My friend Mr. Z. Walker, commenting on the labour question in one of the Norfolk papers, made a statement in reference to the above question which if true--and my experience will re-echo the same thing--will cast a stigma upon our boasted civilization. Mr. Walker stated that he knew of cases in Norfolk of young men who are in the Union workhouse for no other cause than that the farmers will not employ them, and that other men are quite willing to work, but find it hard to obtain employment. Now, the question that presents itself to one's mind is: Is it right for men to starve and remain idle while the land is thirsting for labour? And I should say every right-thinking man will answer "No," emphatically "No"; and those young men named by Mr. Walker took the wisest course--far better than migrating to the large towns, to unduly compete with their fellow workmen. Nevertheless, it is a disgrace to the age in which we live that men should be found willing and anxious for work, but unable to find it.

This question of the unemployed is daily taking a more serious aspect. Year by year this menacing army of unemployed is on the increase, not only in this country, but in every other country, go where you may, and whatever form of Government it is, democratic or autocratic. Even in America, where everyone has equal political rights, and where we are told the Presidential chair is open to any man who has the ability and tact to work himself up to it, however humble his parentage may be, the question of the unemployed is becoming so serious that men stand and look on with amazement, and the wildest schemes are propagated as a remedy--schemes which if carried out would throw society into disorder and confusion.

Various have been the reasons given for the existing state of things. In England we are told it is our fiscal policy, known as Free Trade, while others say it is our monetary system. In America, a highly protected country, reformers say it is Protection and advocate Free Trade. The same thing exists in all the nations in Europe. With this state of affairs, small wonder that some men are beginning to think that it matters not what form of Government we have. Various reforms have been pa.s.sed in recent years which have been beneficial in themselves, but they do not seem to have touched the fringe of the question; still the bitter cry of poverty is heard from the workless ones, and still we are horrified by the fact that men and women are driven to despair and to take their own lives, while others are urged to commit most dastardly acts. The Local Government Act will do something to alter the present evils if the workers take proper interest in it and put men on the District Councils who are in touch with them, and it will go a long way towards establishing the right of the people to use the earth.

But we must have something far more drastic than that: we must go to the root of the matter; everyone who has the true interest of the country and the cause of humanity at heart must set himself to work to find out the cause of the evil, and when once this is done must approach the question with an unselfish spirit, and however drastic the reform may be that is necessary it will have to be done. I confess that I hold more advanced views on the land and other social questions than some of the Labour leaders, but that is brought about after having watched every movement that has been set on foot for the abolition of human suffering and carefully studying the various arguments used in advocating various schemes to deal with social problems and the various causes a.s.signed for the present state of things.

I am satisfied that nothing will ever prove effectual but the abolition of our present land system. This huge monopoly has, like Belshazzar, been weighed in the balance and found wanting. All history condemns the idea that a few people have absolute right to the use of the earth, to the exclusion of the rest. History informs us that landowners were simply trustees to the State for the land held, and were under the obligation to provide and equip at their own cost the defences of the nation, besides having other onerous dues to pay and duties to perform. But gradually the landholders, who are now called landlords, after having seized all public and Church property they could lay their hands upon, shifted these burdens from their own shoulders on to those of the people. The existing land system places the landlords in the position of antagonists of the general public, and the people are thrown into the grasp of a huge octopus, which is dragging them down to despair and the workers to the depths of misery, crippling the trade and commerce of the world.

This landed system, which has grown up under successive Kings and Governments, and is now upheld by bad laws, is a crime against the people; it is a violation of Divine order and of the inalienable rights of mankind. It has created pauperism, that awful evil which inflicts an injustice and cruelty upon the honest workers and drives one out of every four into the Union workhouse. Farmers are ruined and willing workers are cast off the land they would gladly cultivate to seek a miserable existence in overcrowded cities, where their presence aggravates the miseries already existing. This system is a danger to society, and if not speedily remedied must bring disastrous consequences.

