the bondage system of the north of england.
a person from the south or midland counties of england, journeying northward, is struck when he enters durham, or northumberland, with the sight of bands of women working in the fields under the surveillance of one man. one or two such bands, of from half a dozen to a dozen women, generally young, might be passed over; but when they recur again and again, and you observe them wherever you go, they become a marked feature of the agricultural system of the country, and you naturally inquire how it is that such regular bands of female labourers prevail there. the answer, in the provincial tongue, is—“o they are the boneditchers,” i. e. bondagers. bondagers! that is an odd sound, you think, in england. what, have we bondage, a rural serfdom, still existing in free and fair england? even so. the thing is astounding enough, but it is a fact. as i cast my eyes for the first time on these female bands in the fields, working under their drivers, i was, before making any inquiry respecting them, irresistibly reminded of the slave-gangs of the west indies: turnip-hoeing, somehow, associated itself strangely in my brain with sugar-cane dressing; but when i heard these women called bondagers, the association became tenfold strong.
on all the large estates in these counties, and in the south of scotland, the bondage system prevails. no married labourer is permitted to dwell on these estates unless he enters into bond to comply with this system. these labourers are termed hinds. small houses are built for them on the farms, and on some of the[120] estates—as those of the duke of northumberland—all these cottages are numbered, and the number is painted on the door. a hind, therefore, engaging to work on one of the farms belonging to the estate, has a house assigned him. he has 4l. a year in money; the keep of a cow; his fuel found him,—a prescribed quantity of coal, wood, or peat, to each cottage; he is allowed to plant a certain quantity of land with potatoes; and has thirteen boles of corn furnished him for his family consumption; one-third being oats, one-third barley, and one-third peas. in return for these advantages, he is bound to give his labour the year round, and also to furnish a woman labourer at 1s. per day during harvest, and 8d. per day for the rest of the year. now it appears, at once, that this is no hereditary serfdom—such a thing could not exist in this country; but it is the next thing to it, and no doubt has descended from it; being serfdom in its mitigated form, in which alone modern notions and feelings would tolerate it. it may even be said that it is a voluntary system; that it is merely married hinds doing that which unmarried farm-servants do everywhere else—hire themselves on certain conditions from year to year. the great question is, whether these conditions are just, and favourable to the social and moral improvement of the labouring class. whether, indeed, it be quite of so voluntary a nature as, at first sight, appears; whether it be favourable to the onward movement of the community in knowledge, virtue, and active and enterprising habits. these are questions which concern the public; and these i shall endeavour to answer in that candid and dispassionate spirit which public good requires.
in the first place, then, it is only just to say that their cottages, though they vary a good deal on different estates, are in themselves, in some cases, not bad. indeed, some of those which we entered on the estates of the duke of northumberland, were much more comfortable than labourers’ cottages often are. each has its number painted on the door, within a crescent,—the crest of the northumberland family; and though this has a look rather savouring too much of a badge of servitude, yet within many of them are very comfortable. they are all built pretty much on one principle, and that very different to the labourers’ houses of the south. they are copied, in fact, from the scotch cottages. they[121] are of one story, and generally of one room. on one side is the fireplace, with an oven on one hand and a boiler on the other; on the opposite side of the cottage is the great partition for the beds, which are two in number, with sliding doors or curtains. the ceiling is formed by poles nailed across from one side of the roof to the other, about half a yard above where it begins to slope, and covered with matting. from the matting to the wall the slope is covered with a piece of chintz in the best cottages; in others, with some showy calico print, with ordinary wall-paper, or even with paper daubed with various colours and patterns. this is the regular style of the hind’s cottage; varying in neatness and comfort, it must be confessed, however, from one another by many degrees. many are very naked, dirty, and squalid. where they happen to stand separate, on open heaths, and in glens of the hills, nature throws around them so much of wild freedom and picturesqueness as makes them very agreeable. the cottages of the shepherds are often very snug and curious. we went into the cottage of the herd of middleton, at the foot of the cheviots, an estate formerly belonging to greenwich hospital. this hut was of more than ordinary size, as it was required to accommodate several shepherds. the part of the house on your left as you entered was divided into two rooms. the one was a sort of entrance lobby, where stood the cheese-press and the pails, and where hung up various shepherds’ plaids, great coats, and strong shoes. in one place hung a mass of little caps with strings to them, ready to tie upon the sheeps’ heads when they become galled by the fly in summer; in another were suspended wool-shears and crooks. the other little room was the dairy, with the oddest assemblage of wooden quaighs or little pails imaginable. over these rooms, a step-ladder led to an open attic in the roof, which formed at once the sleeping apartment of the shepherds and a store-room. here were three or four beds, some of them woollen mattresses on rude stump-bedsteads; others pieces of wicker-work, like the lower half of a pot-crate cut off, about half a yard high, filled with straw, and a few blankets laid upon it. there were lots of fleeces of wool stowed away; and lasts and awls stuck into the spars, shewed that the herds occasionally amused their leisure in winter and bad weather by cobbling their shoes. the half of[122] the house on your right hand on entering, was at all points such as i have before described, with its coved and matted ceiling, its chintz cornice, and its two beds with sliding doors. but the majority of the cottages of the hinds about the great farm-houses, are dismal abodes. they are generally built in a low, and sometimes in a dreary quadrangle, without those additions of gardens, piggeries, etc., which so much enrich and embellish the cottages of the labourers in many parts of the kingdom. and what is the state of feeling within? is it that of contentment or acquiescence? i am bound to say that many inquiries made in various places, discovered one general sentiment of discontent with the system. but in the first place, let us take a view of the general aspect of the country under this system as it appears to a stranger from the south, and here we have at hand the graphic descriptions of cobbett, from his tour in scotland and the northern counties of england, in 1832.
