The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-10-12 00:00:00

FLOGGING IN NEWGATE-A SCENE.

La London, on Monday morning the nuniariment of flog
ging was again administered in Newsate Prison.
The culprits were two men convicted of robberies
with violence at the last sessions of the Central Criminal
Court. In the case of one of them, Georse Cohen, •
Jew, 38 years of age, it appeared on the trial that the
prosecutor, a ship's captain. named Wright, was
accosted by a woman in Aldgate, and while she
engaged his attention he received a violent blow
on the head from behind, which knocked him
down, and while he was on the ground he was
kicked on the mouth, and had his kneecap
broken. His assailants were Cohen and another man,
who robbed him of a valuable gold watch and chain
and £3 in money. The prosecutor caught hold of
Cohen, but the latter slipped out of his coat and
got away. lie was secured two hours later, and it was
discovered that he was an old offender. On one occa-
sion he was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude,
at Middlesex Sessions, and there were other convic-
tions against him. His sentence now was ten years'
penal servitude, live years' police supervision, and 30
strokes with the "cat." He is rather a weakly man,
and as he is suffering from a bronchial affection, Mr.
Gibson, the surgeon of Newgate, thought it proper
that only fifteen lashes should be given to him, When
he was brought into the room where the punish-
ment was to be inflicted he seemed to be over-
come with the dread of what he was about to
undergo, and appeared, or pretended, to be unable
to stand. The warders had some little difficulty
in getting him stripped, and he was carried to the
stocks. When he was fixed in them he exclaimed
"Oh, doctor. I'll be dead," and begged that some
water might be brought him. When he got the first
stroke he threw his head back as far as he could, and
remained a short time as if he had here entirely
deprived of breath. The fourth or fifth stroke brought
from him a loud howl, and he then looked first to the
warder who was wielding the " cat" and then to the
doctor, and begged for water. This was refused him,
and amid some more howling the fifteen strokes were
brought to a close.
The other prisoner was a young man o 20, named
William Johnson, who was convicted of a robbery with
violence on Patrick Leehan, in Brick-lane, a low neigh-
bourhood in the East-end. He is a strongly-built young
man having a physique entirely different from that of
Cohen. He had also been previously convicted, and he
was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude, five
years' police supervision, and 25 lashes with the "cat."
While he was being flogged he shouted that he was
innocent He suffered a good deal.
The officials present were Mr. Jonas, the Governor
of Newgate, Mr. Under-Sheriff Hewitt, on behalf of
the Sheriffs, Mr. Gibson, the surgeon, and Mr. Sidney
Smith, one of the principal officers of the prison.

LORD DERBY ON THE LAND
QUESTION.
On Saturday the first general meeting of the Lancs.
shire Farmers' Club and Chamber of Agriculture was
held in the Tenni-hall at Preston. There was an in-
fluential gathering of landowners and a numerous body
of farmers present. After the transaction of some pre-
liminary business'
Lord Derby, who occupied the chair, proceeded to
deliver the inaugural address. He said,—
In bringing together this farmers' club, we are following
an example which has been set—and, as I believe, usel ally
set—by various other comities. The formatir is of these
bodes has been too recent to enable us to judge of
their working, but I may say generally that they have
two objects in view—one, to give a fair hearing to all
such persons as may have practical suggestions to offer
on agricultural matters, or on the mutual relations of the
various classes engaged in the cultivation of the soil.
The other, which I hol iat least equally important—to bring
together for the discussion of all such new ideas as may be
proposed an audience which shall be experienced and critical
se that if, as will happen is the best reuulated public meet
Mg., notions should be put forward which are plausible on
the face of them but Impracticable in theta- working, they
may go forth to the general public accompaulet with the
comments of thc se who have heard them, and who are
better able to estimate their real value than the mass of out-
siders can be. . • .

