§ The Duke of Richmond, on the presentation of a Petition against Slavery, took 423 occasion to advert to the debate which took place last night on the subject of the state of the labourers in Kent and Sussex, and begged to say a few words in explanation of what fell from him on that occasion. A noble Lord opposite (Lord Teynham) had asserted, that the farmers in the county of Sussex were compelled to raise the rate of wages, in consequence of being subjected to intimidation from their labourers. Now this assertion he had felt himself warranted in denying, at least with respect to the county of Sussex. It might have been so in other places, but in Sussex generally, he believed it was not the case. He did not then mean to say that there were not one or two places in which intimidation might have been used, but in the west of Sussex, with which he was connected, nothing of the kind had taken place, or been attempted. What he rose then, however, for was, to give the noble Lord who made the assertion an opportunity of explaining the nature of the conclusion he had drawn from the communications which he had referred to. The noble Lord had put into his hand the letter on which he founded his assertion; but he thought that if the noble Lord had attentively examined the terms of that letter, he would have come to a very different conclusion. He had nothing to do with the opinions of the writer of the letter, but he found it stated the facts thus:—"The labourers called out for an increase of their wages." It was then said to them, 'But what will you do if the farmers refuse to grant that increase? Will you disgrace yourselves and your country, as they have done elsewhere, by destroying the property of your masters, if they find they cannot make this increase?' 'No, no,' they exclaimed, 'we intend, on the contrary, to support and protect our masters' property.' 'Well, but (it was said to them) that assertion of yours is not enough; will you put that in your petition to your masters?' They said they were quite willing to do so; and the farmers, on receiving this petition, did consent to give greater wages." Now this, he contended, exhibited nothing which could be construed into intimidation. He was sorry to say, however, that no man who heard the speech of the noble Lord could avoid receiving the impression, that its expressions were calculated to inflame the minds of the people, and aggravate the difficulties in which the farmers were 424 placed with respect to their labourers. He was one of those who thought the agricultural labourers of this country were not adequately paid for their services; but he was quite certain that no course could be adopted more prejudicial to their interests, and to the interests of their masters, than by making declarations in that House, or in the other House, which would lead the labourers to believe that their objects could be effected by intimidating their masters. It was because the people of Kent and Sussex were, unhappily, in a state of excitement, that he thought nothing should be done to widen the breach between the labourer and the farmer; for it could not be too often repeated, or too widely disseminated, that the interests of the farmer, the landlord, and the labourer, were one and the same.
Lord Teynhamwas obliged to the noble Duke for the opportunity he had given him of explaining the meaning of what had fallen from him on a former evening. It was very far from his intention to excite the people to violence. The meaning of what he said was this—that in consequence of what had happened in Sussex and elsewhere, the farmers had felt it to be right to raise the rate of wages; but he was at the same time fully prepared to admit, that it was necessary to put down every attempt at intimidation, and that the labourers must not be led to expect that they could obtain any increased rate of remuneration for their services, without the full consent of their employers. What he said on the former occasion was merely this—that the labourers had demanded a higher rate of wages, and that the farmers thought it prudent to comply.
§ Marquis Camdenwas happy to hear the language of the noble Duke with relation to the attempts of the labourers against their employers. He thought that such declarations on that subject would do good, and that it was highly necessary the labourers should know that any attempt at intimidation was not approved of either by the Parliament or the country at large. He hoped that the opinions of Parliament would be made known, and that it would be understood every where, that no man of either House approved of such a system Any attempt to raise the wages of the labourer under such circumstances must fail, because the amount was much greater than the farmer at present could afford to pay.
The Earl of Darnleysaid, the disturbances in Kent could not have arisen from the lowness of the rate of wages, as it was a singular fact, that the wages of labour were higher in the disturbed district than in any other place of the South. He believed the disturbances did not arise from an inadequate rate of wages, but from the superabundance of labourers, and the want of employment. Throughout that part of Kent, the wages of an able-bodied man were 2s. a-day; and if the farmers were disposed to give, as he understood some of them had agreed to give, 2s. 6d., then, in his opinion, the distress would be increased; because the farmer could not afford to employ so many labourers at 2s. 6d. as he had formerly employed at 2s. He was afraid that much of the evil arose from the mal-administration of the Poor-laws, the abuses of which needed an effectual and speedy remedy.