he does not seem to have become aware of the existence of the system while in durham and northumberland. he perceived, what no man can pass through those counties without seeing, the large-farm system in full operation, and with all its consequences in its face. “from morpeth to within four miles of hexham the land is very indifferent; the farms of an enormous extent. i saw in one place more than a hundred corn-stacks in one yard, each having from six to seven surrey wagon-loads of sheaves in one stack; and not another house to be seen within a mile or two of the farm-house. there appears to be no such thing as barns, but merely a place to take in a stack at a time, and thrash it out by a machine. the country seems to be almost wholly destitute of people: immense tracts of corn land, but neither cottages nor churches.” p. 56. this was the first glimpse of the thing; it had not yet broken fully upon him; but he had not gone much further before the vast solitude of the depopulative system began to press upon his brain, and to set those indignant feelings and theorizings at work in him, which belonged so peculiarly to his nature. “from morpeth to alnwick, the country, generally speaking, is very poor as to land, scarcely any trees at all; the farms enormously extensive: only two churches, i think, in the whole of the twenty miles, i. e. from newcastle to alnwick. scarcely any thing worthy the name of a tree,[123] and not one single dwelling having the appearance of a labourer’s house. here appears to be neither hedging nor ditching; no such thing as a sheep-fold or a hurdle to be seen; the cattle and sheep very few in number; the farm-servants living in the farm-houses, and very few of them; the thrashing done by machinery and horses; a country without people. this is a pretty country to take a minister from, to govern the south of england! a pretty country to take a lord chancellor from, to prattle about poor-laws, and about surplus population! my lord grey has, in fact, spent his life here, and brougham has spent his life in the inns of court, or in the botheration of speculative books. how should either of them know any thing about the eastern, southern, or western counties? i wish i had my dignitary, dr. black, here; i would soon make him see that he has all these number of years been talking about the bull’s horns instead of his tail and buttocks. besides the indescribable pleasure of having seen newcastle, the shieldses, sunderland, durham, and hexham, i have now discovered the true ground of all the errors of the scotch feelosophers, with regard to population, and with regard to poor-laws. the two countries are as different as any things of the same nature can possibly be; that which applies to the one does not at all apply to the other. the agricultural counties are covered all over with parish churches, and with people thinly distributed here and there. only look at the two counties of dorset and durham. dorset contains 1005 square miles; durham contains 1061 square miles. dorset has 271 parishes; durham has 75 parishes. the population of dorset is scattered all over the whole county; there being no town of any magnitude in it. the population of durham, though larger than that of dorset, is almost all gathered together at the mouths of the tyne, the wear, and the tees. northumberland has 1871 square miles; and suffolk has 1512 square miles. northumberland has eighty-eight parishes; and suffolk has five hundred and ten parishes. so here is a county one-third part smaller than that of northumberland, with six times as many villages in it! what comparison is there to be made between states of society so essentially different? what rule is there, with regard to population and poor-laws, which can apply to both cases? * * * blind and thoughtless must that man be, who imagines that all but farms in the south[124] are unproductive. i much question whether, taking a strip three miles each way from the road, coming from newcastle to alnwick, an equal quantity of what is called waste ground in surrey, together with the cottages that skirt it, do not exceed such strip of ground in point of produce. yes; the cows, pigs, geese, poultry, gardens, bees, and fuel that arise from these wastes, far exceed, even in the capacity of sustaining people, similar breadths of ground, distributed into these large farms, in the poorer parts of northumberland. i have seen not less than ten thousand geese in one tract of common, in about six miles, going from chobham towards farnham in surrey. i believe these geese alone, raised entirely by care and the common, to be worth more than the clear profit that can be drawn from any similar breadth of land between morpeth and alnwick.”
