Page:Farm labourers, their friendly societies, and the poor law.djvu/13

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.
and the Poor Law.
9

sum monthly in the Post Office Savings Bank; or, better still, he might invest the same in securing an annuity at the Post Office, or by means of the large and trustworthy County Friendly Society, which would be glad to take him. Why does he not take one of these courses, each of which offers such an advantage to him as his forefathers never enjoyed? His forefathers!—the utmost security for any little sum they scraped together was an old tea-cup in the cupboard, or the foot of an old stocking hid in the thatch, or, more perilous still, the custody of their master. Annuities and deposit accounts were impossibilities to them. Why then does not the labourer avail himself of his opportunities and walk in one of the avenues to independence opened to his very door by a beneficent legislation? He prefers to walk in no such ways, but in view of the provision of the poor-rate, refuses to save one farthing beyond that which he contracts with his club. He spends his money as he receives it, and for these reasons. With a sum in the Savings Bank he cannot claim relief from the rate. In case of need, the money must go, before the board will help him; that is to say, in his opinion he would be saving money, not for himself, but for the ratepayers, the owners of the soil. And further, my specimen has a grievance, and that not a sentimental one, on the subject of the rates. His landlord "farms the rates;" he pays a composition in lieu of leaving the occupier to pay the rate as it becomes due. The composition is half the annual amount of the rates, or less if anything, and the amount paid by the landlord varies according to the number of rates made in the course of the year, from 3s. to 4s. 6d., according as there are two or three rates. For this the landlord charges him 3d. a week in the rent, which amounts to 13s. a year. No wonder that an intelligent cottager considers such an arrangement[1] an injustice for which he has no means of redress, excepting that of obtaining as much as he can from the funds of the rate. Again, if the man was compelled to pay his share of the rate as it became due, he would have one reason supplied him for uniting

  1. The following is from a local paper, dated October 23 ult.:—

    "Poor-Rates.—In Preston, 457 persons have been summoned for non-payment of the poor-rate laid in April last. About one-half of the summonses was settled out of court; in several cases the defaulters were excused on account of extreme poverty, arising from the depressed condition of the cotton trade; and in the remaining cases orders for immediate payment were made. It transpired that in many instances the ratepayers had entered into agreements with their landlords that the latter should pay the rates (2d. or 3d. per week being added to the rent on that account), and that the landlords had pocketed both rents and rates, and left the tenant to bear the brunt of the law. On Monday, Mr. Stephenson, the assistant-overseer, intimated that every one of such landlords might be sued in the County Court for the recovery of the amount paid in lieu of rates. At the Borough Revision Court, on Friday, several persons lost their votes through similar dishonesty on the part of landlords, and they also were advised to sue for the recovery of the amounts paid as rates."