This question of the unemployed and the social well-being of the people is strictly a religious one: When I first entered into public life some of my closest friends with whom I had been in Christian society for several years were astounded when on one occasion I preached a sermon on the Labour movement on the Sunday, and I was severely taken to task for so doing. Some months before, yielding to the wishes of the labourers to champion their cause, I seriously thought the question over, as I felt that I could not on any account engage in anything that in any way clashed with my Christian principles, and it was because I was convinced that the great disparity existing in the social condition of the people and the gross inequality in the distribution of wealth were contrary to the Divine wish, and that the benevolent intentions of G.o.d were not being carried out, that I gave way to the wishes of the labouring men to advocate the cause of the honest toilers. I consider that every time I attend a Labour meeting I attend a religious service in the strictest sense of the word. What movement can be more sacred than the one that has for its object the uplifting of man, the beautifying of human nature, and the restoring of that likeness and image of G.o.d which man has so long lost? Poverty is the cause of so much evil and degradation. Poverty is the prolific mother of vice, disease, and all that is vile and unG.o.dlike. Poverty, then, is what we are trying to abolish. What we claim is this, then, that the question of the poverty of the people, brought about by the selfishness of man and the undue haste of the few to get rich at the expense of the many, is a religious question, and it will not be until we get pure homes, sanitary houses, good living, good work, and sufficient to keep every man employed with a good and fair living wage that we shall ever hope to have a healthy and purified state of society; never until all cla.s.ses truly realize the iniquity of our present social system, and the morality of Christ's Gospel finds a lodgment in our hearts, can we hope to make men think and act as men; never until the religion of humanity enables us to claim succour for the little ones, manhood for ourselves, and justice for the oppressed shall we ever have a happy and pure nation.

In spite of the indifferent att.i.tude of those we represented, my wife and I pressed on with our work on the Board. She was elected to the House Committee, which gave her an opportunity to find out many of the existing abuses in the House. One abuse was the treatment meted out to the poor unfortunate girls whose lot it was to go into the House for confinement. A system of punishment had sprung up in such cases. The Guardians appeared to have come to the conclusion that it was their duty to punish the girls severely, many of whom were more sinned against than sinning. In fact, the Poor Law encouraged them to do so; hence the poor girls were set to do the hardest work that could be found them. They were often kept at the wash-tub when they were not fit to be there. On one occasion my wife paid a surprise visit to the House and found a poor girl hard at work in the laundry who she thought would have been in the infirmary. The girl said she was there only five days. My wife raised the question at the next meeting of the committee and said some very straight things and protested very strongly. Some of the members said they were surprised that my wife should not be in favour of punishment, for they must put down immorality. My wife retorted that she was not encouraging immorality--in fact she had endeavoured to set her poor sister an example--but she was against cruel treatment being meted out to her poor unfortunate sisters and, unless the practice was stopped, she would raise the whole question at the full Board. This practice was at once stopped, and after that no girl was ever set to work until at least twelve days had elapsed after her confinement. The tramps next came under our notice. We found they were set to work to pick an almost impossible quant.i.ty of oak.u.m, and if they failed to pick the allotted quant.i.ty, they were kept in the tramp ward for two days. Despite this the Guardians lost money on the business. We raised the whole question and moved that the business should be abolished. The strongest opposition to this being done was raised and at first we were defeated.

But we kept at it and finally we got it carried. I also found that the tramps were kept none too warm. One Sunday afternoon I paid a surprise visit to the tramps' ward, and on a cold November evening I found there was no fire in the ward. I denounced this inhuman treatment at the Board. Again the old idea was trotted out. These parasites, living on the community, must be punished. I replied with the stinging retort that the tramps were not the only people born tired, and I moved that in future during the winter months there should be a fire in the ward.

After a good deal of discussion this was carried. The next subject we tackled was the old peoples' dress. We moved that the distinctive dress should be abolished and that the old ladies should be dressed in a more homelike way. This was also adopted, but I don't think the old ladies took to it very kindly. Still it was a step in the right direction. The dietary table was taken in hand, and a great improvement was made in this direction, and month by month we gradually increased the out relief.