there are two important particulars connected with this statement: one regards the sustenance of life, and the other morals. much has been said of the morals of the hinds of northumberland under this system, and in the main their morals may be good; but one or two facts i can state, as it regards the morals of the common people in general in both counties. in going over this very ground, of which cobbett has been speaking, we witnessed such a scene as we never witnessed in any other part of england. we had taken our places in an afternoon coach, going from newcastle to morpeth. it was market-day, and we had not proceeded far out of newcastle when we found that the coach in which we were, had actually two-and-thirty passengers. they consisted of country-people returning from market, who were taken up principally on the road. there were nine inside, and twenty-three outside; six of whom sat piled on each other’s knees, on the driving-box! the greater part of them were drunk; and the number of tipsy fellows staggering along the road, exceeded what we ever saw in any other quarter. we happened to be too at alnwick fair, and we never saw the farmers and drovers more freely indulge in drink and noise. moreover, from alnwick to belford we had a wealthy farmer in the coach, who was raving drunk, shouted out of the windows, chafed like a wild beast in a cage, and presented a spectacle such as i have never seen in a coach elsewhere. so much for the morals of that region.
but cobbett had not yet seen the finest lands, or got a glimpse[125] of the bondage system. he still goes on expressing his astonishment at the solitude, the vast farms with their steam thrashing-machines; “so that the elements seem to be pressed into the amiable service of sweeping the people from the earth, in order that the whole amount may go into the hands of a small number of persons, that they may squander it at london, paris, or rome.” it was only after he had traversed the lothians that the full discovery broke upon him; so that, after all, he never seems to have perceived that the bondage system was prevalent in england, but speaks of it as exclusively a scotch system. there is every reason to believe it a relic of ancient feudalism; but it is certain that but for the doctrines of the edinburgh economists it would have long ago vanished from our soil. when cobbett arrived at edinburgh, there he seemed to take breath, and clear his lungs for a good tirade against the system; which he does thus, in his first letter to the chopsticks of the south. “this city is fifty-six miles from the tweed, which separates england from scotland. i have come through the country in a post-chaise, stopped one night upon the road, and have made every inquiry, in order that i might be able to ascertain the exact state of the labourers on the land. with the exception of about seven miles, the land is the finest that i ever saw in my life, though i have seen every fine vale in every county in england, and in the united states of america. i never saw any land a tenth-part so good. you will know what the land is, when i tell you that it is by no means uncommon for it to produce seven english quarters of wheat upon one english acre; and forty tons of turnips upon one english acre; and that there are, almost in every half mile, from fifty to a hundred acres of turnips in one piece, sometimes white turnips, and sometimes swedes; all in rows, as straight as a line, and without a weed to be seen in any of these beautiful fields.
“oh! how you will wish to be here! ‘lord,’ you will say to yourselves, ‘what pretty villages there must be; what nice churches and churchyards. oh! and what preciously nice alehouses! come, jack, let us set off to scotland! what nice gardens we shall have to our cottages there! what beautiful flowers our wives will have, climbing up about the windows, and on both sides of the paths leading from the wicket up to the door! and what[126] prancing and barking pigs we shall have running out upon the common, and what a flock of geese grazing upon the green!’
“stop! stop! i have not come to listen to you, but to make you listen to me. let me tell you, then, that there is neither village, nor church, nor alehouse, nor garden, nor cottage, nor flowers, nor pig, nor goose, nor common, nor green; but the thing is thus:—1. the farms of a whole county are, generally speaking, the property of one lord. 2. they are so large, that the corn-stacks frequently amount to more than a hundred upon one farm, each stack having in it, on an average, from fifteen to twenty english quarters of corn. 3. the farmer’s house is a house big enough and fine enough for a gentleman to live in; the farm-yard is a square, with buildings on the sides of it for horses, cattle, and implements; the stack-yard is on one side of this, the stacks all in rows, and the place as big as a little town. 4. on the side of the farm-yard next to the stack-yard, there is a place to thrash the corn in; and there is, close by this, always a thrashing-machine, sometimes worked by horses, sometimes by water, sometimes by wind, and sometimes by steam, there being no such thing as a barn or a flail in the whole country.
