One day the occasion arose, although no one could ever say that there was any attempt to molest the strike-breakers or in any way to use violence towards them. When these men were being conveyed from one farm to another guarded by the police about twelve of the men's wives gathered together with kettles and saucepans and sang one of the Union's songs on the approach of the blacklegs, and, although they never approached nearer than one hundred yards to the strike-breakers, they certainly followed them through the village, beating their tin kettles and singing their Union ditties. They were summoned by the police and appeared before the magistrates at the Shirehouse, Norwich. They were ably defended by our solicitor, Mr. Keefe. Although he proved that there was no breach of the law of intimidation, the magistrates bound these women over to keep the peace for six months. But soon another occasion arose for these people to be cruelly persecuted. One of the men, after urging upon his fellow workers to strike, had gone back again to work. One afternoon he went to work on his allotment. About twelve of the men went to the allotment gate with tin kettles and a concertina and waited until he came out to the road to go home, and without saying a word to him walked about one hundred yards behind him, playing their concertina and singing one of Sankey's hymns, "Kind words can never die." The wife, hearing the singing, came out into the road and began to shriek out and make a dreadful noise and shout out, "Oh, they will kill my husband!" although no one was within a hundred yards of him, nor did they intend to be. But this was enough. The men were summoned by the police to appear before the magistrates at the Shirehouse, Norwich, on August 20th. Mr. Keefe was instructed to defend the men. I was unable to attend the court as I had to attend to two other emergency committees in connection with the harvest disputes. But Mr. Herbert Day, the Vice-President, was present in the court on behalf of the Union, and, although the police were unable to bring one solitary witness forward to swear that they saw anyone touch the old man or even go near him, the magistrates decided to convict and fined the men £5 each with costs.
The total amount was £60 16s. or three months in prison. Mr. Herbert A Day at once wrote out a cheque for the amount and prevented the men from going to prison. This money he paid out of his own pocket and never took a penny from the Union, and, further, for months in addition to what the Union, paid the men with families he gave the married men with families 1s. per child. The report of the conviction, when it appeared in the daily papers on August 22nd, caused widespread consternation and indignation at such a sentence being passed on poor helpless men. Never before since the scandalous sentence of seven years' transportation passed on the Dorchester labourers on March 15, 1834, by Judge Baron John William, the prosecution that was ordered by Viscount Melbourne, the Whig Home Secretary who was out to crush the rising spirit of Trade Unionism, had there been such outspoken criticism of any magistrates' sentences, nor had there been such a spirit of indignation. On every Labour platform throughout the country the sentence was denounced as being most unjust and cruel, and, instead of it in any way damping the spirit of the labourers, it created a widespread interest, and through the efforts of my assistant I was able to report up to September 30th that we had enrolled into the Union in Norfolk over 1,800 members. Many expressions of gratitude were given to Mr. Day for his great spirit of humanity and kindness. But many of the leading Trade Unionists thought it would have been best to have let the men go to prison and to have taken steps at once to get the conviction quashed, which they said we should have had no trouble in doing, as it would have been the means of bringing even a more widespread sympathy to the men and to our cause.
