A DEFEAT AND A VICTORY
In 1892 I fought my first political battle, and for the first time my
faith in the Liberal Party received a shock. In this year took place the
second General County Council Election, and, by special request of the
working men in the Cromer district, I allowed myself to be nominated as
a Liberal-Labour candidate for that division, expecting, of course, that
I should have the united support of the Liberal Party in whose interests
I had worked so hard for several years. Believing them when they said
they were anxious that the working man should be represented on all
Authorities, one can understand my surprise and astonishment when I
found the leading Liberal in the district nominating as my opponent the
leading Tory in the district! I lost faith in their sincerity. It was
evident they were not prepared to assist the working men to take their
share in the government of the country. The contest was turned at once
into a class contest. Many of the leading Liberals, as well as the
Tories, expressed their disgust at a working man having the audacity to
fight for a seat on the Norfolk County Council against a local landlord.
My opponent was the late Mr. B. Bond Cabbell, who was returned unopposed
at the first election of the Council.
The contest caused the greatest excitement. The late Mr. Henry
Broadhurst, M.P., came to my help. The division comprised the towns of
Cromer and Sheringham and the following villages: East and West Runton,
Weybourne, Beeston Regis, East and West Beckham, Gresham, Bessingham,
Sustead, Aylmerton, Metton and Felbrigg. The contest lasted three weeks,
and I covered the whole district and held meetings in every village. All
this I did on foot, as I could not cycle and I could not afford to hire
a conveyance. The meetings were well attended, and the only help I
received was from Mr. Broadhurst and from a few of my own members who
were local preachers. The supporters of my opponent manifested the
greatest bitterness during the contest, especially the Liberals. So far
did they carry this spirit that they descended to publishing a most
disgraceful cartoon, depicting a coffin with me lying in it and
Broadhurst standing by the side and weeping over me. Underneath were the
words: "Puzzle, find Edwards after the election." My opponent strongly
condemned such action and threatened to retire unless they withdrew the
thing.
The saddest thing of all was that it was my opponent who was dead within
three months from the day of the election.
Throughout the election I was booed at by my opponent's supporters, bags
of flour and soot were thrown at me, but my supporters heartened me with
their cheers. The poll was a heavy one and the votes were counted at
Cromer Town Hall on the night of the poll, the result being:--
Bond Cabbell 505
Edwards 455
---
Majority 50
There was a great crowd gathered outside the hall, my opponents being
certain of victory, which they had made every preparation to celebrate.
A brass band was there in readiness, and a torchlight procession was
formed. I was informed the next morning that the band was worked up to
such a state of excitement that the drummer broke in the end of his
drum, which caused much amusement and comment not altogether to the
credit of the performers.
The result, however, did not give much satisfaction to the aristocratic
party; in fact, they were more bitter than ever. For a working man to
run the gentlemen's party so close was more than they could tolerate,
for they were afraid that at the next trial of strength Labour might
win. Owing to Mr. Bond Cabbell's death another election had to take
place, but I decided not to contest the seat again so soon, and my late
employer, Mr. R. W. Ketton, came forward and was returned unopposed.
I then turned my attention to perfecting my organization. In the autumn
of that year I opened some strong branches at Shipdham, East and West
Bradenham, Saham Toney, Ashill, Earlham, Barford, Grimston, Wood
Dalling, Swanton Abbott, Hockering and Weston. We were soon doomed to
more trouble. Early in 1893 the men got restless. The employers seemed
determined to reduce wages further. Arch's Union was seriously involved.
Strikes took place at Calthorpe, Erpingham, Southrepps, Northrepps and
Roughton, and our Union became involved, as we had members on the farms.
Our members also came out at North Barningham, Aylmerton and Alby. A
great deal of hard work and anxiety devolved upon me, as I was the only
paid official in the Union. Mr. Z. Walker, the only organizer the
National Union had at this time, was hardly pressed, as both Unions had
members on most of the farms affected, and we frequently met and held
joint meetings. I also met Mr. Arch and addressed many meetings with him
and we became great friends from that time. We both saw that to have two
Unions with the same objects and catering for the same class was a
source of weakness, but how to find a way out of it neither of us could
see.