“‘well,’ say you, ‘but out of such a quantity of corn, and of beef, and of mutton, there must some come to the share of the chopsticks, to be sure!’ don’t be too sure yet; but hold your tongue, and hear my story. the single labourers are kept in this manner: about four of them are put into a shed, quite away from the farm-house, and out of the farm-yard; which shed, dr. jameson, in his dictionary, calls a ‘boothie,’ a place, says he, where labouring servants are lodged. a boothie means a little booth; and here these men live and sleep, having a certain allowance of oat, barley, and pea meal, upon which they live, mixing it with water, or with milk when they are allowed the use of a cow, which they have to milk themselves. they are allowed some little matter of money besides, to buy clothes with, but never dream of being allowed to set foot within the walls of the farm-house. they hire for the year, under very severe punishment in case of misbehaviour, or quitting service; and cannot have fresh service, without a character from the last master, and also from the minister of the parish!
“pretty well that for a knife and fork chopstick of sussex, who[127] has been used to sit round the fire with the master and mistress, and pull about and tickle the laughing maids! pretty well that! but it is the life of the married labourer that will delight you. upon a steam-engine farm, there are perhaps eight or ten of these. there is, at a considerable distance from the farm-yard, a sort of barrack erected for these to live in. it is a long shed, stone walls and pantile roof, and divided into a certain number of boothies, each having a door and one little window, all the doors being on one side of the shed, and there being no back-doors; no such thing, for them, appears ever to be thought of. the ground in front of the shed is wide or narrow according to circumstances, but quite smooth; merely a place to walk upon. each distinct boothie is about seventeen feet one way, and fifteen feet the other way, as nearly as my eye could determine. there is no ceiling, and no floor but the earth. in this place, a man and his wife and family have to live. when they go into it there is nothing but the four bare walls, and the tiles over their head, and a small fireplace. to make the most of the room, they at their own cost erect berths, like those in a barrack-room, which they get up into when they go to bed; and here they are, a man, and his wife, and a parcel of children, squeezed up in this miserable hole, with their meal and their washing tackle, and all their other things; and yet it is quite surprising how decent the women endeavour to keep the place. these women, for i found all the men out at work, appeared to be most industrious creatures, to be extremely obliging, and of good disposition; and the shame is, that they are permitted to enjoy so small a portion of the fruit of all their labours, of all their cares.
“but if their dwelling-places be bad, their food is worse, being fed upon exactly that which we feed hogs and horses upon. the married man receives in money about four pounds for the whole year: and he has besides sixty bushels of oats, thirty bushels of barley, twelve bushels of peas, and three bushels of potatoes, with ground allowed him to plant the potatoes. the master gives him the keep of a cow the year round; but he must find the cow himself; he pays for his own fuel; he must find a woman to reap for twenty whole days in the harvest, as payment for the rent of his boothie. he has no wheat,—the meal altogether amounts to about[128] six pounds for every day in the year; the oatmeal is eaten in porridge; the barley-meal and pea-meal are mixed together, and baked into a sort of cakes, upon an iron plate put over the fire; they sometimes get a pig, and feed it upon the potatoes.
“thus they never have one bit of wheaten bread, or of wheaten flour, nor of beef, nor mutton, though the land is covered with wheat and with cattle. the hiring is for a year, beginning on the 26th of may, and not at michaelmas. the farmer takes the man just at the season to get the sweat out of him; and if he dies, he dies when the main work is done. the labourer is wholly at the mercy of the master, who, if he will not keep him beyond the year, can totally ruin him, by refusing him a character. the cow is a thing more in name than in reality; she may be about to calve when the 26th of may comes: the wife may be in such a situation as to make removal perilous to her life. this family has no home; and no home can any man be said to have, who can thus be dislodged every year of his life at the will of his master. it frequently happens, that the poor creatures are compelled to sell their cow for next to nothing; and, indeed, the necessity of character from the last employer, makes the man a real slave, worse off than the negro by many degrees; for here there is neither law to ensure him relief, nor motive in the master to attend to his health, or to preserve his life.
“six days from daylight to dark these good, and laborious, and patient, and kind people labour. on an average they have six english miles to go to church. here are therefore twelve miles to walk on sunday; and the consequence is, that they very seldom go. but, say you, what do they do with all the wheat, and all the beef, and all the mutton? and what becomes of all the money that they are sold for? why, the cattle and sheep walk into england upon their legs; the wheat is put into ships to be sent to london or elsewhere; and as to the money, the farmer is allowed to have a little of it, but almost the whole of it is sent to the landlord, to be gambled, or otherwise squandered away at london, at paris, or at rome. the rent of the land is enormous; four, five, six, or seven pounds for an english acre. the farmer is not allowed to get much; almost the whole goes into the pockets of the lords; the labourers are their slaves, and the farmers their slave-drivers. the[129] farm-yards are, in fact, factories for making corn and meat, carried on principally by the means of horses and machinery. there are no people; and these men seem to think that people are not necessary to a state. i came over a tract of country a great deal bigger than the county of suffolk, with only three towns in it, and a couple of villages, while the county of suffolk has 29 market-towns and 491 villages. yet our precious government seems to wish to reduce england to the state of this part of scotland; and you are abused and reproached, and called ignorant, because you will not reside in a boothie, and live upon the food which we give to horses and hogs.” pp. 102-7.