Gnash
',II like

thout

tvldod

The landed interest, whatever Mee it may complain of,
cannot possibly complain of neglect. Everybody wants to do
something to it, or with it ; but, unluckily, many of the
loudest talkers on matters connected with land are people
whose agricultural kuowledge is about on a par with that of
the cockney on his travels, who said he thought he should
know malt from barley if he saw them growing together
(Laughter.) Farming on paper is one thing, farming in
practice is another ; and when all the world has got a theory
of some sort about the soil, it is itut as well that some of the
talking at least shotild be done by parties who have not merely
got up their knowledge for the occasion, as a lawyer gets np
cases from a brief. For myself I come here to learn, not
to teach. I am quite really, and I hope we shall all be
ready, to profit by hints that may be thrown out; but
while we ought to be ready to de that, there is another
duty which must not be neglected. 1 mean the duty of
inimiring carefully and speaking out plainly when some-
thing is proposed to us that may turn out to be only a
popular and plausible delusion. There is so much
claptrap, so much moral cowardice, so much dislike In the
present day of hazarding on any subject an opinion that
may not find general favour, that you will see every day
honest and cultivated men accept in theory and publicly
announce ideas in which they have not the slightest real
faith, and which they would be very sorry to apply in
any manner where their own interests were concerned
We must not shrink on one aide or the other from a clear
assertion of what sea conceive our relative rights and
miles to be, though it does not in any way follow that a
wise man Cr a generous man will push his legal, or even Ids
moral rights, to their full extent. We must mot heeitate to
condemn benevolently intended schemes if they will not bear
the test of actual work and we must recollect that there Is
hi this world no more fertile source of quarrels and of ill-
feeling than the attempt to cover up under vague and
ambiguous phrases, expressing kindly sentiment, but express-
ing little else, the exietence of real doubt, or of real dif-
ference, as to what each party in a contract is entitled to.
The result of that kind of vagueness and uncertainty is ex-
orbitant claims on the one hand, indiscriminate rejection or
cutting down of them on the other, and in the end, not im-
probably, a settlemeet of which the principle is rather that
each party should have half what he expects than that either
should have all. to which he has a right.
The subjects which will come before this club are many—
some of them twill name by and by; but there are three or
four which suggest themselves as the most likely to be dis-
cussed, and the most important ; and on theme, with your
permission, I will say a few words. One of these is the labour
question. A great deal has been first spoken and written lately
about the scarcity of labour, and the consequent raising of
wages. Now, on that matter it Is hardly possible to make
any remark, unless of so vague a character that it can serve
no useful purpose that will be applicable to other localities
than one's 01•13, or which elsewhere may not be mis-
understood. Every county has its peculiar customs and
circumstances; and, as has been said of a battle, no
one can describe more than that part of the field in
which be himself happens to be engaged. One question
I would ask,—Are we not a little hasty in speaking
as if a great permanent rise lathe cost of English labour had
taken or was taking place? It may be so ; but we know this
—that an exceptional development of trade and manufac-
tures has created an exceptional demand for hands, that such
periods of suddenly enhanced prosperity seldom go on long
without a check, and that it Is by no means proved that
when that check occurs—and some people think it is not far
off even now —the demand for labour may not subside to
very nearly its former level. We cannot generalise safely
from the experience of a year or two. It is not four years
since many people—sensible people as well as kindhearted
people—were crying out for State help, to send out
of the country the surplus labour, for which we could
find no use at home. When I notice the change since 1868,
I am compelled to ask what there is to prevent the ebb
from succeeding to the flow—what should hinder the pendu-
lum from swinging back again to its old position. Of
course I may be wrong—l am suggesting doubts rather thin
amerthig propositions of which I feel certain; but I shal
not easily believe in that social and economical revolu-
tion which the Cress Is so busy with until I see one of two
things—either that the number of yearly einiaants from these
billed. equals, or approaches, the natural yearly increase of
population, er that the working class here use the same mews
as the French peasantry habitually do to avoid being bur
denied with more mouths than they' can find food for. The
last of these two conditions is so utterly imi robable, con.
eidering the Wells and feelings of our people, that I may
safely put It aside; and as to the first, lanes not aware then
there has been any perceptible decrease as yet in the mite at
which our population grows Nobody can feel unkindly to
those poor fellows who are only doing the beat they know to
better themselves butt suspect that in the majority of cases
they have miscalculated their strength, and will not do
themselves much good. In these parts our troubles of that
kind are fewer, though we may have had our share.