We decided, however, so long as the movement lasted, we would work side
by side without any friction.
The dispute lasted many weeks. The greatest use was made by the
employers of the weapon of the tied cottage and many evictions took
place.
The magistrates never hesitated when the opportunity presented to grant
an eviction order.
In 1893 the Government appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into the
administration of the Poor Law. Amongst those appointed to serve on the
Commission were the late King (then Prince of Wales), the late Lord
Aberdare, Rt. Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, M.P., Henry Broadhurst, M.P.,
Joseph Arch, M.P. and others. I was invited to give evidence before the
Commission upon the following points: Relief in kind; its quality; the
amount of allowance; the question of compelling children to support
their aged parents. I obtained my facts and prepared my evidence and was
called up to London to give it in March 1893. To prove the poorness of
the quality of flour allowed by Boards of Guardians I obtained some of
this flour and I also bought some of the best flour sold on the market.
Needless to say, the contrast was enormous. The members of the
Commission were astonished beyond degree at the poorness of the quality
of the flour doled out by the Guardians, and I was requested by the
Commission to go back and ask my wife to make some bread from the two
classes of flour before completing my evidence. This I did, and the
following week I took the bread with me before the Commission. The
contrast in the bread was more marked even than in the flour. The late
King expressed himself as shocked that such stuff was served out to the
poor to eat and thanked me for the trouble I had taken in the matter.
Dealing with the inadequacy of the relief, I was requested to give cases
of hardship that had come under my personal notice. I presented several
cases. One came from the parish of Aylmerton, being that of a widow left
with four little children, one a baby in arms. She was allowed 6d. per
week each for three children and nothing for the fourth; half a stone
of flour each for three and nothing for herself. In those days a widow
was supposed to keep herself and one child. This poor widow's suffering
was beyond degree, but this was only a sample of the suffering and
extreme poverty of those who had lost the breadwinner. The case of the
aged poor was even worse. I presented cases, giving the names of aged
couples living together and only receiving one stone of flour and 2s.
6d. in money, and of widows (aged) receiving only half a stone of flour
and 1s. 6d. in money. In fact, my own mother was only allowed 2s. 6d.
per week and no flour and, further, I was called upon by the Aylsham
Board of Guardians to contribute 1s. 3d. per week towards the sum
allowed her by the Board, although I was only receiving 15s. per week
with which to keep myself and my wife.
I also named several cases of extreme hardship of children being called
upon to support their parents. I gave the cases of two agricultural
labourers named Hazelwood, living at Baconsthorpe. Both were married men
with large families, one, I believe, had eight children. They were both
summoned before the Cromer magistrates by the Erpingham Board of
Guardians to show cause why they should not contribute towards the
maintenance of their aged parents.
I was cross-examined on my evidence for some hours by Mr. Joseph
Chamberlain. At the close of my examination I was thanked by the late
King and the other members of the Commission for my evidence. The
Commission held their sittings in the Queen's Robing Room in the House
of Lords. When my evidence was published it caused quite a sensation in
the country, and I think the report of this Commission hastened on the
passing of the District and Parish Councils Act. About this time I grew
so disgusted with the treatment meted out to my mother that I absolutely
refused to contribute any more towards the sum granted her by them. I
told the Board they could stop the miserable 2s. 6d. per week and this
they did forthwith. My wife and I at once gave notice to the landlord of
the cottage in which my mother had lived for fifty years, the rent of
which we had paid between us, and I decided to take her to our home and
look after her. My sister had the furniture with the exception of the
bed on which my mother slept and an old chest of drawers. I kept my
mother until she died on February 5, 1892, without receiving a penny
from anyone.
In 1894 the Government brought in a Bill known as the District and
Parish Councils Bill, which provided for the establishment of a Council
in every parish having a population of 300 and over, and the placing of
the obtaining of allotments for the working classes in the hands of the
Council, together with the appointing of trustees for Parish Charities.
