aspect. Year by year this menacing army of unemployed is on the
increase, not only in this country, but in every other country, go
where you may, and whatever form of Government it is, democratic or
autocratic. Even in America, where everyone has equal political
rights, and where we are told the Presidential chair is open to any
man who has the ability and tact to work himself up to it, however
humble his parentage may be, the question of the unemployed is
becoming so serious that men stand and look on with amazement, and
the wildest schemes are propagated as a remedy--schemes which if
carried out would throw society into disorder and confusion.

Various have been the reasons given for the existing state of
things. In England we are told it is our fiscal policy, known as
Free Trade, while others say it is our monetary system. In America,
a highly protected country, reformers say it is Protection and
advocate Free Trade. The same thing exists in all the nations in
Europe. With this state of affairs, small wonder that some men are
beginning to think that it matters not what form of Government we
have. Various reforms have been passed in recent years which have
been beneficial in themselves, but they do not seem to have touched
the fringe of the question; still the bitter cry of poverty is
heard from the workless ones, and still we are horrified by the
fact that men and women are driven to despair and to take their own
lives, while others are urged to commit most dastardly acts. The
Local Government Act will do something to alter the present evils
if the workers take proper interest in it and put men on the
District Councils who are in touch with them, and it will go a long
way towards establishing the right of the people to use the earth.

But we must have something far more drastic than that: we must go
to the root of the matter; everyone who has the true interest of
the country and the cause of humanity at heart must set himself to
work to find out the cause of the evil, and when once this is done
must approach the question with an unselfish spirit, and however
drastic the reform may be that is necessary it will have to be
done. I confess that I hold more advanced views on the land and
other social questions than some of the Labour leaders, but that is
brought about after having watched every movement that has been set
on foot for the abolition of human suffering and carefully studying
the various arguments used in advocating various schemes to deal
with social problems and the various causes assigned for the
present state of things.

I am satisfied that nothing will ever prove effectual but the
abolition of our present land system. This huge monopoly has, like
Belshazzar, been weighed in the balance and found wanting. All
history condemns the idea that a few people have absolute right to
the use of the earth, to the exclusion of the rest. History informs
us that landowners were simply trustees to the State for the land
held, and were under the obligation to provide and equip at their
own cost the defences of the nation, besides having other onerous
dues to pay and duties to perform. But gradually the landholders,
who are now called landlords, after having seized all public and
Church property they could lay their hands upon, shifted these
burdens from their own shoulders on to those of the people. The
existing land system places the landlords in the position of
antagonists of the general public, and the people are thrown into
the grasp of a huge octopus, which is dragging them down to despair
and the workers to the depths of misery, crippling the trade and
commerce of the world.

This landed system, which has grown up under successive Kings and
Governments, and is now upheld by bad laws, is a crime against the
people; it is a violation of Divine order and of the inalienable
rights of mankind. It has created pauperism, that awful evil which
inflicts an injustice and cruelty upon the honest workers and
drives one out of every four into the Union workhouse. Farmers are
ruined and willing workers are cast off the land they would gladly
cultivate to seek a miserable existence in overcrowded cities,
where their presence aggravates the miseries already existing. This
system is a danger to society, and if not speedily remedied must
bring disastrous consequences.

This question of the unemployed and the social well-being of the
people is strictly a religious one: When I first entered into
public life some of my closest friends with whom I had been in
Christian society for several years were astounded when on one
occasion I preached a sermon on the Labour movement on the Sunday,
and I was severely taken to task for so doing. Some months before,
yielding to the wishes of the labourers to champion their cause, I
seriously thought the question over, as I felt that I could not on
any account engage in anything that in any way clashed with my
Christian principles, and it was because I was convinced that the
great disparity existing in the social condition of the people and
the gross inequality in the distribution of wealth were contrary to
the Divine wish, and that the benevolent intentions of God were not
being carried out, that I gave way to the wishes of the labouring
men to advocate the cause of the honest toilers. I consider that
every time I attend a Labour meeting I attend a religious service
in the strictest sense of the word. What movement can be more
sacred than the one that has for its object the uplifting of man,
the beautifying of human nature, and the restoring of that likeness
and image of God which man has so long lost? Poverty is the cause
of so much evil and degradation. Poverty is the prolific mother of
vice, disease, and all that is vile and ungodlike. Poverty, then,
is what we are trying to abolish. What we claim is this, then, that
the question of the poverty of the people, brought about by the
selfishness of man and the undue haste of the few to get rich at
the expense of the many, is a religious question, and it will not
be until we get pure homes, sanitary houses, good living, good
work, and sufficient to keep every man employed with a good and
fair living wage that we shall ever hope to have a healthy and
purified state of society; never until all classes truly realize
the iniquity of our present social system, and the morality of
Christ's Gospel finds a lodgment in our hearts, can we hope to make
men think and act as men; never until the religion of humanity
enables us to claim succour for the little ones, manhood for
ourselves, and justice for the oppressed shall we ever have a happy
and pure nation.