For many years past the competition of the towns has
raised wages to a higher level here than in the south ;
the condition of the labourer is better to begin with,
and, though there may be some temporary difficulty to
contend with, I don't think the farmers In Lancashire need
fear any permanent scarcity of hands. But, even if tnat
scarcity were to continue and to Increase, that would he no
reason for giving in. It has been pointed out by a very com-
petent authority upon such subjects, that of all countries
England supplies to the world the cheapest manufactured
goods, and of all countries England pays the highest for the
labour that supplies them. Ills a question to a great extent
of using mechanical means. We are only beginning, compere-
tively speaking, to do that in farming, and it is impossible to
foretell what economics and what improvements may be pos-
sible in that direction. Meanwhile, it is uu loubtedly desir-
able to do what we reasonably cafe to keep onr labourers with
us. I would never discourage any young fellow from emigrat-
ing if his mind was really set upon it, and If he had an idea of
what was before him—indeed, I have very often helped men to
go but unless English labourers are a good deal stupider than
I take them to be, they will find out that emigration is a
lottery that the emigrants mostly have a rough time to go
through ; and, perhaps, It may strike them that the people
who are crying most loudly to them to take themselves out
of the country are not working for their interest—are very
little concerned, indeed, whether they live or starve when
ohce across the sea, but are simply trying tie get them out of
the way, that there may be higher wage. for those who stop
behind. As to migration from one county to another—ew
pectally from the south of England to the north—that la a
process which will go on of itself, and does not require to be
artificially stimulated. The tendency of wages is necessarily
towards equality within a limited area, lent it Is obvious
that • movement of that kind cuts two ways—if it tends to
raise wage. In one district, it tends to lower them, or to
prevent them rising in another. Well, what are we to
do for them at home! One of the favourite schemes
of the day is to turn them into farmers or rather
Into fractions of a farmer, by adopting what is called
the plan of cooperative association, and giving the
soil to be cultivated by the actual workers upon it. Now,
I am not all a disbeliever in the co-operative principle
within certain limits. Where shopkeeping is concerned it
has succeeded admirably well. In manufacturing business
the success has been less decided, and to put the matter
quite fairly, I don't think we are as yet in a position to pro-
nounce what nothing except actual experience will deter-
mine—in which of tne various kinds of induatrial employ-
ment it is likely to succeed, and in which it will fail. It is
clear that asmeiations of men Individually poor will be at a
disadvantage In two cases—one where a large command of
capital is required, and where they may have to lie tut of
their money for a long wide; the other, where risks are to
be run, wnere immedia:e decisions must be taken, and where,
therefore. it is necessary that the firms directing operations
should not act with that entire freedom which a man can
hardly feel when he it dealing with the property of other
people. Well, In the case of farming, it seems to me that the
Mist of thews difficulties is, if not fatal, yet very serious in-
deed. There can bane tolerable farming without capital; •
body of labourers clearly have not got capital of their own, and
as they have no available security to offer, I don't see where
they are to get It. I am aware that Instances have (Re-
curred where benevolent landowners have themselves ad-
vanced the sum requked—bat OM Is (amity, end not

abuginbory would Itilndtbneotentba. able
next plane, even U they had the money, it would be a very
it
tale loath% tthactolwarlownlers.
the:
speculative investment ; and besides that, fanning with
tchaepltaloccuopfierw,hiachweeveanrydshillisoblitgad:ryimprroi.wed. Umonmot, .for,
there la another conalleration which pMlanthrnpista are apt
to forget It Is very well and it is very just to argue that
men never work so bard as when they haves direct personal
Interest in the result ; that Is excellent doctrines for pros-
perous times, or where there la a reserve to fall back upon.