It also sought to abolish all property qualification in election as
Guardians. Mr. Z. Walker and I jointly entered into a campaign during
the passage of the Bill through Parliament, Mr. Arch paying as many
visits to the county as his parliamentary duties would permit. We also
had the valuable assistance of the English Land Restoration League, as
it was then called, Mr. Frederick Verinder being the General Secretary.
The League sent down one of their vans and a lecturer.
The Trades Union Congress was held in Norwich this year (1894). I
attended the Congress as delegate from the Norfolk and Norwich
Amalgamated Labour League and moved a resolution on the tied cottage
system.
At the end of the session the Bill became law, and by the instructions
of my Executive I set about preparing to put the Act in force. I held
meetings in every village where we had branches of the Union and
explained the provisions of the Act. By the time the first meetings were
held to elect the Parish Councils in many of our villages we had got our
men ready and well posted up in the mode of procedure as to nominations
and how to carry on.
The first meeting was held in December in the village in which I lived.
We held a preliminary meeting in the schools to explain the Act. This
meeting was attended by the Rev. W. W. Mills, the Rector of the parish,
who caused some little amusement by his constant personal interjections.
For some years for some reason he had shown a personal dislike to me,
and he never lost an opportunity to manifest this spirit of dislike.
What influenced him I never could understand, but he always seemed
jealous of my influence in the village as a Nonconformist. A few days
after this meeting was held the Rector came to my house to inform me
that Mrs. Mills was being nominated as a candidate for the District
Council, and I informed him that I was also being nominated. He
expressed a wish that the contest might be friendly. I informed him that
so far as I was concerned it would. He then accused me of being the
cause of the meeting referred to above being disorderly, which I stoutly
denied. He then called me a liar, and it looked for a few moments as if
we were in for a scuffle, for I threatened to put him out of my house
and began to take steps to do so. He at once rose from his seat and
rushed to the door before I could lay hands on him, but in getting away
he caught my hand in the door and knocked the skin off my knuckles. My
wife was in the next room, and had she not appeared on the scene I do
not know what would have happened. She got between us, took the Rector
by the collar and put him out of the yard. This event caused some little
excitement in the village.
At the meeting held for the election of Parish Councillors all the
Labour members nominated were elected. We had nominated sufficient
candidates to fill all the seats but one, and this was taken by Mr.
Groom, the schoolmaster. The parish of Felbrigg was also joined to
Aylmerton for the purpose of forming the Parish Council, and it became
known as the Aylmerton-cum-Felbrigg Parish Council. At the first meeting
of the Council I was elected chairman. I was also elected on the Beckham
Parish Council on which I served for some years, and I was also one of
the charity trustees. One of the first things we did on the Aylmerton
Council was to obtain allotments for the labourers in the parishes of
Aylmerton and Felbrigg. In fact, our enthusiasm to do something was so
great that it was the cause of our undoing, for at the next election we
all got defeated, and I took no more interest in the affairs of the
parish while I lived there.
At the District Council election I beat my opponent by four votes. My
wife was elected for the parish of East and West Beckham unopposed, Mr.
Barker was elected for Sustead, Mr. T. Self for Felbrigg, Mr. Walter
Towler for Edgefield and Mr. B. Johnson for Sheringham. Thus we started
the new Erpingham District Council and Board of Guardians with six
direct Labour representatives, which beat the record in all rural
England. I was a member of this Council for eighteen years and my wife
for ten years.