this is the description of one of the most accurate observers of all that related to the working man that ever lived. such is the comparison which he draws between the condition of the hinds, and of the southern chopsticks. such is his opinion of the superior condition of the southern peasantry, that he says he would not be the man who should propose to one of them to adopt the condition of a hind, especially if the fellow should have a bill-hook in his hand. cobbett’s description is as accurate as it is graphic. let any one compare it with my own in the early part of this paper, made from personal observation in the summer of 1836. such was the painful impression left upon cobbett’s mind, that he reverts to it again and again. he tells us of a visit made to a farm near dunfermline, and of the wretched abodes and food of the men he found there; but the last extract contains the substance of the bondage system.
let it be understood that the system to the bondagers, so called, is no hardship. they are principally girls from sixteen to twenty years of age. full of health and spirits, and glad enough to range over the farm fields in a troop, with a stout young fellow, laughing and gossiping,—the grievance is none of theirs; but the poor hind’s, who has to maintain them. just when his family becomes large, and he has need of all his earnings to feed, and clothe, and educate his troop of children, then he is compelled to hire and maintain a woman to eat up his children’s food; and to take away in her wages that little pittance of cash that is allowed him, as many a wife with tears in her eyes has said, “to clothe the puir bairns and put them to school.” but the system is not without[130] its injurious effect on the bondager herself. it has been said that the bondagers are of service in the hind’s cottage, but the wives over the whole space where the bondage system prevails tell you that the bondagers are of little or no use in the house. they look upon themselves as hired to work on the farm, and they neither are very willing to work in the house, nor very capable. they get out-of-door tastes and habits; they loathe the confinement of the house; they dislike its duties. “they are fit only,” say the women, to “mind the bairns a bit about the door.” and this is one of the evils of the system. instead of women brought up to manage a house, to care for children, to make a fireside comfortable, and to manage the domestic resources well, they come to housekeeping ignorant, unprepared, and in a great measure disqualified for it. they can hoe turnips and potatoes to a miracle, but know very little about the most approved methods of cooking them. they can rake hay better than comb children’s hair; drive a cart or a harrow with a better grace than rock a cradle, and help more nimbly in the barn than in the ingle.
the two points of most importance are those of the hind’s being compelled to have a character from the last master, and of being at his mercy, to turn him not only out of employ, but out of house and home. i think little of their having no wheaten flour. many a hardy race of peasants, and even farmers, both in scotland and england, in mountain districts, never see any thing in the shape of bread but oat-cake. in lancashire, yorkshire, cumberland, and the peak of derbyshire, there are thousands that would not thank you for wheaten bread. the girdle-cakes, as they call them, which the wives of the hinds make, of mixed barley and pea meal, i frequently ate of and enjoyed. they are about an inch thick, and eight or ten inches in diameter, and taste perceptibly of the pea. these, and milk, are a simple, but not a despicable food; but the fact, that these poor people must bring a character from the last master before they can be employed again, is one which may seem at first sight a reasonable demand, but is in fact the binding link of a most subtle and consummate slavery. i have seen the effect of this system in the derbyshire and nottinghamshire collieries. there, amongst the master colliers, a combination was entered into, and for aught i know still exists, to regulate the price of coal, and[131] the quantity each master should relatively get. this rule, that no man should be employed except he brought a character from his last master, was adopted; and what was the consequence? that every man was the bounden slave of him in whose employment he was; and that soon the price of coals was raised to three times their actual value, and the labour of the men restricted to about three half-days, or a day and a half, per week.