An amusing incident happened to me one Sunday when I was conducting a religious service in a little chapel. A poor old widow sat right against the pulpit. Her out relief had been increased from 1s. 6d. to 3s. per week. After I had finished the service the old lady came up to me, put her arms round my neck and, as innocently as a child of two, kissed me and p.r.o.nounced G.o.d's blessing upon me, saying she hoped I would live for ever.

Early in 1896 a Poor Law conference was held at Norwich, and the Board unanimously elected me as one of their representatives. I was put on almost all the committees, for by this time a much better feeling existed on the Board. We began to understand each other and we gave each other credit for honest intentions.

Under the District and Parish Councils Act the Guardians were also deemed to be District Councillors, except those living in urban districts. The Council became the Highways Authority and took over all the parish roads. They also became the Sanitary Authority. I was put on the committees for these purposes and our first fight for Labour commenced. As the Highways Authority, the Council became a large employer of labour, and when we came to fixing the wages and hours a stiff fight commenced. I moved that the men should receive 2s. 6d. per day or 15s. per week. This proposition filled the employers on the Council with alarm, and we were met with the point that, if we paid that wage, all the labourers would become dissatisfied and would want the same, and they could not afford it. I retorted that it was the duty of the Council to set an example and pay a living wage. This was defeated, but we did manage to get pa.s.sed that the roadmen received 1s.

per week more than the labourers. In the course of two or three years we tackled the housing question, and before I left the Council in 1910 we had adopted Part III of the Housing Act and had built houses at Briston and Edgefield. I look back with more pleasure to the work I was able to do for my cla.s.s on this Board and Council than to any other work I have done during the whole of my long public life. I had the satisfaction of knowing that comfort and pleasure was brought into many a poor old person's home.

We commenced the year 1895 with a very large decrease of members. Our balance sheet showed our income to be down nearly 50 per cent., and although I had my salary reduced from 18s. to 10s. and the Executive had cut down expenses by one half, our savings were very small. We had several small disputes. The Executive thought they would have one more effort to revive the Union. Again the English Land Restoration League came to our aid and sent another of their vans and a lecturer down free for the summer months. Many villages where branches had fallen through were visited. Thousands of leaflets on land and labour questions were distributed by the League. The Tory and capitalist party worked equally hard the other way. At first they devoted all their energies against Arch and published most scandalous leaflets about his balance sheet that shocked every fair-minded man in all political parties. I was the first to publish the balance sheet of 1894. No sooner had I done this than they attacked me more ferociously than they had done Arch. They manipulated the sheet in a shameful manner, so much so that even the employers were ashamed of such tactics. It had, however, its desired effect and by the end of 1895 both Unions had actually become defunct.

During the year I went without my 10s. per week, knowing the Union would collapse within a few months, and I received my income from the _Weekly Leader_. On December 7, 1895, I wrote to the _Leader_ the following open letter:--

FELLOW WORKERS,--The year of 1895 is fast slipping beneath our feet, and it becomes us all who are in any way interested in labour to take a retrospect of the past months, and also to take a view of the present condition of the working cla.s.ses, in order that a correct impression of the condition of the labouring cla.s.ses during the year 1895 may be obtained. As one of the much despised Labour leaders I feel that the time has come when we must speak out plainly to the working men, and show them their exact position.