The reception we received at the first meeting of the Council was rather
mixed. Many of the members were rather alarmed at so many Labour members
being elected, particularly myself, whom they looked upon as being the
leader of the group, and of course I was looked upon as being a rebel,
out for revolution, to upset law and order, and to go in for most
indiscriminate outdoor relief. Our arrival at the Board was rather late,
and on entering the room we found all the other members present
discussing the probable events of the day. As soon as I appeared in the
room I saw some of the members point to me and remark, that I was "the
fellow." Well, it was quite true, we were there for business and to make
a great alteration in the administration of the Poor Law. On settling
down to work we found the outdoor relief allowed by this Board was as
follows: Aged couples, one stone of flour and 2s. 6d. per week, and in a
few special cases 3s. per week; single persons, half a stone of flour
and 1s. 6d. per week; young widow with family 6d. per week and half a
stone of flour for all the children with the exception of one, which the
widow was expected to keep as well as herself. We found another shameful
practice in existence. If the late husband of the recipient was in a
sick club, the widow was requested to show all her bills as evidence of
how she had spent her husband's funeral money before any relief was
granted.
This seems almost incredible, but it is true. We made an early attempt
to alter this scandalous state of things, as the following account of a
debate that took place will prove. Although we did not get the
improvements we aimed at, still we made some advancement, and it
encouraged us to aim very soon at other improvements. We Labour members
made strict inquiries into the conditions of the poor. We also found in
those days that the Relieving Officers had not advanced far from their
predecessors in the treatment of the poor and would take any excuse to
deprive the poor of relief. On going to the Board meeting one day my
wife found that a poor sick and aged widow had had her relief stopped by
the Relieving Officer, the excuse being that the woman had given birth
to an illegitimate child. This the officer said he knew to be true as
the woman had told him so. This astounded my wife, as she knew it was
impossible for such a thing to have happened, and she undertook to
investigate the matter. This she did, and was able to inform the Board
that the so-called illegitimate child was thirty years of age, married,
and a mother herself. Needless to say, we Labour members did not fail to
denounce this cruel act for all we were worth and we got the poor woman
her money put on again. The Relieving Officer was made to pay her her
back money himself and never to come to the Board again with such a
story.
The next question we tackled was the relief given in kind. We found
that meat tickets ordered by the doctor had been refused in numbers of
cases, so much so that the doctors had begun to complain. I raised the
question on the Board and I found up a clause in the Poor Law Act that
prohibited the Guardians from refusing to give relief in kind ordered by
the doctor. It caused a good deal of discussion, but we got the matter
put right. The quality of the flour allowed to the poor next came under
our notice. One week a poor widow living in my village brought me a loaf
of bread she had made from the flour the Relieving Officer had left her
that week. One could take the middle out and leave the crust standing
like two walls. My wife gave the woman some of her own flour, took the
other flour and made it into bread herself, with the same result. I took
this bread, with a loaf my wife made from her own flour, to the meeting
of the Guardians, and strange to say the Rev. Casson, living at
Mundesley, fourteen miles from where I lived, also took some. We
denounced this treatment and all kinds of excuses were forthcoming.
During the discussion it came to light that the contractor was only a
journeyman, and that he took the contract for his master. The result of
this exposure was the stopping of all relief in kind so far as flour was
concerned. The following report of the debate appeared in the _Eastern
Weekly Leader_:--
The Rev. Casson brought up some bread and flour from Mundesley, and
Mr. Edwards brought two loaves of bread and three samples of flour
from Aylmerton, and they were laid on the table for the Guardians
to inspect. The bread had a very bad appearance. The Rev. Casson
moved that the contractor who supplied this flour to the poor in
the Southrepps district be named, and that early steps be taken to
bring him to punishment, and that his name be for ever struck out
from the list of contractors of this Union. The rev. gentleman said
that the man who could be villain enough to supply the poor with
such stuff as this called flour deserved to be punished to the
utmost limit of the law. (Cries of "Prove the flour is bad.") The
Rev. Casson: "I have brought a sample of the bread and flour here,
and I will ask any Guardian if he thinks it is fit for human food,
and are we as Guardians going to sit quietly by and see our poor
served with such stuff as this? It is not fit for the beasts to
eat." At this stage the rev. gentleman grew very excited, and was
exhibiting his sample of bread and flour, when Mr. Richard Mack, a
co-opted member, took the bread and put it into the fire. The rev.