let any one imagine a body of men bound by one common interest, holding in their possession all the population of several counties, and subjecting their men to this rule. can there be a more positive despotism? the hind is at the mercy of the caprice, the anger, or the cupidity of the man in whose hand he is; and if he dismiss him, as i said in the early part of this paper, where is he to go? as cobbett justly remarks, he has no home; and nothing but utter and irretrievable ruin is before him. such a condition is unfit for any englishman; such power as that of the master no man ought to hold. a condition like this must generate a slavish character. can that noble independence of feeling belong to a hind, which is the boast of the humblest englishman, while he holds employment, home, character, everything at the utter mercy of another? i have now laid before the reader the combined evidence of my own observation and that of a great observer of the working classes, both in town and country, in the north and the south, and i leave it to the judgment of any man whether such a system is good or bad: but i cannot help picturing to myself what would be the consequence of the spread of this system of large farm and bondage all over england. let us suppose, as we must in that case, almost all our working population cooped up in large towns in shops and factories, and all the country thrown into large farms to provide them with corn—what an england would it then be! the poetry and the picturesque of rural life would be annihilated; the delicious cottages and gardens, the open common, and the shouting of children would vanish; the scores of sweet old-fashioned hamlets, where an humble sociality and primitive simplicity yet remain, would no more be found; all those charms and amenities of country life, which have inspired poets and patriots with strains and with deeds that have crowned england with half her glory, would have perished; all that series of gradations of rank and[132] character, from the plough-boy and the milk-maid, the free labourer, the yeoman, the small farmer, the substantial farmer, up to the gentleman, would have gone too;
and a bold peasantry, its country’s pride,
would be replaced by a race of stupid and sequacious slaves, tilling the solitary lands of vast landholders, who must become selfish and hardened in their natures, from the want of all those claims upon their better sympathies which the more varied state of society at present presents. the question, therefore, does not merely involve the comforts of the hind, but the welfare and character of the country at large; and i think no man who desires england not merely to maintain its noble reputation, but to advance in social wisdom and benevolence, can wish for the wider spread, or even the continuance of the bondage system. i think all must unite with me in saying, let the very name perish from the plains of england, where it sounds like a siberian word.[4] let labour be free; and this truck system of the agriculturists be abolished, not by act of parliament, but by public principle and sound policy. it is a system which wrongs all parties. it wrongs the hind, for it robs his children of comfort and knowledge; it wrongs the farmer, for what he saves in labour he pays in rent, while he gains only the character of a taskmaster; and it wrongs the landholder, for it puts his petty pecuniary interest into the balance against his honour and integrity; and causes him to be regarded as a tyrant, in hearts where he might be honoured as a natural protector, and revered as a father.
[4] since the publication of the former edition of this work, i understand the name has been changed; that, in may 1839, it was agreed to call the bondagers woman’s-workers; a clumsy appellation, and which does not at all do away with anything more in the system than its name.
this account of the bondage system in the first edition, excited, as was to be expected, a strong feeling in the public mind, both in the north and the south. in the south great surprise, for it was a system totally unknown to nine-tenths of readers; in the north great indignation on the part of the supporters of the[133] system. i have received many conflicting statements from the bondage district,—some thanking me for having made public so accurate a description of an objectionable system; others vindicating the system, and applauding it. i need not here notice those communications which accorded with my own personal observations and inquiries; but as my object is simply truth, i am more desirous to give a counter-statement, so that all readers may draw their own inferences. the most able, and in itself most interesting, defence of the system, i received from the lady of john grey, esq. of dilstone house, northumberland. mr. grey is well known as an active magistrate, an eminent agriculturist and promoter of the interests of the agricultural class; and mrs. grey is evidently a lady of a vigorous intellect and a noble nature. she is a native of northumberland, proud of her county, and thoroughly persuaded of the excellence of its agricultural system. i regret that my space will not permit me to give more than a very summary notice of her vindication, nor more than a mere reference to the documents by mr. grey, mr. gilly of norham, the author of the “life of felix neff,” and mr. blackden of ford castle, which, however, may be found in mr. frederick hill’s works on national education, under the head of “northern district.”
mrs. grey denies that cobbett, though a graphic writer, is an accurate one. she denies that a character is required with a hind from his last master, but merely a certificate called “the lines,” stating that he is free from his former service. she asserts that all hinds have gardens; and that bondagers make good domestic servants, and wives. she reports that mr. grey only remembers two instances of his hinds receiving parochial relief, and adds that she never saw two instances of their own hinds being intoxicated.
