The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1878-11-02 00:00:00

THE AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS OF
KENT.

The threatened lock-out of agricultural labourers in Kent
and Sussex was on Monday night the occasion of a public
meeting in Canterbury Theatre, called to evoke the public
opinion of the cathedral city and of urban populations
generally upon this new phase of the labour question.—The
limes of Tuesday gives the following report of the meet-
ing :

The meeting was called by the Kent and Sussex
Labourers' Union, a body some 15,000 strong, and
having branches in all the towns of the two counties,
the head-quarters being at Maidstone. The wages of
the agricultural labourer of Kent now range between
2s. 4d. sad 28. 6d. a day. The farmers have given
notice that they will not, after this week, pay more
than 2s. 3d. and 21. a day, and at the same time they
will raise the rent of cottages 6,1. a week. The
labourers point out, however, that 2-3. 3d. a day, their
maximum pay, does not by any means represent 16s. a
week, as they have a day and a half idle time each
week.

The farm-labouring class for miles around assembled
at the meeting in the Theatre, which was crowded in
every part. There was a large gathering outside, and,
although the night was cold, an outdoor meeting was
held. The chair in the Theatre was taken by Mr.
Pilcher, the chairman of the Kent and Sussex La-
bourers' Union, who, in referring to the position of
the labourers in the social scale, sAid that however low
they might be the world could not get on without
them. While holding that capital and labour could
not be separated, he maintained that it was not just
that labour should be oppressed because capital was
not quite so flourishing as hitherto.

Mr. Simmons spoke with emphasis upon the fact
that this labourers union, so far from encouraging
strikes on fares in Kent and Sussex, had stopped
strikes which had been teroposed, and said the present
action of the farmers was a strike of the employer
against the employed. He warned the farmers that
the men could not honestly live upon the proposed re-
duction, and asserted that the country under such
wages for its labourers would show a marked increase in
pauperism and crime. Ho appealed to the farmers to
withdraw the notices, for if they did not the Labourers'
Union would advise the labourers to resist the farmers'
action. He expressed his deep regret that the farmers
should have again opened questions of strife by sud-
denly resolving to press, under the threat of a lock-out,
a ruinous lowering of wages upon their labourers.
The reduction proposed to be made ranged from 4d. to
6]. a day, and in some cases amounted to 25 per cent.
of the labourers' earnings. This would affect 3,000
families, for the reductions were to be made upon the
wages of 3,000 mu]. It is the custom of the Kentish
farmers to deduct the rent before the wages are paid,
so that, with "stoppages," the labourer in the end
obtained nothing like the money which he was sup-
posed to receive for his labour. The speaker then
dwelt upon the causes assigned for the proposed
reduction—viz., "depression of trade," and the as-
sertion of the farmers "that farming in Kent
does not pay." He urged that "depression in
trade " did not, in general, affect agriculture
in Kent, because Kentish agriculture was gene-
rally of a special character the cultivation of
hops and fruit. He pointed out that the agricultural
returns show that there has been in Kent of late a
slight reduction in the wheat acreage, and a slight
increase in the acreage of pasture land. It could be
seen from these facts that Kentish farmers were not
great victims to the low price of corn, of which they
had splendid crops; but that, taking advantage of
the high price of cattle and sheep, they hod raised
meat instead of growing wheat. In regard to hops,
the returns showed that during the last seven years,
there had been an increased acreage. If the farmers,
then, desired te be credited when they declared
that farming in Kent did not pay, they should with-
draw their capital from the cultivation of the soil and
embark it in some other enterprise in which they
would obtain a return for their money and be able to
pay those who labeured for them wages upon which
they could exist. But if there was any foundation for
the statement of the farmers, the fact was to be at-
tributed, not to the agricultural labourers' wages,
which were no more than sufficient to keep him, but
to the high rents exacted by the landlords, who not
only refused to make any reduction in" bad times," but
were actually inclined to increase the rents. Not only
was the landlord pressing the farmer, but the clergy
declined in these times of professed " depression," to
take less than the accustomed tithes. The farmers them-
selves, too, declared that they could not lessen their
domestic expenditure, Thus the three classes above the
labouring class declined to accept any abatement from
their position in consequence of the alleged loss on
farming, but desired to throw the whole burden of re-
duction upon the labourer, who consequently had to
suffer the whole of the evils arising from depression.
The necessities of life had in the last fifteen yearsrisen
more than twenty per cent, and the Board of
Guardians in country districts were stringently en-
forcing compulsory education, of which they did not
complain; but these causes increased their expendi-
ture, and to these burdens were added the constant
rising of rents and the increase of "stoppages," In
these circumstances upon a less wage than they at
present received the labourers could not exist.