gentleman then moved excitedly that Mr. Mack be named and expelled
for the day for his dastardly and cowardly act--(great
disorder).--Mr. Mack, he continued, had destroyed the only
protection these poor people had.--Mr. Edwards said he rose as a
protest against the conduct of Mr. Mack. He had been brought into
contact with a large number of people, and he must say he never saw
a more ungentlemanly act in his life. He was surprised that any
gentleman should so forget himself as to treat another gentleman as
Mr. Mack had treated the Rev. Casson when he was advocating the
rights of the poor. (Cries of "shame.") Mr. Edwards: "It is a
shame, and I appeal to the Chairman to protect the Rev. Casson and
obtain for him a fair hearing." (Loud applause.) Mr. Edwards added,
"Let anyone dare to destroy my sample of bread and I will soon show
them what course I will take."--Mr. Towler said he thought it was
most unfair that the Rev. Casson should be interrupted. Surely
gentlemen were not afraid these things should be brought to
light.--The Rev. Casson said he felt it very much that Mr. Mack
should throw his bread into the fire, as it was the protection
these poor people had whose cause he was advocating. Speaking on
the flour, he said the complaint did not come from one person only,
nor yet from one village, for the same complaint came from
Trimingham, and his friend Mr. Edwards had brought the same
complaint from Aylmerton, miles away from Mundesley, and he hoped
the Guardians would bring the man to punishment that had been
guilty.--Mr. Edwards said it was with mixed feelings that he
seconded the Rev. Casson's resolution. He was pleased that he was
on the Board to watch the interest of the poor, and he was pleased
that the Rev. Casson had spoken out as he had. He could assure the
Rev. Casson that he would receive the warm gratitude of hundreds of
poor people for the course he had taken. At the same time he very
much regretted that any man could be found in this country calling
itself Christian so cruel as to act as this contractor had done.
He, Mr. Edwards, had been very careful to bring flour as well as
bread, and he had also got bread and flour from different persons
so that it could not be said that it was all of one make and was
the fault of the maker.--Mr. Waters moved as an amendment that we
have some of the flour taken from the other sacks and sent to two
or three bakers to test it before naming the contractor. Mr.
Waters said he did not wish it to go forth that he did not wish the
poor people to have good flour, but he thought they ought to be
sure first that the flour was bad, or the Board might find
themselves sued for libel. In his opinion the bread produced was
baked badly and the yeast was not good.--Mr. Daplyn seconded the
amendment.--Mrs. Edwards said Mr. Waters had no right to speak of
the bread in the way he had. The bread which her husband had
brought from Aylmerton was made of the same yeast hers was made
from, and hers was very good--good enough even for Mr. Waters to
eat if he wished; and further, she knew the woman that made the
bread, and she could assure the Guardians she was a good
bread-maker. She was sure it was not the fault of the maker nor yet
of the yeast, but of the flour; and she would challenge anyone that
had any knowledge of flour to prove that the flour produced was
good. She could assure the Guardians that her neighbours and sister
working-woman could make as good bread as anyone else if they had
the flour to make it with.--Mr. Broadhurst said he hoped the Rev.