Now, first I wish to point out to you that so far as combination is concerned, and the means to help yourselves to resist unfair treatment, you stand in a far worse condition than you did at the commencement of the year. You were then in a wretchedly disorganized condition--not more than one out of every four of the labourers being in an organization of any kind--but to-day you are in a far worse state of disorganization, and you are altogether powerless to help yourselves in any way; and what is far worse, there has been growing up amongst you a spirit of distrust and prejudice, until to-day your ranks are all chaos and confusion. You seem to be like Ishmaelites, every man's hand turned against the other. I must confess that I for one did expect better things of you. With the District and Parish Councils Act just coming into force, I hoped that new life would rise amongst you, and that you would endeavour to make the most of the opportunities that presented themselves to you, and that by this time you would have been in a much better position. But my hopes have been blighted and now I despair of you. All hopes that you as a cla.s.s will make any effort to lift yourselves from your down-trodden state have vanished. Such being so, many of us are seriously considering whether the time has not come for us to step out of the field and leave you to fight your way the best you can. Now, so far as the actual state of Labour is concerned, your outlook for the future is most gloomy for reasons already stated, and at present the condition of labour is not very much improved. At the commencement of this year your wages as agricultural labourers were 10s. per week; flour was 11d. and 1s. per stone. At present your wages are 10s. per week, and flour 1s. 2d. and 1s. 3d. per stone, and thus with a family using five stones of flour per week, as hundreds of you do, your purchasing power is reduced 1s. 3d. per week. You were told in July last that it would be otherwise; you were led to believe that if there was a change of Government, and the farmers made more of their produce, you would get higher wages. No other evidence is needed of the foolishness of your conduct, as your past experience ought to have told you. It is only by having a good organization at your back that the farmers will ever pay you a higher wage, and there is nothing unnatural in that. The farmer is a merchant: he has your labour to buy, and he will always buy it as cheaply as he can. That is so long as our present individualistic system remains, and labour is used for the sake of profit-making.

Mr. Rew, the a.s.sistant Commissioner on Agricultural Depression, said in his report, that if the labourers had never heard of a Union they would have had to put up with a less wage than 9s. or 10s. per week; but fortunately or unfortunately, Mr. Rew has not lived as long as some of us have; neither has he had the same experience as we have. There is abundant evidence that when the men in Norfolk were well organized they received a much higher wage, and that they did not get it until they did organize; and the fact does not indicate that economic forces rule the labourers wages.

The facts are, then, that so far as the condition of the labourer is concerned, they will close the year 1895 worse than they began, that is to say so far as wages and their purchasing power is concerned; and Heaven only knows it was bad enough before. It is not many weeks since a labourer's wife told me that after she had bought flour and coal she had only sixpence left. I should like those who are constantly harping upon the comfortable conditions of the labourers to take a round with me once a week and get a glimpse into the labourer's cottage. They would be able to detect at a glance the amount of poverty which exists amongst the working cla.s.ses. They would soon see there was not much waste in the labourer's kitchen. They would see that so far as the labourers having the best end of the stick their share in the business is very small. It is to be hoped that the working men will seriously consider the position, and endeavour in the near future to better it. I have spoken out the plain, cruel, honest truth; I hope it will have the desired effect.

Arch's Union was by now completely gone. My Executive was seriously considering winding up the whole thing. The funds of both districts had become exhausted, as also had the central fund, hence the Union existed only on paper. They decided to let the matter remain a few weeks more, and commence another year if only on paper, and in the last issue of the _Leader_ for 1895 appeared the following article by me:--

By the time this week's issue of the _Weekly Leader_ appears the year 1895 will have pa.s.sed away and 1896 will have been ushered in.

It will do us no harm, especially the rural workers, to look at the condition of labour and ascertain, if possible, its true condition.

We have constantly dinned into our ears that there has been such improvement made in the condition of the workers these last few years that there is nothing left to be done. We are told the life of the workers is all that can be desired. Now, in commencing to review the life of the toilers I have no wish to infer that there have been no improvements in the working cla.s.ses; far from it, for the various political reforms that have been pa.s.sed these last few years have had a tendency to give labour a stake in the country.

But even these have not brought those unmixed blessings as many would have us believe they have. In fact, I think it can be shown that in some respects each political reform has had a tendency to fetter labour and somewhat enslave it, because these political reforms have left loopholes for the landlords and capitalist to tyrannize over them. With the enfranchis.e.m.e.nt came the system of letting the cottages to the labourers at a fortnight's notice, and by so doing instead of the enfranchis.e.m.e.nt of the people giving Labour a free hand, it bound Labour tighter; and the last great reform of 1894 has given the landlords and employers an opportunity of tyrannizing over the workers in such a way as was never dreamt of by the promoters of the Bill. Thus, instead of the government of our villages being in the hands of the people, it is in the hands of a wealthy clique--for the simple reason that the landlords are able to hold over the heads of the workers the threat of higher rents, and a few of the daring spirits who have come forward and voiced their fellows' wrongs have become marked birds for the aristocratic tyrants to shoot at. With these facts before us, I think it must be confessed that so far as the liberty and freedom of Labour is concerned, we have closed the year 1895 with Labour as fettered as ever, especially the unskilled portion of it.