But tanners have losses as well as gains, bad Sears al well
as good years, and Inasmuch as labourers must live, and as
they have nothing laid by, It seems as if whenever crops
is ere exceptionally bad, or prices exceptionally low, the ex-
periments of rural cooperation nut great risk of breaking
down. Still, I don't say that it should not be tried ; or that
in some form it may not ultimately ans. er, only with our
present experience ahould advise no cue to put more money
into it than he can aft xi conveniently to lee. But why should
not the question be practically tested l There are plenty of
estates in the market, the trading co-operative usociatione of
tide couotry are very numerous, they have a god deal of
money made, and their supporter. areenthusiastlcally zealous
in the cause. A very little exp.rience is better than a great
deal of talk ; let, them try slew fame and see whether they
can week them to advantage on their principle. It they
succeed, nobody will grudge them their seemss if they
fail, we are only where we were. There is a modeled form
of co-operation which mallet in paying labourers propor-
tithately to the profits made on the farm, and some plan of
that kind has lately been recommended to us by very high
Perliemeutary anthority. I think, however, that it is Wade
to • good deal of difficulty. In the first place, It Is riot always
easy for the firmer to know exactly what his profits on the
year's business are, and still less easy for Mtn to prove It, as
he would be bound to do, to the satisfaction of his men.
the next place, it does not seem to be founded on any
principle of justice that I can understand, that a plough-
luanorar ea
a thert markets,er'seamis shouldsob
doduepetnhe downotuhledatatetewont
willing
crops o
enough to receive a bonus in good years, but he would not at
all like a correspondiug deduction from his earnings in had
• aml yet it la not easy to see how you can have One
• the other. A partnership where the gales are
d among all the partners, and the losses fall entirely on
one, to a very oriessided concern. Of course If all that is
meant is that wages are to be raised when the employers
can aft ord it, these objections don't apply ; but that Is quite
a different thing front making wages Vary, accordingtoa fixed
rule, with profit. While on this question I would recom-
mend It to your conelderation, whether it is not both just
and politic to distinguish, more than Is usually done, be-
tween individual labourers, as regards the rate at which they
are paid. One mauls work is worth half as much again as
that el another ; it is r discouragement to the really good
worker not to have that iiilerence recognized • and, looking
at it in another point of view, by valuing each manes labour
separately, you encourage the spirit of individual energy and
ambition, rather than of combination and collective action.
The strong and the energetic will not feel, under such a
system, that, in order to raise themselvei, they must drag
after them the dead weight of those who have neither strength
nor eaergy. And as they lead the rest, when you satisfy
them you go a long way towards satisfying all. Every
generation has its favourite ideas—co. operation is the uni-
versal medicine of the preeen I day. Five-and-twenty years
ago the theory used to be that ii you could only give to
every labourer an allotment on which he could grow pro-
duce, either for sale or for his own use, you would have made
a great step towards improving his condition. I think there
was reason and sense in that view, though more stress may
have been laid upon it than it would fairly bear. There is
no doubt that to holds bit of land hi that way attaches a
man to the soil, and that it is, so to speak, a savings-bank
for his labour. On the other hand it is argued with force
that it the allotment is for oft from the home, and if it ex.
ceed a very moderate Mee, the labourer is drawn off from his
regular work to attend to it, and, being divided between two
employments, neither does as well for bimeelf nor for his
employer u he otherwise would. It is a fair matter for
discussion, and I hope we may have some light thrown upon
It. That every cottage should be In good repair, and should
haves garden attached to It, are rules which I need not stop
to enforce upon you. Another subject much talked of in
the south is whether labourers' cottages should be held
direct from the landlord or leased by him to the farmer
who holds the &Mobile g land. I hold for my own part
that, as a general rule, subject to exception in the ease 01
large end distant farms, the Landowner had .better not allow
the centrol over them to pus out of his own halide On the
other hand, he may reasonably make it a condition that those
whom be houses at very • unremunerative rent should he
actually and habitually workers on his estate. He is not
bound to provide cheap cottages for the mechanic* of the
neighbouring districts unless he profits by their labour. It is
enough if he provides them, or the aseociations which act
for them, with facilities for building on their own account.
Those whom, according to our customs. he is bound to
house, must be those who work for him or his tenantry ; and
If they cease to fulfil that condition, they cannot com-
plain of being replaced by others who will. hue work, or
payment by results, is a valuable stimulus to exertion where
It can be introduced. its open to one objection—that the
quality of the work done leapt to suffer, in cases where
faulty work cannot be detected by inspection. Still the
priuciple is timed, because it gives the worker an interest hi
his occupation, and creates rivalry. When men are paid by
time only, it is an unpopular thing among them for one to do
more than the rest. Exceptional energy is discouraged, and
men reasonably ask, "Why should I work harder than my
neighbour. sineethe profits will go into my employer's pocket,
and not into mine?"