but her description of the cottages of hinds and their way of life, is perfectly arcadian. “in a glance at cottage life in northumberland, such as 20 years of intimate observation has shewn it to me, let me introduce you into one of the ‘miserable holes’ where, according to cobbett, this ‘slave population’ are ‘squeezed up.’ observe, if you please, its furniture. there are a couple of neatly painted or fir-wood press-beds; a dresser and shelves, on which are ranged a goodly display of well-hoarded delf, or of modern blue-and-white staffordshire ware. there is[134] also a press or cupboard, in which are kept the nicer articles of food, and below which are drawers for the clothes of the family. a clock, in a handsome oaken case, ticks, not behind the door, but in some conspicuous situation; and, in many families, is added a mahogany half-chest of drawers for the female finery. i admit that the houses are generally too small, and the want of a back-door and a commodious second apartment, are great evils; but this is the landlord’s blame; and my object is only to shew that the hind, though esteemed by you ‘many degrees worse than a negro,’ has yet the means of making these insufficient abodes look most respectable and comfortable. the press-beds form a partition, behind which is a small space containing in one part a bed for the bondager, and in another, a little dairy and pantry containing stores of meat, flour, etc. this space ought to be larger, and to form a second respectable apartment, but, such as it is, it is well filled with the necessaries of life, which is no small matter to the inhabitant. we might censure, too, the matted ceiling, were not the eye immediately attracted from it by the plentiful store of bacon which hangs below it, together with hanging shelves containing a supply of cheeses, pot-herbs, etc., and in other parts bunches of yarn ready for making into stockings or blankets. then, as to clothing, the men on sundays are both respectably and handsomely dressed, and the women,—yes, these very ‘slaves’, the bondagers, may be seen with their light print or merino gowns, their winter’s plaid, and their summer’s thibet, or spun silk shawls; their tuscan or dunstable bonnets; and their open-work cotton stockings, or smart boots. a tawdry figure is a rare sight; the generality are comfortably and neatly attired, and their dress good in quality.
“when the ‘slave-gangs’ are at work in the fields under their ‘driver’ in winter, they are certainly a motley and uncouth group; many of them having on their fathers’ great coats, and others long woollen dresses, reaching to their ankles, above their other clothes, to defend them from the cold. but in summer, the jaunty air of their short white, or light cotton jackets, an article of dress which has somewhat the appearance of the waist of a lady’s riding-habit, with its open collar displaying a gay handkerchief beneath, with their pink or blue gingham petticoats, give them quite a picturesque appearance.
[135]
“i should like to shew you too, what a pleasant sight it is when you pay a visit of enquiry on the occasion of a birth. you will find the mother laid among her well-bleached sheets, and comfortable home-made blankets, surmounted by a gaily-patched quilt; and though you may be no admirer—as gentlemen seldom are—of new-born babies, yet, when the little thing is brought out of its snug cradle for your inspection, you cannot but cast an approving glance on its nicely-plaited cap, and the warm flannels and neatly made frock (often ornamented with braiding), which bespeak it the child of competence and comfort. the bondager too is there, rather dressed for the occasion (though ‘said by the wives to be of little or no use to them’), it being customary for her to stay at home to look after the house and nurse the mother, till she is well enough to resume her duties. should it be a first-born, you are invited to inspect the baby’s wardrobe, and there is little appearance of wretchedness in the sufficient stock of neat little garments ‘laid up in lavender’ for the little stranger. it is expected, too, that you should drink the child’s health, and a bottle of wine or spirits is produced from the cupboard, along with a noble cheese, and a loaf to match it, which it would be thought very ‘mean’ not to have to offer on such occasions.” mrs. grey luxuriates in descriptions of the “white loaf which the women always have, and the dainty white cake for tea, kneaded with butter or cream, when a friend comes to visit them; of the fat things with which their cows and their pigs overflow their dairy and larder; of their general good fare; and of the many days when the bondager is not at field-work, but stays to spin, knit, wash and iron for the household,— always milking the cow, and frequently churning and making cheese.” she adds that the hinds’ wives make great profit of their butter, about 5l. a year; and that they have “great spinning matches, and spin all the woollen articles that they use.”
mr. grey in “two letters on the state of the agricultural interests, and the condition of the labouring poor,” published by ridgway, london, 1831, draws a similar picture, describing the hind’s cottage as “a scene of comfort and contentment.”
now these hinds must be very unreasonable fellows. spite of all their bounteous and arcadian lot; spite of their cottages being “scenes of comfort and contentment,” they certainly were, as[136] described in the preceding pages, found by us, in 1836, in a most discontented state. and since then they have turned out in great numbers, calling upon their employers to abolish the system. in public meetings held at wooller, and elsewhere, they described their situation as wretched, and their average weekly gains at about 5s. 63?4d. mr. l. hindmarsh, in a paper on the bondage system, read at newcastle, in august, 1838, bears testimony to the great dissatisfaction of the hinds. mr. grey, in his pamphlet alluded to above, states, on the other hand, that the “conditions” of the hind, as they are called, were in 1831, the year of its publication, as follows; and that however the market-price may vary the quantities are invariably the same, and always of the very best quality; varying with the price of grain from ￡30 to ￡40 a year.
￡. s. d.