During the summer months a great deal of controversy took place in the press, and I as a rule came in for a great deal of personal abuse and was accused of making the gulf wider and wider between employer and employed for no other motive than my own personal interest. Well, those that made that charge and heaped that abuse upon me would not have said so if they had had to work night and day as I had for 23s. per week and to bear the responsibility of a dispute with a hundred men involved and an organization so rapidly growing in strength and influence. But on July 3rd and 4th I embraced the opportunity of again making known to the public that I was anxious to do anything that any human being could do without giving away absolutely the men's case, which I knew was just and reasonable. There appeared in the Daily Press the first week in July a letter from Mr. J. H. Bugden suggesting that a conference should be held between the two sides with an independent chairman with a view of arriving at a settlement that would be honourable to both sides concerned. On going over to St. Faith's on the Friday to pay the men I addressed a meeting and said that I had seen in the press during the week a good deal of correspondence concerning the dispute in the St. Faith's and Trunch districts, and I was very pleased to see a letter from the pen of my friend Mr. J. H. Bugden suggesting a conference between the two sides concerned, with a view of bringing this unhappy dispute to an end, and I wished to let it be known publicly that we were quite as willing and always had been to enter into negotiations with the employers or the Executive of their Federation with a view of bringing this dispute to an end, but up to the present they had declined all such offers that I had made and now we would go a step further. If such a conference could be held, we would accept Mr. Bugden as chairman. On July 6th I wrote from Castleacre to the Secretary of the Farmers' Federation the following letter:—
Castleacre,
July 5, 1910.J. T. Willis, Esq.,
Secretary, Farmers' Federation,
Sheringham.Dear Sir,
As I stated in my speech on Friday last at St. Faith's, in replying to the correspondence in the Daily Press, we are quite willing to enter into negotiations with the Executive of your Federation re the dispute in the St. Faith's and Trunch districts, and would quite willingly accept Mr. J. H. Bugden as chairman of a conference, and, in case the parties not agreeing or not being able to come to terms, we would be willing to submit the whole case to an arbitrator, to be named and appointed by the joint members of the organizations assembled. Or, if the employers in each affected district prefer it, we would be willing to have an equal number of the employers and an equal number of the employees with the Secretaries of the Federation and the Labourers' Union to be members of the conference to represent the two organizations. Each labourer to meet without prejudice. Of course, if your Executive and the employers fall in with this suggestion other preliminaries can easily be arranged. An early reply would greatly oblige,
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) George Edwards.P.S.—If you reply to-morrow, Wednesday, please direct your letter to the address below,
Visiting Committee Board Room, County Asylum,
Thorpe, Norwich.
I ought to say I was absolutely unable to get my Executive together to discuss the dispute further before the regular quarterly meeting, which was not until July 30th. I wrote this letter entirely on my own responsibility, irrespective of what they might say in reference to my action, but I felt the responsibility too great to let an opportunity pass that might bring peace.
On July 9th I received the following reply from the Secretary of the Farmers' Federation:—
Sheringham,
July 9, 1910.Dear Sir,
I placed your letter of the 5th inst. before the Executive Council of the Farmers' Federation at their meeting to-day, and they regret they are unable to see that any good would result from a conference with representatives of the Labourers' Union. The Farmers' Federation has no dispute with the Labourers' Union, the present trouble being one between five or six employers and their labourers. All that the Farmers' Federation is doing is to assist its members in resisting the demands made upon them by the labourers who were in their employ.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) J. T. Willis.George Edwards, Esq.,
Secretary,
Eastern Counties Agricultural Labourers'
and Small Holders' Union.
To that letter I sent the following reply:—
Gresham,
July 11, 1910.J. T. Willis, Esq.,
Secretary, Farmers' Federation,
Sheringham.Dear Sir,
Yours of the 9th inst. to hand, and I very much regret that the Executive Council of the Farmers' Federation could not see their way to accept the offer of this Union to meet in conference with a view of bringing about a settlement of the St. Faith's and Trunch districts disputes. It must be obvious to them, as they are supporting their members in the dispute, that they are an interested party in the dispute in just the same way as the Labourers' Union is by giving support to its members. It would have been a wise and humane policy for the two organizations to meet and endeavour to bring about a settlement. We having made the offer and not for the first time, and the Federation have refused it, now the onus must rest on the Farmers' Federation, whatever may be the evils arising out of their refusal. There would have been no lowering of the prestige of either of the societies had they met in conference. But your Executive seems to ignore entirely the last paragraph in my letter where I offered on behalf of the men for an equal number of the men to meet an equal number of the employers and only the secretaries of the two organizations to attend the conference of the employers and their men. By your making no mention of this part of my letter I take it that that offer is rejected too. Such being the case, there the question must rest so far as we are concerned, and we must leave the public to judge which side has acted in the most conciliatory spirit.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) George Edwards.