You will expect me to say something on the question of
game. It does not much interest me personally, and I shall
be quite ready to acquiesce in whatever arrangements either
law or custom may sanction, But where there is a good
deal of prejudice on both titles, a word or two In a spirit
of at leut Intended impartiality may nit be quite unless.
There are two Isaacs involved—one, what it is wise for every
landlord to do it his own free will ; the other, what
Parliament might to do on the subject if it does any-
thieg. Now, as to the first point. Ido net hesitate to say
that In marry, perhaps in most, parts of the country game-
preserving has been carried a great deal too far. If a man
waets to carry It on to the extent that some landowners do,
let him Like what land he requires hito his own hauls
and bear the expellee and the loss himself. But when we
come to speak of leeislation, 1 think that if I were a
farmer I wonld coushier twice before I asked for the repeal
of the game laws Firstly, because a change of that kind in
the law would naturally lead to a general re-valuation of
farms and farms In England are habitually let at a lower
rate than they would fetch If competed for in open market.
eecondly, and perhaps this is the more Important reason,
because in a country like this you never can have, you never
will have, a stringent and effective law of trespass. The
publio would neither consent to its being passed, nor allow
it to be enforced it it were pseud. And in the case of a
Lancashire farmer, who lives in a populous district with
many large towns near him, and lots of idle lads about, I
suspect he would find that the liability to have his hedges
broken and his fields trampled by every set of young fellows
who took It into their heads to see if they could find a
partridge or a hare on his ground, would be a good deal
worse than any occasional damage to crops to which he is
now exposed. Against mischief of that kind he would have
no practical remedy, or mem which would not coat him
more in law than he could possibly get back in damages.
That is a part of the question which has not been
much noticed, and I think it deserve. attention. (Hour)
Various plans have been put forward for giving the game—
ground game at least—to the tenant instead of the landlord.
But all el them that I have men are open to thin objection,
that, if the landlord and tenant are to contract freely for the
letting of farms, it is immune° for the law to prevent the
landlord from reserving the right of sheeting ; and if, as some
people contend, such a reservation I. to he inede illegal, then
you are landed in this absurdity, that the tenant wino may
shoot on his own account, may also let the shooting to any
human being whom he plesees to select with the
single exception of his own landlord. On the whole
I think the matter will be found a very awkward
one to deal with by law, and what I should wish to
see—what I hope to see—is, that by moderation (ea
both sides the necessity for any large legislative measure
may be averted. I am convinced that if landowners and
their friends would he content with the kind of sport which
satisfied their grandfather., or even their fathers, up to 30
or 40 years ago, there would be very little controversy about
it. The tendency of opinion is in that direction now, and I
hope it will continue so. For my own part I would much
rather sacrifice game altogether than quarrel with my te-
nants ; but I certainly have not foiled that objection to it,
within tu. elerate limits, which is of ten talked about, and I
have been asked before now, when about to kill down hares
on a farm, to leave a few for coursing.
There are two other matters which we may have to die
cues—the question of leases, and the question of compen.
cation to tenants for unexhausted improvements. Now, as
to leases, I will tell you exactly what I think. I hold that
any intproving tenant who wants • lease of 14 or 21 yearn
may fairly be allowed to have one ; and I am not le
favour id clogging leases with more than a few simple
conditions. hut, then, the bargain must not be all on
one side. If the landowner consents to put his farm out
of his own control for a term of years, he must be free
morally, as he is free legally, to renew the contract or
not at the end of the term, as he thinks best. Pro-
bably he will think It beet; but he has a right to his
option. I lay stress on that, becauee I have urn in the
papers eases where it was made a matter of great complaint
that the holder of such a lease was not allowed to renew it,
the proprietor of the soil having made other arrangement&
I metes. I cannot see the jnatice of those complaints. When
leases are resorted to, the relation between owner and Occu-
pier becomes one of contract; and neither can fairly claim
as smatter of right anything beyond what 15 10 the contract.