There is much being said to-day in reference to the wages of the workers, and an attempt is made to prove that Labour is receiving far the largest share of the reward of human industry, and that their poverty is due to the drinking and improvident habits of the workers. That statement I do not accept. Those who prefer that charge against the workers spend more money in gambling and drink in one day than the workers with large families have to live upon in a week. The wage of the agricultural labourers is at the rate of 10s. per week, and unskilled labourers in the town about 16s. 3d.

This is far below a fair living wage. The conditions under which the workers live will not bear very close inspection; some of the hovels in which they live are not fit for human habitation. Scores of the hovels in which the workers live they are compelled to nail up sacks to keep the wind and water out. A poor women told me a few days ago that she had to set bowls all over the bedroom when it rained. Another told me during the sharp weather, when the family woke up in the morning, their beds were all covered with snow; yet those poor creatures dare not complain for fear they would have nowhere to hide their heads; and if we turn our attention to the towns we find the workers in just as bad a condition, if not a little worse. Their living is of the coa.r.s.est kind, in fact it is a marvel how they exist at all. These comments are not for the purpose of disheartening anyone, but to show our critics that the condition of the workers is far from what it ought to be. They are intended further to arouse, if possible, the workers from their apathy, and to make a strenuous effort in the new year to better their position, which can only be done by combination. There is I still a remnant of the once strong Unions left; these have done I their work for you labourers in the past. If, however, you think a better system can be found, then by all means adopt it and get organized. Your opponents are getting more desperate every day; capital is becoming more organized for the purpose of resisting the just demands of labour.

CHAPTER VIII

FAREWELLS

In the first week of December 1895, at the request of the Cromer District Liberal a.s.sociation, I invited Mr. Arch to come to Cromer and address a meeting there. This invitation he accepted. Mr. Ketton presided. I was anxious to give the old man a good reception, and I obtained the services of the Cromer and Southrepps Bra.s.s Bands to play Arch from the house at which he was staying to the Lecture Hall. I met him at the station in the afternoon, and as soon as I took his hand I found he was broken-hearted and bitterly disappointed. Big tears ran down his face. I took him to the house of his host and we had tea together. Later we adjourned to another room by ourselves. Arch gripped me by the hand and said: "My boy, you are younger than I, therefore you will be able to return to work, but take my advice. When you do, never trust our cla.s.s again. I am getting old, I have given all the best years of my life in their interest, and now in my old age they have forsaken me."

We had a splendid meeting, but he was not the same Arch he was in the days of the past. The bitter disappointment had affected him even on a political platform. I stayed with him that night and saw him off in the morning, feeling sure we should never meet again in a public capacity.

We did not. At the General Election Arch retired, and his friends in the House of Commons, irrespective of politics, subscribed and bought him a life annuity.

Early in the new year (1896) the directors of the _Weekly Leader_ decided to wind up the company, as no advertis.e.m.e.nts could be obtained, and on February 8, 1896, the last issue of the paper was published. In it appeared my parting words to the labourers, and I did not fail to speak out plainly.

A PARTING WORD TO THE LABOURERS

FELLOW WORKERS,

It is with deep regret that I write these comments this week, as this is the last issue of the _Weekly Leader_, the only organ in Norfolk that has for some time fearlessly advocated your rights.

With its disappearance I shall have to vanish from public life too, and in order to make my position clear before the public I propose to give a brief outline of my connection with public movements, especially the Labour movement.

