THE FARM LABOURERS OF THE WISBECH DISTRICT.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR.") SIR,—My attention has been called to a letter on the above subject in your issue of the 18th inst., which contains SO many inaccuracies that I must beg of you to insert the following :- With respect to the agreement your correspondent alludes to in Tydd St. Mary, it is not true that it was made for "a twelve- month," as it was dated the 6th of March, and expired on the 11th of October, subject to being reconsidered one month previous, at which time I asked the men if they wished to renew it, when they declined, giving as a reason because other men jeered them. It is not true that it prohibited the men from joining the Union, or attending labourers' meetings ; but simply from striking, or join- ing in strikes, which is what many advocates of the Union profess to advise. It is not true that "several of them were not able to write," and "did not understand to what they were put- ting their marks," as the not being able to write only applied to one, and the agreement was read over and explained, and all understood well what they were doing, there being only one who dissented, who went to work for another master, where he was soon on strike, then moved to the North, from whence he has since returned, and seems now settled. It is not true that flour was under 2s. 4d. per stone during the existence of the agreement, but it is true that the men received under it for a considerable time 1s. per week more than most employers paid, and that since it was ended they have been receiving Is. per week leas than that agreement, if it had been renewed, would have entitled them to. It is not true that I "recovered the contract forms from the men and destroyed them," under the pretext that I "would not like to press too hardly on the men in the matter of the £10 forfeit." It is not true that harvest-money is "but a payment for overtime," unless 5s. to 7s., and even 9s. and 10s., per day (of fourteen or fifteen hours), less about an hour and a half for meals, can be so construed.
Your correspondent further says the allotment ground at Tydd St. Giles is let for "30s. per half-acre," which again is not true, as the rents are 25s. and 26s. the half-acre, and one half-year's rent generally returned to the best manager, but last year given to the one who was most unfortunate with his crops.
Now, how your correspondent could pen such a tissue of false-,
hoods I cannot imagine, but they will be sure to reap their reward ; and it is this want of truth, either in speaking or writing, amongst so many of the leaders of the Union, that will work its downfall, as but few of the best labourers will be so misled, rind the others will never feel satisfied unless they draw more money out of the Union than they put in ; and the more they are moved about the country at the Union's expense the better, as they are sure not to obtain employment at home except as extra hands in busy times, and if they can better themselves by moving about, so much the better for the community at large,—I am, Sir2 &c.,
THE MASTER WHO MADE THE AGREEMENT, AND THE OWNER OF TILE ALLOTMENTS.
[Our correspondent will, no doubt, reply to this letter in our next issue. We know of him thus much that he has investi- gated similar cases in Dorsetshire with an impartiality and accuracy which has been admitted on all sides.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