In practice I cannot call to mind that on the estates with
which lam connected any demand for additional security of
tenure has ever been addressed to me, and I gather that so
far as tide part of the country is concerned. there. no par-
ticular feeling on the subject. So far from landowners using
their power harshly in respect of changes of tenantry, I
think they may more justly be accused if erring lain oppo-
site direction. Many an incapable and nearly insolvent
tenant is kept on glom the natural reluctance to break an old
connexion. And though that is, perhaps, a weakness and a
mistake, it Is a mistake which we all commit, and a
weakness of which nobody is much salaamed. Al to claims
leer unexhausted improvements, it is scarcely possible
in the time at our disposal to diacuss the limits within
which they are just. In some cases, as, for inetance,
where artificial manures have been used, I apprehend that
these claims are regulated by a local custom which is well
understood. Where • tenarst has a lease they generally will
aud to my mine they always should, be matters of arrange
meld betweeu him and the landlord. It is not the lance
owner's interest to have his farm run out during the last
four yeers of the lease, and It bi not the tenant's interest to
run it out, if he can either secure the value of what he has
put in or a renewal of his tenancy. They are both gainers by
coming to an agreement, and I do not lee that either fresh
legislatiou or the Intervention of any third party is
neceliary. In the case of a yearly tenant, the claim
is certainly stronger, and If In cues of that kind
grievance* wise, as I have read In the newspapers I
think tbe question of legal protection is a very fair one to
raise. But I speak with no great confidence, for in my
experience no dispute has ever arisen on these points. In
Ireland it used to be pleaded with troth that the tenant
did most of the work of permanent improvement on the
estate—buildings included—and that, therefore, he hail a
right to the value of them on leaving. But in this
country, at least in Lancashire, all works of that kind are
landlords' works, and the Irish claim does Oct arise. The
obviout remedy for grievances or misunderstandings on
this question of improvemeuts is, that before they are
undertaken by the tenant In each instance, there should
be a definite agreement whether they are to be paid for
or not, annl how their value is to be estimated. Speaking
as a lamlowner. I am not in the least afraid of rood figs
claims on the ground of Improvement r hut I suspect that
some at least of those who put them forward have got in
their mind, a very different kind of claim from the Ireb de-
mands for compennatton, as it is called, for disturbance—in
other worde, the inflnctiola of • fine on the landlord for put-
Meg • had tenant out and a better one in. Teat demand
never seemed to me reasonable, even in Irish Irglalatiren
and in Englaud it would be equally without precedent and
without justification. And that brings me back to what I
'aid at first—the importance of a clear definition of mutual
rights. All that miserable Iri,h trouble about tenant-right,
of v. hieh we have probably not area the end yet, emu iii
the nest instance from the niuddle-headed way in which
both parties went on, laying down no fixed reek, acting on
no definite principle, but settling each cue as it arOEO, or
leaving it unsettled, until the con( usion had become inextri-
cable, and popular violence had practically superseded
law. We shall not fall into that mistake but it is one
great use of such discussions as our, ought to be, that
vague and tuusound notions get swept away, and that we
some to see clearly what others have • right to expect from
us, arid what we are entitled to claim In return. It rests
with you whether this society is geing to be of real use or
not. You have an immense range of subjects to deal with—
try to deal with them briefly, practically, thoughtfully.
Vu ith our system of newspapers the most obscure person who
Is master of his subject may start an Idea that will spread
through the whole country; and if for every grain of troth
we should happen to produce a good deal of chaff, why the
chaff bit ma away in the fresh air of controversy, the grain,
be it much or little, remain. behind. (loud cheer...
Colonel Wilson-Patten. WE., also addressed the meeting
and fully endorse: Lord ID thy's view of the labour question.

It is said that Protector Pepper hat left thin country
for a time in order to sisit the chief cities of America on a
lecturing tour, and also in order to collect materials which
may be available, on his return for the instruction and
amusement of audiences at home. His attention will be
much directed, while in the United States, to the great
recent development of mechanical and inventive ingenuity
among their citizens—a development which has its gauge In
the extraordinary number of American patents which have
been taken out during the last few years. A succinct history
of the inventions of a given period would doubtless throw
much light upon the other aspects of its civilisation; and
something like thia is contemplated by Protein°, Pepper as
Lb. ultimate milt of his travels.