In 1884 and 1885, when the labourer became enfranchised, I was in a good situation as brick-burner. My employer was a Tory, but I held contrary opinions. Being a working man and Nonconformist, I had the courage to do what little I could for the party which I thought would best serve the working men and the country at large, hence I spoke at several of the Liberal meetings in Norfolk. For this I lost my work, and was turned out of my house, and was only able to get another by a man sub-letting to me. I was never able to get another place as brick-burner, and I turned to that of agricultural labourer, which I understood as well as the other work. But I was only able to do this by walking twelve miles a day, as no farmer in my neighbourhood would employ me. This I did for eighteen months.

Then Mr. Ketton of Felbrigg Hall, my employer at that time, found me a cottage where I am now living. No sooner had I got settled in my new home than the working men, getting dissatisfied with their lot in life and having no labourers' Union, turned to me to help them to reorganize themselves. For some weeks I refused to take any part. Having been once boycotted and being now only just settled down under a liberal employer, I felt I had no further wish to bear the turmoils of public life; but at last through the men's constant appealing I yielded to their pressure. Eleven labourers formed a committee and waited upon me at my house on November 5, 1889, and after they had decided among themselves what kind of Union they wished to start, I consented to act as secretary. I at once threw myself into the work, and in nine months enrolled in the Union upwards of 1,000 members, keeping at my work all the same time, holding meetings after I had done my day's work, many a time travelling twelve and fourteen miles to do so, and often not seeing my bed at all. At the end of nine months the committee decided that my whole time should be given to the work. I cautioned them and begged the men not to take me from my work, and for a time I refused to give it up. But at last, feeling that I must either give the movement up or give up my work, as my const.i.tution was being seriously impaired, I yielded to the wishes of the men, and a general meeting was called to decide upon my salary. One pound a week was fixed, but I refused to take a pound whilst the men were being paid so low, and took 15s. per week only. About this time we became amalgamated with a Norwich Union, which was started about the same time as our Cromer Union, and in due time I became General Secretary, my salary being raised to 18s. per week. This amount I had for about eighteen months, when the men began to leave the Union, and now for several months I have had no salary at all.

Now for a short account of the work done. We found the labourers working for 10s. per week, which was soon raised to 12s., and in a number of villages to 13s. Their harvest wages were raised from 6 to 6 10s. to 7 and 7 5s. We also a.s.sisted a large number of the men to migrate and emigrate to other fields of labour. In 1892 I fought a spirited contest in a County Council Election at the express wish of the labourers themselves. At the pa.s.sing of the District and Parish Councils Act I did my best to enable you to put it into operation. I have given this outline of my work and connection with working men's movements so that when my voice is silent, and my pen is still, and I go into obscurity, the public may be able to rightly judge of my work. One thing I can honestly say--in advocating the rights of the working men I have never studied my own personal interests or comfort. I have fearlessly championed your cause and have said and done for your interest what I have honestly believed to be right, and in doing so I have alienated those from me who would otherwise have been my friends, because in fighting your cause I have fought against their interests. I have in your interests made myself a bore to almost everyone, and have been a target for everyone to shoot at, while all through the work I have been grossly misrepresented. But none of these things have moved me, as I felt that I was fighting a n.o.ble and just cause. But alas! you the working men soon grew weary in well-doing, you allowed a spirit of apathy to grow up amongst you, and what is still worse, you have allowed a spirit of mistrust and wicked prejudice to grow up amongst you. You have believed the vilest calumnies that have been uttered against the leaders of the movement by your enemies, hence your failure to emanc.i.p.ate yourselves. Leader after leader has fallen because when victory was within sight you refused to hold up their hands, and now you find yourselves to-day in a helpless state.

In taking my final farewell of you, let it never be said that George Edwards has left you. It is you that have left him. I was prepared at all costs to voice your interests, for I have as strong a faith as ever in the justness of your cause and the justness of your claims to live by your labour. But I have lost all faith that you will ever manifest manliness and independence enough to claim your rights. But should you ever again be prepared to a.s.sert your rights, I hope you will be able to find someone to lead you successfully on till the harvest of your rights is fully accomplished. In my parting words I will say to you as did Ernest Jones in one of his beautiful poems, because, although you cannot realize it, your cause will one day triumph. Fellow workers, farewell! It is not for me to get the work accomplished. I would have helped you, but ye would not. I will say to you:--

Sharpen the sickle; how full the ears Our children are crying for bread; And the field has been watered with orphans' tears And enriched with their fathers' dead.