In spite of the indifferent attitude of those we represented, my wife and I pressed on with our work on the Board. She was elected to the House Committee, which gave her an opportunity to find out many of the existing abuses in the House. One abuse was the treatment meted out to the poor unfortunate girls whose lot it was to go into the House for confinement. A system of punishment had sprung up in such cases. The Guardians appeared to have come to the conclusion that it was their duty to punish the girls severely, many of whom were more sinned against than sinning. In fact, the Poor Law encouraged them to do so; hence the poor girls were set to do the hardest work that could be found them. They were often kept at the wash-tub when they were not fit to be there. On one occasion my wife paid a surprise visit to the House and found a poor girl hard at work in the laundry who she thought would have been in the infirmary. The girl said she was there only five days. My wife raised the question at the next meeting of the committee and said some very straight things and protested very strongly. Some of the members said they were surprised that my wife should not be in favour of punishment, for they must put down immorality. My wife retorted that she was not encouraging immorality--in fact she had endeavoured to set her poor sister an example--but she was against cruel treatment being meted out to her poor unfortunate sisters and, unless the practice was stopped, she would raise the whole question at the full Board. This practice was at once stopped, and after that no girl was ever set to work until at least twelve days had elapsed after her confinement. The tramps next came under our notice. We found they were set to work to pick an almost impossible quantity of oakum, and if they failed to pick the allotted quantity, they were kept in the tramp ward for two days. Despite this the Guardians lost money on the business. We raised the whole question and moved that the business should be abolished. The strongest opposition to this being done was raised and at first we were defeated. But we kept at it and finally we got it carried. I also found that the tramps were kept none too warm. One Sunday afternoon I paid a surprise visit to the tramps' ward, and on a cold November evening I found there was no fire in the ward. I denounced this inhuman treatment at the Board. Again the old idea was trotted out. These parasites, living on the community, must be punished. I replied with the stinging retort that the tramps were not the only people born tired, and I moved that in future during the winter months there should be a fire in the ward. After a good deal of discussion this was carried. The next subject we tackled was the old peoples' dress. We moved that the distinctive dress should be abolished and that the old ladies should be dressed in a more homelike way. This was also adopted, but I don't think the old ladies took to it very kindly. Still it was a step in the right direction. The dietary table was taken in hand, and a great improvement was made in this direction, and month by month we gradually increased the out relief.

An amusing incident happened to me one Sunday when I was conducting a religious service in a little chapel. A poor old widow sat right against the pulpit. Her out relief had been increased from 1s. 6d. to 3s. per week. After I had finished the service the old lady came up to me, put her arms round my neck and, as innocently as a child of two, kissed me and pronounced God's blessing upon me, saying she hoped I would live for ever.

Early in 1896 a Poor Law conference was held at Norwich, and the Board unanimously elected me as one of their representatives. I was put on almost all the committees, for by this time a much better feeling existed on the Board. We began to understand each other and we gave each other credit for honest intentions.

Under the District and Parish Councils Act the Guardians were also deemed to be District Councillors, except those living in urban districts. The Council became the Highways Authority and took over all the parish roads. They also became the Sanitary Authority. I was put on the committees for these purposes and our first fight for Labour commenced. As the Highways Authority, the Council became a large employer of labour, and when we came to fixing the wages and hours a stiff fight commenced. I moved that the men should receive 2s. 6d. per day or 15s. per week. This proposition filled the employers on the Council with alarm, and we were met with the point that, if we paid that wage, all the labourers would become dissatisfied and would want the same, and they could not afford it. I retorted that it was the duty of the Council to set an example and pay a living wage. This was defeated, but we did manage to get passed that the roadmen received 1s. per week more than the labourers. In the course of two or three years we tackled the housing question, and before I left the Council in 1910 we had adopted Part III of the Housing Act and had built houses at Briston and Edgefield. I look back with more pleasure to the work I was able to do for my class on this Board and Council than to any other work I have done during the whole of my long public life. I had the satisfaction of knowing that comfort and pleasure was brought into many a poor old person's home.