36 bushels of oats ?6 12 ?0
24 ditto barley ?5 12 ?0
12 ditto peas ?3 ?0 ?0
3 ditto wheat ?1 ?5 ?0
3 ditto rye ?0 15 ?0
36 ditto potatoes, at 1s. 6d. ?2 14 ?0
24 pounds of wool ?1 ?0 ?0
a cow’s keep for the year ?9 ?0 ?0
cottage and garden ?3 ?0 ?0
coals, carrying from the pit ?2 ?0 ?0
cash ?3 10 ?0
￡ 38 ?8 ?0
this is also exclusive of what the other branches of the family earn; the females receiving 10d. or 1s. a day generally, and 2s. or 2s. 6d. in harvest.
besides the general discontent and turn-out just noticed, which mrs. grey attributes to the waywardness of human nature, we must introduce these facts. the morals of these districts have been highly extolled, and both mr. and mrs. grey strongly reiterate the eulogium. mrs. grey does not recollect two instances of intoxication amongst the hinds in her life; we saw many one day, as already stated. in the fourth annual report of the poor law commissioners, even while advocating “the hinding system,” we find these singular paragraphs: “whatever general merits may or[137] may not otherwise have distinguished northumberland and durham from more pauperized districts, these counties must not lay claim to superiority in reference to bastardy, for in no part of england was bastardy more prevalent than in portions of this district, and in none was the practice of relief to the mother more pertinaciously upheld. the newcastle parishes of all saints’ and st. andrews, together with the parishes of sunderland and berwick, are the only places we can call to mind where a weekly allowance for every legitimate child was not a matter of course.
“the difficulties of inducing children in competent circumstances to contribute to the support of their aged parents (whose maintenance the parish had hitherto taken off their hands), were quite as great, if not relatively greater, considering the wages of labour, in the north as in the south.”
so much for morals; now for the arcadian cottages. the newcastle courant of november 23d, 1838, stated that “thomas dodds, esq., surgeon, read a very valuable paper on ‘improvement in cottage architecture, and the domestic comfort of the peasantry of north northumberland.’ mr. dodds’ long personal observation, arising from his medical practice,” it is stated, “peculiarly qualified him for the discussion of this important and interesting subject,” and mr. dodds very summarily and pithily characterized these abodes as “a disgrace to northumberland.” he contrasted them with “the splendid edifices, commemorative columns, and magnificent streets, which the people of northumberland are raising.” he said, “the miserable tenements of numbers of this class are less carefully constructed than the stables of their horses, formed, as they are, in a majority of cases, of only one apartment, open to the roof, with earthen floor, and four-paned windows that dim the light of day, a part of which is often occupied by the cow; and where the decencies of life cannot be observed, there being no separate apartments for the females of the family, one of whom is often a stranger in the capacity of a servant to work ‘the bondage.’” he represented them equally detrimental to health as to comfort and morals; and gave many instances from personal observation, especially a case at that moment of a family of eight persons, near alnwick, all lying ill of typhus fever in their one room with the corpse of one of them laid out in the midst of them. he added a[138] ludicrous anecdote of a cow which, in the night, leaped, in some sudden fear, from its fastening behind the bed of a hind at hawkhill, right through the bed, and alighted on the hearth, bringing the bed at one crash upon the people in it, and severely injuring the man’s wife. mr. dodds called the attention of his hearers to some cottages of the duke of northumberland erected at brislee, as models for cottage architecture, and strongly urged that “the hinds should be no longer compelled to seek in sleep and oblivion the only solace of his cheerless dwelling,” but have “an ingle blinking bonnily,” where he might “spend his hours of relaxation in innocent amusements, or in reading books suited to his way of life.”
“a vote of thanks to mr. dodds for this address was moved by john lambert, esq., and carried by acclamation.”
what then are we to infer from these very conflicting statements? why, that where the people are discontented, and the appeal to their wealthy neighbours on their behalf is received with acclamation,—the evil must be the actual condition, and the “cottage scenes of comfort and contentment,” the exceptions. mrs. grey admits that she “has endeavoured to present the sunny side of the picture as the reverse of my gloomy one.” i can well believe that she lives on the sunny side of humanity; and that her enlightened husband, and the most liberal portion of the agriculturists, so treat their hinds as to form the exception. it is only another proof of the wisdom of pope’s words that “whate’er is best administered is best.” that, under a pure despotism, people may be perfectly happy if they happen to have a kind tyrant. that the hinds under the bondage system may be, moral, flourishing, and happy, when they have kind and sympathizing employers but that does not prove that the system itself has a tendency to such happy results, nor consequently remove our objections to it. any condition of the people is good where christian benevolence and enlightened regard are exercised towards them, and any system, even the bondage system, is better than that deadly neglect of the peasantry by the landowners, which too much prevails in many parts of the south.