And hopes that are buried, and hearts that broke, Lie deep in the treasuring sod: Then sweep down the grain with a thunder-stroke, In the name of humanity's G.o.d.

A week before this I had received an offer from the Executive of the English Land Restoration League to undertake a tour with one of their vans in Wiltshire in the coming season, commencing May 1st. This I accepted. As there were several weeks before the engagement commenced, a friend living at Sheringham, Mr. B. Johnson, offered to find me a few weeks' work. On Monday February 10th I went to work for him a disappointed man, having lost all faith that my cla.s.s would ever be manly enough to emanc.i.p.ate themselves.

To add to this disappointment I lost my seat on the District Council, the Rev. Mills leading by four votes. This exhibition of ingrat.i.tude on the part of the working men in my own village after all I had done for them during my term of office was enough to crush the spirit of any man, for I had brought to the old people in receipt of relief living in that parish alone over 20 in increased relief. I had also obtained some few acres of allotments. In any case I felt I could never take any more interest in the business so long as I lived there. At the election of the Parish Council I refused to serve again, and the Council fell into the hands of the farmers; and there it has remained ever since.

In May I commenced my lecturing tour. I travelled by road into the county, holding meetings every night on the way. During my tour I ran against the law. On September 30th I was summoned by the police before the Trowbridge bench of magistrates for an alleged obstruction of the highway by holding a public meeting on Vickers Hill, Trowbridge, on September 18th.

The ground on which the van stood was vacant and belonged to the Council. The amusing part of the business was that at the time I was supposed to be speaking and causing an obstruction I was more than half a mile from the van. The man I left in charge of the van had got impatient and commenced the meeting before the chairman and myself could return. It was a most amusing case. Superintendent Tyler was prosecuting, and when I stepped into the box he ordered me out again, as he thought I was one of the public and was going into the wrong seat. He did not know I was the defendant.

The campaign was most successful and pleasant, and I gained an experience that has stood me in good stead since. Several amusing incidents occurred during the campaign. At a place near Devizes I was addressing a large meeting, and a Tory continually interrupted with the remark: "You would not do it if you were not paid for it." Subsequently a man came on to the van and informed me of my interrupter's mode of living. This he did without anyone else's knowledge, and it prepared me for the next interruption. I had not long to wait for the same remark, and I retorted: "And when I am paid I cannot afford to keep two wives as some people do." A shout went up--"That is what he does." Needless to say I had no more interruptions from that quarter. I was in the county twenty-six weeks, and although the work was successful from a propaganda point of view, it did not save the Union in the interests of which I was working, namely the Wiltshire Union, financed by Mr. Louis Anstie, for it died out within a few weeks.

In October of the same year I returned home and again settled down to work. I went to work for a few weeks with the late Mr. Benjamin Johnson as a general labourer, and in January 1897 I accepted a situation as a brick-burner with the late Mr. J. N. Neale of Baconsthorpe, who opened a brickyard at Beeston. I kept with him some years. In the same month I was elected unopposed to the Erpingham District Council, and for years I lost a day a fortnight from my work to attend the meetings without fee or reward. My wife also kept her seat for the parishes of East and West Beckham. I was soon put on to all the committees again. In March of that year I was sent by the Board as their representative to a Poor Law conference at Colchester and again to one at Norwich in 1898, and in 1899 I was sent by the Board to a conference at Ipswich and was deputed by them to read a paper on Old Age Pensions. After a lengthy discussion the Board pa.s.sed a resolution in favour of these. Strange to say, same few years later, when the Government brought in its scheme, it adopted in the main the principles I had advocated in my paper, with the exception of the age and income limit. I did not recommend any income and I advocated sixty-five as the qualifying age.