We commenced the year 1895 with a very large decrease of members. Our balance sheet showed our income to be down nearly 50 per cent., and although I had my salary reduced from 18s. to 10s. and the Executive had cut down expenses by one half, our savings were very small. We had several small disputes. The Executive thought they would have one more effort to revive the Union. Again the English Land Restoration League came to our aid and sent another of their vans and a lecturer down free for the summer months. Many villages where branches had fallen through were visited. Thousands of leaflets on land and labour questions were distributed by the League. The Tory and capitalist party worked equally hard the other way. At first they devoted all their energies against Arch and published most scandalous leaflets about his balance sheet that shocked every fair-minded man in all political parties. I was the first to publish the balance sheet of 1894. No sooner had I done this than they attacked me more ferociously than they had done Arch. They manipulated the sheet in a shameful manner, so much so that even the employers were ashamed of such tactics. It had, however, its desired effect and by the end of 1895 both Unions had actually become defunct. During the year I went without my 10s. per week, knowing the Union would collapse within a few months, and I received my income from the _Weekly Leader_. On December 7, 1895, I wrote to the _Leader_ the following open letter:--

FELLOW WORKERS,--The year of 1895 is fast slipping beneath our
feet, and it becomes us all who are in any way interested in labour
to take a retrospect of the past months, and also to take a view of
the present condition of the working classes, in order that a
correct impression of the condition of the labouring classes during
the year 1895 may be obtained. As one of the much despised Labour
leaders I feel that the time has come when we must speak out
plainly to the working men, and show them their exact position.
Now, first I wish to point out to you that so far as combination is
concerned, and the means to help yourselves to resist unfair
treatment, you stand in a far worse condition than you did at the
commencement of the year. You were then in a wretchedly
disorganized condition--not more than one out of every four of the
labourers being in an organization of any kind--but to-day you are
in a far worse state of disorganization, and you are altogether
powerless to help yourselves in any way; and what is far worse,
there has been growing up amongst you a spirit of distrust and
prejudice, until to-day your ranks are all chaos and confusion. You
seem to be like Ishmaelites, every man's hand turned against the
other. I must confess that I for one did expect better things of
you. With the District and Parish Councils Act just coming into
force, I hoped that new life would rise amongst you, and that you
would endeavour to make the most of the opportunities that
presented themselves to you, and that by this time you would have
been in a much better position. But my hopes have been blighted and
now I despair of you. All hopes that you as a class will make any
effort to lift yourselves from your down-trodden state have
vanished. Such being so, many of us are seriously considering
whether the time has not come for us to step out of the field and
leave you to fight your way the best you can. Now, so far as the
actual state of Labour is concerned, your outlook for the future is
most gloomy for reasons already stated, and at present the
condition of labour is not very much improved. At the commencement
of this year your wages as agricultural labourers were 10s. per
week; flour was 11d. and 1s. per stone. At present your wages are
10s. per week, and flour 1s. 2d. and 1s. 3d. per stone, and thus
with a family using five stones of flour per week, as hundreds of
you do, your purchasing power is reduced 1s. 3d. per week. You were
told in July last that it would be otherwise; you were led to
believe that if there was a change of Government, and the farmers
made more of their produce, you would get higher wages. No other
evidence is needed of the foolishness of your conduct, as your past
experience ought to have told you. It is only by having a good
organization at your back that the farmers will ever pay you a
higher wage, and there is nothing unnatural in that. The farmer is
a merchant: he has your labour to buy, and he will always buy it as
cheaply as he can. That is so long as our present individualistic
system remains, and labour is used for the sake of profit-making.