Casson would not press his vote of censure upon Mr. Mack, for he
thought he had no ill feeling.--Mr. Mack apologised and said he
only put the bread into the fire through fun. He was anxious the
poor should have good flour.--Mr. Broadhurst, continuing, said any
contractor or contractors who could be found to conspire together
to supply the poor people with such stuff as this called bread
ought to be brought to book. He would ask anyone if they thought
such stuff as this was fit for human food? Why, he would not give
it to his dog, much less offer it to a poor human being. The poor
ask for bread and we give them stuff fit only to make paste
with.--Mr. Waters: "We do not supply them with bread, but with
flour."--Mr. Broadhurst: "Oh, very well. Flour, if you like to call
it such. I do not. But we have it here on the evidence of one of
the ladies that some of the bread is made with the very same yeast
that her bread is made with, and hers is good; and further that she
knows one of the women who made the bread, and that she knows her
to be a good bread-maker. Why should they doubt this Guardian's
words? Further, we have bread and flour brought from villages miles
apart, and it would be impossible for them to conspire together for
the purpose of trumping up a complaint. This affair to-day is
another strong argument in favour of giving the poor money instead
of relief in kind, and all honour to those gentlemen who have
brought this matter before the Board; they will receive the thanks
of thousands of people when they read the debate."--Mr. Kimm, the
Relieving Officer, said the sub-contractor had offered to take the
other sacks back.--Mr. Broadhurst: "Subcontractor! What, do you
mean to say that this Board allows its business to be done in this
fashion? Do you mean to say that this Board puts out contracts and
then allows the contractor to sub-contract? There is no wonder then
that the poor people are supplied with such stuff as this. Why, if
this kind of proceeding is allowed to continue, this Board will
become the laughing-stock of all the country, and further, who are
we to put our hands on if this thing be proved? I would like to ask
the Clerk who the contractor is?"--The Clerk: "Mr. Tuck of
Hempstead."--Mr. Daplyn: "Why, he is only a journeyman miller and
works for Mr. Bird."--Mr. Edwards: "Yes, and he is sweated by
someone else; that is how this Board does its business."--Mr.
Broadhurst, continuing, said this was a strange revelation, and he
was astonished that business men on the Board should allow this
kind of thing to exist. Here is a working man made a tool for
someone else to sweat, and then he puts it out to sub-contract to
someone else, and this someone else sweats someone else. What ever
had the House Committee been doing?--The Rev. Fitch rose to a point
of order; the Committee were not to blame, as the recommendation of
the Committee was accepted by the whole Board. He was a member of
the Committee and never knew before now that Tuck was a working
man.--Mr. Edwards said he had just found it out, and he thought the
Committee ought to have found it out before.--Mr. Waters said the
Committee had put out the contract to Tuck for years.--Mr.
Broadhurst: "If that is so it is most unsatisfactory."--Continuing,
Mr. Broadhurst asked who the sub-contractor was, and the Clerk
replied, "Mr. Press."--Mr. Robins Cook: "Yes, and a very
respectable tradesman too, and he would not do a wrong act if he
knew it."--Mr. Broadhurst: "There is no one has said anything about
the respectability of any man, but this sub-contractor has admitted
that the flour was bad."--Mr. Waters: "No, no."--Mr. Broadhurst:
"Mr. Waters says no, no, but the letter states that he would take
the remaining sacks back, and what is that but admitting it?"--Mr.
Bugden said that if the mover of the amendment and resolution would
consent, he would suggest that a committee be formed to inquire
into the matter, and get some of the flour from the remaining sacks
and make it up and report to the Board.--Mr. Waters and Mr. Daplyn
said they would withdraw their amendment in favour of Mr. Bugden's
suggestion.--Rev. Casson said he was not disposed to withdraw his
resolution, for it was only an attempt to baulk the question.
(Cries of "Order.") The rev. gentlemen said the Committee had set
up a dummy to shoot at. (Cries of "No, no.") Rev. Casson: "But you
have; you only got us a journeyman miller to deal with."--Mr.
Edwards said if Mr. Bugden could assure him there would be no delay
and the matter thoroughly gone into, he would be disposed to advise
the Rev. Casson to withhold his resolution until this day
fortnight.--To this the Rev. Casson agreed.--Mr. Bugden then moved
that a committee of five be appointed to investigate the matter and
get some of the flour from the remaining sacks and make up for a
test, and that the Relieving Officer go home at once and get the
flour and seal it up.--Mr. Waters seconded the resolution, and it
was carried that the committee consist of Mr. Waters, Mr. Edwards,
Mr. Bone, and Mrs. Johnson. It was further resolved, on the motion
of Mr. Edwards, seconded by Mr. Farmer, that the poor in the
Southrepps district receive money equivalent to flour for the next
fortnight.