LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE FARM LABOURERS.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR.") ZIR,—.[t is frequently a marvel to me how you come to understand -this peasant question as you do, or rather, perhaps, how you com- prehend the mental attitude of the peasants themselves. So far as I can find, very few of those in high places appear adequately to do it, and some of their patrons comprehend only what ought to !be their attitude.
Your commentary on Dr. Ellicott's anti-Christian speech brought 'this thought the more forcibly to my mind, in that it seemed to no small extent the very echo of a conversation I had some time ago with sundry leaders among the peasants in one of their cottages. Noticing, as I had done, their public declamations against the parsons, I was anxious to test, as far as I might, how far this was -mere rhetorical passion and how much deep-rooted conviction, and purposely led the talk to the subject of the Church. But few words sufficed to convince me that the hostile attitude was the outcome of some of the bitterest feelings of the heart.
." The squire is the God, and the parson is his prophet," said one of the men to me, and this aphorism summed up the whole origin of the bitterness. It is social, not theological, and therefore I think all the more dangerous. The Bishop of Gloucester appears -to wish deliberately to strengthen the breach which already exists 'between the patrician clergyman and the hind, and his speech is -one more difficulty added to the already almost insurmountable array of them that beset the path of any minister of Christ who
'strives to fulfil honestly the duties of his position to rich and poor -alike. A fearless stand on the part of the ministers of religion for right and justice to be done to their miserable parishioners would 'certainly mitigate the bitterness and shorten the duration of the coming struggle, and it would probably save the Church. Depend upon it, if the peasants get the vote soon, as get it they must, they will recruit almost to a man the ranks of the party which is now -straining after the disestablishment of the Church of England, -and they will do so mainly because they think that their clergy have been partisans, that even their charity has been a degrading • thing.
It is not very long ago since a body of peasants rose and left -church one Sunday that the curate preached to them on the duty of submission ; that also, I take it, is a sign of much that is to 'come. To those who, as I do, believe that the Church should be the noblest civilizer, the best preacher of "liberty, fraternity, and 'equality" in the land, it cannot but be a very sad thing to con- template the strange infatuation of suicidal blindness that speeches 'like Dr. Ellicott's display.
Referring to the letter of RA Radical Squire," it would be pre- sumptuous in me to offer enlightenment from ideas or experience of my own, but if you will permit me, I should like to indicate the remedy that the peasants themselves propose. On the economic principle, it is, of course, superfluous to weigh the necessities of a man's family against the comforts of the farmer, and though the peasants say a great deal upon that point. I shall pass it by. 'They have something more than mere complaint to make,—they want not only cottages, but land. Most people overlook this demand far too much in their proposals of remedies for the evils prevailing the land through. So far as I have been able to gather,
the peasant will not be content with any degree of wages, if he is shut out from a chance of obtaining some portion of the soil to cultivate for himself. This is his sole chance of advancement from the position of the hind to that of the "cotter" (I am obliged to go to Scotland for the word), and from the cotter to the farmer.
Now, upon the economic principle cottages do not pay— instances in plenty may be cited where landlords submit to per- manent loss in building good cottages for their peasants—and I do not see that matters are in this respect much altered when the cottages are let with the farm, for the farmer is not likely to give more for their use than the tenant can refund to him. Upon what is to be the order of life in the future, this system is therefore also condemned, but I have not heard any one urge a tangible objec- tion to the plan of bestowing with each cottage say an acre of land, for which the peasant would be willing to pay a rent pro- portionately much higher than the large farmer gives for his acres. Such little favour would place the peasant at once in an independ- ent position, would make him able to pay a fair rent for the accommodation given, which in his present position he cannot do, while at the same time it would not make him so independent of daily wages that he could set the farmer at defiance. This of course does not touch upon the point raised by "A Radical Squire" as to the dilemma of the farmer who turns away one man, and cannot find another at hand unless he has his cottage to put him into. But I cannot help fancying that under this system the difficulty would be more imaginary than real. For one thing, a motive for thrift would be at once placed before young men in the country, such as they now have not. There would be the chance to rise, and with that chance before them it is quite likely that the tendency to premature marriages would decrease, and that there- fore a supply of young unmarried men capable of moving from farm to farm as might be necessary would be found where now there are none. All that the farmer would have to do therefore would be to provide accommodation for whatever number of these he required on his farm and house, and feed them there, while posts of trust, such as the position of stock-feeder or waggoner, would naturally fall to the lot of the tried man, married, and with his family placed upon his little farm. Under a better order of things, with independence and a recognition of justice on both sides, the number of these who found employment on farms the country through would, I am persuaded, be little less than at present, if at all.
Of course, one result of this change in the order of things would be the breaking-up to some extent of the village system and dis- tribution of the rural population over the parishes, a thing, I think, almost from every point to be desired. There would be less disease, less real strain upon labourers, who have often such long distances to go to work, even when farmers do let cottages ; less immorality and drinking than at present ; and as has been proved by the example of Scotland, again, there need be no drawbacks, whether as to the facilities for the children getting to school, or the people to church, if the Church care to keep them. The possession of common lands was, I take it, the only raison d'être for the formation of the village system ; and now that these have almost entirely gone, and that the people possess no advantage from being herded together in hovels, it is time, I think, to adopt another and more rational mode of existence.
With all humility, I commend these considerations to the atten- tion of "A Radical Squire," and to all who, like him, earnestly desire the well-being of their fellow-men.—I am, Sir, &c., A. J. W.
Previous page