Mr. Rew, the Assistant Commissioner on Agricultural Depression,
said in his report, that if the labourers had never heard of a
Union they would have had to put up with a less wage than 9s. or
10s. per week; but fortunately or unfortunately, Mr. Rew has not
lived as long as some of us have; neither has he had the same
experience as we have. There is abundant evidence that when the men
in Norfolk were well organized they received a much higher wage,
and that they did not get it until they did organize; and the fact
does not indicate that economic forces rule the labourers wages.
The facts are, then, that so far as the condition of the labourer
is concerned, they will close the year 1895 worse than they began,
that is to say so far as wages and their purchasing power is
concerned; and Heaven only knows it was bad enough before. It is
not many weeks since a labourer's wife told me that after she had
bought flour and coal she had only sixpence left. I should like
those who are constantly harping upon the comfortable conditions of
the labourers to take a round with me once a week and get a glimpse
into the labourer's cottage. They would be able to detect at a
glance the amount of poverty which exists amongst the working
classes. They would soon see there was not much waste in the
labourer's kitchen. They would see that so far as the labourers
having the best end of the stick their share in the business is
very small. It is to be hoped that the working men will seriously
consider the position, and endeavour in the near future to better
it. I have spoken out the plain, cruel, honest truth; I hope it
will have the desired effect.

Arch's Union was by now completely gone. My Executive was seriously considering winding up the whole thing. The funds of both districts had become exhausted, as also had the central fund, hence the Union existed only on paper. They decided to let the matter remain a few weeks more, and commence another year if only on paper, and in the last issue of the _Leader_ for 1895 appeared the following article by me:--

By the time this week's issue of the _Weekly Leader_ appears the
year 1895 will have passed away and 1896 will have been ushered in.
It will do us no harm, especially the rural workers, to look at the
condition of labour and ascertain, if possible, its true condition.
We have constantly dinned into our ears that there has been such
improvement made in the condition of the workers these last few
years that there is nothing left to be done. We are told the life
of the workers is all that can be desired. Now, in commencing to
review the life of the toilers I have no wish to infer that there
have been no improvements in the working classes; far from it, for
the various political reforms that have been passed these last few
years have had a tendency to give labour a stake in the country.
But even these have not brought those unmixed blessings as many
would have us believe they have. In fact, I think it can be shown
that in some respects each political reform has had a tendency to
fetter labour and somewhat enslave it, because these political
reforms have left loopholes for the landlords and capitalist to
tyrannize over them. With the enfranchisement came the system of
letting the cottages to the labourers at a fortnight's notice, and
by so doing instead of the enfranchisement of the people giving
Labour a free hand, it bound Labour tighter; and the last great
reform of 1894 has given the landlords and employers an opportunity
of tyrannizing over the workers in such a way as was never dreamt
of by the promoters of the Bill. Thus, instead of the government of
our villages being in the hands of the people, it is in the hands
of a wealthy clique--for the simple reason that the landlords are
able to hold over the heads of the workers the threat of higher
rents, and a few of the daring spirits who have come forward and
voiced their fellows' wrongs have become marked birds for the
aristocratic tyrants to shoot at. With these facts before us, I
think it must be confessed that so far as the liberty and freedom
of Labour is concerned, we have closed the year 1895 with Labour as
fettered as ever, especially the unskilled portion of it.

There is much being said to-day in reference to the wages of the
workers, and an attempt is made to prove that Labour is receiving
far the largest share of the reward of human industry, and that
their poverty is due to the drinking and improvident habits of the
workers. That statement I do not accept. Those who prefer that
charge against the workers spend more money in gambling and drink
in one day than the workers with large families have to live upon
in a week. The wage of the agricultural labourers is at the rate of
10s. per week, and unskilled labourers in the town about 16s. 3d.
This is far below a fair living wage. The conditions under which
the workers live will not bear very close inspection; some of the
hovels in which they live are not fit for human habitation. Scores
of the hovels in which the workers live they are compelled to nail
up sacks to keep the wind and water out. A poor women told me a few
days ago that she had to set bowls all over the bedroom when it
rained. Another told me during the sharp weather, when the family
woke up in the morning, their beds were all covered with snow; yet
those poor creatures dare not complain for fear they would have
nowhere to hide their heads; and if we turn our attention to the
towns we find the workers in just as bad a condition, if not a
little worse. Their living is of the coarsest kind, in fact it is a
marvel how they exist at all. These comments are not for the
purpose of disheartening anyone, but to show our critics that the
condition of the workers is far from what it ought to be. They are
intended further to arouse, if possible, the workers from their
apathy, and to make a strenuous effort in the new year to better
their position, which can only be done by combination. There is I
still a remnant of the once strong Unions left; these have done I
their work for you labourers in the past. If, however, you think a
better system can be found, then by all means adopt it and get
organized. Your opponents are getting more desperate every day;
capital is becoming more organized for the purpose of resisting the
just demands of labour.