Mr. Howard, a labourer, proposed a resolution
strongly protesting against the proposed reduction.
As to the asserted hardships of the times to the Kent
farmers, he pointed out that some of those who had
groaned loudest about farming at 1 per cent, had
taken an increase of land on which to lose more
money.

Mr, Neame seconded the resolution, which was
carried unanimously,

Mr. Lepard proposed a resolution authorizing the
Labourers Union, in the event of the farmers carry-
out their threat, to hold demonstrations and to appeal
to the public to provide funds to feed the families of
locked-out labourers and to assist deserving people to
emigrate. He stated that by emigration the cream of
the labouring class were already leaving the country
rather than submit to the hardships of English agri-
culture as presented to the labourers.

Mr. Neame, in seconding the motion, asserted that
the supply of labourers was not above the demand,
and, therefore, iu accordance with the doctrine of
supply and demand, the farmers were now acting in
the wrong.
The !notion was carried. The proceedings were most
unanimous.

The Times of Wednesday publishes the following
letters
have given up my farm because for several years
suecessively it has lost me over 10 pr cent, of the money
employed in it—the whole capital being my own, and thus
free of any charge for interest. Previous to 1674 It paid me
5 per cent. on the amount used in working it The profit
made in that time has been more than eaten up.

The farm, as can be easily proved, was an average good
corn-land farm, and healthy for stock, and has been kept in
clean and good condition, necessary labour not being spared
upon it.
I applied to my landlord for a reduction of rent, and ex-
plained to him why I did so; his reply was that farming,
like other things, was fluctuating, and that a reduction
of rent was impossible ; he knew well that it I left it
there were plenty to take it ; and he was right. When will
farmers realize the fact that the law of supply and
demand must rule land as it does everything else, and
that so long as the demand is greater than the supply the
price will be kept up in spite 01 bad sea:lona and low prices
for corn?

From conversation With my neighbours I am convinced
that they do not look to a reduction of wages as Any cure
for the bad times that have come upon them 15s. a week
ought not to be too much for a man who does an honest
day's work.

What most farmers are really longing for (and longing for
ill VaiO, because fairly good farms are quickly taken up)
is a material reduction in rent. If landowners, instead of
allowing their tenants to cut down labour to the lowest
point, whereby the land gets foul and out of condition,
and the saving in the end not more than .£3 to £5 a year
for each man, would reduce the rent, and insist on the land
being kept clean, they would be far better off in the long
run. It is well known among farmers and agricultural
valuers that there are hundreds of thousands of acres of
land in this country which, even if prices and seasons were
favourable,cent.a
he
y arew were
t worthaf
ew s o
yearsmuch
ago, for
be occupationcau se labour by 50
stinted. hasbepeenr

A further bad result of the tenant of corn.land becoming
impoverished is, that he does not rear so much stock—
beasts, sheep, and horses—as he would if his business was
fairly profitable: for we must not forget that it is the corn-
land fanner with his straw.yards and turnip-fields who is
the principal breeder of beasts and sheep ; hence, not only
are the tenant and the landlord sufferers in the long run,
when justice is not done to the land, but the whole country
is a sufferer also.

My farm never paid more than 6 per cent. on the capital
employed in it ; hence, it will not surprise you that Bh soon
as I found it regularly lost 10 per cent. I resolved to leave it
and become a BETIftF.X. FIRMER.

Sir,—With respect to an attempt to lower the wages of
agricultural labourers, one important fact seems to have
escaped observation, which is that the price of bread is so
much less than it was this time last year that a saving of
ls. ed. per week in the coat of this necessary of life be-
tween this year and last would alone Justify a reduction to
this amount. Coals and other articles are also cheaper, so
that a labourer's wages nominally several shillings leu per