The Sun.
London, England, 1863-01-17 00:00:00

scene.

We would not drop a word to lessen at all
the flow of liberality
be
ewards the relief of Northern
Distress. We may
quite sure that as soon as
public contribution cacnombemistatefeel,yovdeirmwinhisihchedLaonrdd
finally withdrawn, a
DERDY presides, will give us the intimation. The
Territorial Lords, as well as the Cotton Lords of
Lancashire, are too proud to receive aid for their
county from charity, the moment that charity
ceases to be a national duty. Yet we may be
allowed to advert to an interesting clerical letter
in the Times of yesterday, on "Agricultural Dis-
tress." The writer does not by the phrase mean what
used to be meant by it, when tenants, paying per-
haps heavy rents, were petitioning the Legislature
against cheap food from abroad. He compares
only the wages of the agricultural labourer with
the pittance furnished by charity and the rates
united, to the "starving operatives" of Lanca-
shire. Neither does he deny that they are starv-
ing. The point to which he calls attention is,
that the "two shillings a week," which Mr.
COBDEN almost scouted in the House of Commons,
as a sum which persons might be ashamed to
mention as a week's support for each individual
of a family, is what our rustics would think a
handsome income. If, he says, "you offered our
agricultural families two shillings a head a week,
they would think the riches of CRCEStrri had fallen
on them."

We know ourselves from careful inquiries in
country districts that the details furnished by the
writer are but too faithfully representative of agri-
cultural earnings over a large part of the kingdom.
In some well cultivated districts, such as some parts
of Norfolk, they may be is., or in a few highly
favoured spots 25., a week better, but this is their
widest range. Even in parishes where at one time
emigration to America, as the farmers complain,
"made the men masters," it did not seem to suggest
to the latter more than 12s. a week as the regular
wages, with of course an advance in hay-making
time and harvest, and also a little better for turnip
hoeing ; the latter is, however, now on the good
farms chiefly done by horse implements, with
women to finish. As to 2s. per head regularly,
they never thought of it. Our writer finds the
wages around him to be Bs. and 10s. a week, and
cider—an addition which may be very pleasant,
but which others besides our teetotal friends will
not think contributes much to the muscular
strength of the working man. It seems to be the
carter and the shepherd only who are in receipt of
the munificent 10s. weekly, for which, however,
they have to give long hours, what Lancashire
would think equivalent to a day and a half. To be
fair, we should include in most cases low rents—a
shilling or eighteenpence per week—for their cot-
tages, such as they are, and when they are owned
by large proprietors, who can afford to treat them
very much as necessary farm buildings.
They have, of coarse, some little aid through the
earnings of the women and juveniles of the family.
No ten hours' act exists in agricultural districts.
Farmers are at liberty to work women, children, and
men as long hours as they please. A poor mother
with a large family is glad to let one of the little
boys spend the whole day, during all weathers, in
the fields, keeping the rooks off the newly sown
corn in the bleak days of our spring—and that for
a penny a day ! Even the lad of eighteen, who
helps the carter, dares not aspire to more than five
shillings a week for fifteen hours a day of almost
incessant work. Some of our contemporaries made
a little merry over the prize of thirty shillings pre-
sented the other day by Lord PALMERSTON to a
young couple who had made some provision prior
to marriage ; but it would seem that the self-denial
and skill which could do it must have been some-
thing extraordinary. This thirteen shillings a week
earned by father and son, have to feed, clothe, and
house a family of father, mother, elder son, and six
younger children ! Another couple, mentioned by
the writer, have eight children under twelve years
of age ; the father earns ten shillings a week, a child
two shillings; their house and coals cost them two
shillings a week, and the ten shillings are left to
feed the nine persons for a week. And these are the
wages of skilful vigorous labourers; " the unhandy
and weakly have lower, according to their deserts."
When the woman can go out to work, she may earn
eightpence a day, which seems proportionably
I
r high ; but of course there are many hindrances, in
England, to women doing much field-work_ They
are thankful if they can obtain remunerative em-
ployment at home, which, in the country, is compa-
ratively
rare. The poor rural cottager feels that
his wife's place is in her home and family. We all
feel that he is right.
We must all wonder how these poor people con-
trive to live. It is the first question suggested
when we know such statements to be facts. Fresh I
country air has a wonderful charm for us
besmoked Londoners ; but, alas! the freshest
air, though air be such an essential to life,
pricewi bllneoitn
gsustain
eightpence it. As to meat, the lowest
per lb., our rural labourer's
wages must leave him almost ignorant of its taste.
Bread, and such garden-stuff as he can grow or buy,
must be his reliance, and how his less than t wopence
a head per day can provide a sufficiency of bread
alone is perfectly mysterious. Some CoLmiso of the
future will assuredly easily prove that the existing
tables of wages and prices, which we know to be
but too true, are perfectly "unhistorical."
Putting, however, together, as the writer we
have referred to does, the
victims
of h
shillingste
Northern
a week
endeavour to give the
bwleockd ao d en,
oatn d
thinkthe wages
lofiglVteess tof England
we casengislanmd
arduestoi
ucst,
for slackening our charity; indeed this writer would
not wish it. He himself says, "How they sub-
sist in health, and how they make both ends meet, I
cannot tell." He will not, therefore, complain that
we should give the cotton operatives wh ) would
work, but cannot, only so much as leaves him
incapable of comprehending the mode of subsis-
tence. He is, of course, right in rebuking those
who appeal to congregations of such rural poor
to contribute to the relief of "starving operatives,"
while it never occurs to these field hands that
"starving," in this case, means living, when out of
work, on the same pay as they receive for their
regular maintenance in work. Had he not spoke',
of what he knows we could hardly have supposed
that any one could have asked an alms of these
who rather need to receive one.
But we mast also remember that all distress is
comparative. Privation is, of course, felt most by those