From Crow-Scaring To Westminster; An Autobiography Part 19

On Wednesday morning we were early astir ready for our journey. From the Monday to the Wednesday morning I had not really realized that I was actually a Member of Parliament. It was brought home to me, however, when I had to get ready to proceed to London, and then, strange as it may seem, instead of my being full of joy, I actually broke down with the deepest emotion. I cannot account for it, but it was so, and the first words that I could utter were a desire that my poor dear wife could know. I also offered a fervent prayer that G.o.d would keep me humble and that I might always remain the same George Edwards, the agricultural labourer. This might appear to be approaching very near to cant, but it was sincere and I have tried to live it out.

A little band left Wymondham by the 9 a.m. train. I was accompanied by my faithful agent Mr. Gooch and Mrs. Gooch, Mr. W. B. Taylor, Mr. J.

Smith (Secretary of the Wymondham Local Labour Party) and Mrs. Smith and my niece, Mrs. Kernick. We arrived at Liverpool Street Station a little after 12 a.m. and were due at the House of Commons at two o'clock. At the House we found Mr. W. R. Smith waiting for us in the outer lobby, but before we reached the House we were caught by several camera men.

Tickets for the gallery had been secured by Mr. Smith for my friends to enable them to witness me walk up the House and take the oath.

Punctually at a quarter to four, after question time, the Speaker asked the usual question on these occasions--if there were any new members desirous of taking their seats? Then came the ordeal. Accompanied by Mr.

Smith and the late Mr. Tyson Wilson, who was Chief Whip of the Labour Party at the time, I walked up to the clerk's table and took the oath and signed the Roll Book and shook hands with the Speaker and then took my seat amidst the cheers of my friends, one singing "The Farmer's Boy."

My friend Mr. Smith said it was the proudest day of his life when he conducted me up the House. Such is the close friendship that exists between us.

A peculiar incident happened when I signed the book. In my nervousness I had one of my feet lifted up, and the Premier, Mr. Lloyd George, unconsciously put his foot underneath mine, and when I placed my foot down I put it on to his. I have since joked him concerning the incident several times.

After a few minutes my friends and I went down on to the terrace and had tea, and the first to come and congratulate me was my first opponent, Lord Cozens-Hardy.

I stayed in London until the Friday when I returned to Wymondham. On the Sat.u.r.day I went to Norwich and attended to my County Council Committee work, where I received most hearty congratulations from my colleagues on the Council. But a greater surprise was awaiting me on my return to Fakenham in the evening. Arriving at the Great Eastern Station by the quarter to eight train I found waiting for me a large number of my fellow townsmen of all shades of political thought, the Fakenham Town Band and a conveyance to take me to the Market Square. This was drawn by hand. I was practically lifted into the conveyance and by my side was my little adopted child. The band headed the procession and played "See the Conquering Hero Comes." The streets were lined with spectators and when the Market Square was reached there were crowds waiting to give me a reception. It was considered that there were over two thousand people present. The conveyance was drawn into the square and a congratulation speech was made by my friend Mr. Robert Watson. Mr. Walker of the Printers' Union presided and addresses were also given by Mr. H. Allen and others. I thanked the people for the kind reception they had given me, which was the greatest joy of my life, to receive such a welcome by my neighbours in my own native town. A full report of the affair was given in the _Eastern Daily Press_ on the Monday with some very nice comments. The report was headed "The Warrior's Return."

The House adjourned on Monday August 16th and I settled down for my well-earned rest, but the request from the Christian Churches to conduct special religious services was greater than I could possibly comply with. As soon as harvest operations were completed and I had had a nice rest I took a tour through my const.i.tuency and thanked my supporters for the support they had given to the n.o.ble cause of Labour. I was received everywhere with the greatest kindness and enthusiasm.

On October 19th the House rea.s.sembled for the Autumn Session, and I returned to London to attend to my duties, and on October 21st there was a debate on the unemployment question. I followed the Minister of Labour and made my maiden speech as follows:--

I have listened very attentively to the speech of the right hon.

gentleman. I am not so much concerned with the description he gave us of the state of unemployment as I am with the fact that there are unemployed and a lack of provision made for them to find employment--especially among ex-service men. I find that my right hon. friend is very anxious to lay the responsibility for the unemployment and the lack of provision for the unemployed upon everyone except the Government. He dealt with the housing question, and he made a great point of the fact that housing is being delayed in consequence of the conduct of the Trade Unionists in the building industry. But he did not tell the House that the Trade Union workers in the trade offered that if the Government will guarantee there shall be no unemployed in their trade they will remove the restrictions of which he complains. The point I want to come to is this--the delay in erecting houses for ex-service men and for the working cla.s.s in this country lies at the door of the Government. What are the facts? I speak with some knowledge. The Minister of Health, or the Government through him, pressed on the local authorities the responsibility of providing houses under the Act, and I say without hesitation that the local authorities--and all credit is due to them--undertook that responsibility. It has become notorious how their action has been defeated. Take my own area.

We decided to erect 350 houses. We prepared our plans and put out our contracts. We erected a number of houses for the working cla.s.ses. We were told by the Government that in deciding on the rents we were to fix such a rent as we deemed reasonable according to wages earned in the district. We fixed the rents, as some of us think, rather too high. We had full local knowledge. We said that for a six-roomed house the rent should be 20 per year, with the rates on top of that, and for a five-roomed house 14 per year, plus rates. What did the Minister of Health do? We sent him a return showing that the earnings of the agricultural labourers in the district averaged 2 6s. per week, and those of other cla.s.ses of workers 3 10s. per week. The Minister came down on top of us and would not sanction the rents we had fixed. He demanded that the local authority should charge a man earning 3 10s. per week 1 per week as rent, and that for the five-roomed house 16s. 6d. per week should be charged. Do the Government imagine that any local authority, with its knowledge of the condition of things, would be content to erect houses and to ask agricultural labourers with their wives and families to pay a rent of 16s. 6d. per week out of a wage of 2 6s.? Do they imagine that any local authority will erect houses for which they are to charge a man earning 3 10s. per week 1 as rent? Do they imagine that out of the wages they are earning the men could pay such high rents as that? If they do, I can only suggest they should experiment on themselves for one month at least. This bombsh.e.l.l was thrown at the local authorities throughout the length and breadth of the country, with the result that they will not touch housing schemes until the Minister of Health abates his demands in this respect. I maintain that the responsibility for the delay in erecting houses falls directly upon the Government, but for whose action house-building might have been proceeded with, and the present unemployment would not have grown to the extent it has. Then there is the question of raw material.

The Government were warned in 1918--in the early part of that year--that there would be a terrible shortage of raw material and especially of bricks. Labour Exchanges sent resolution after resolution urging the Government to take steps to reopen the brickfields which had gone into disuse during the war. We were laughed at for our efforts in pointing out that there must be a terrible shortage unless something in this direction was done.

Remember, the unskilled men now waiting for training might have been put on this work, and the necessary raw material could have been provided without difficulty. What happened? Those local authorities which had contracts in hand found that the men had to stand idle for the lack of raw material. I was very much interested in a speech made by the Minister of Health in regard to the agricultural industry. I have a knowledge of this industry. I was engaged in it for many years, and I remember the time when there were 950,000 agricultural labourers and others employed on the land. At the present time there are only 550,000 so employed, and yet we have in my own county to-day 500 agricultural labourers standing by for want of work! I heard a question asked of the Minister of Health why this was so. I think I can give the reply.

It is largely due to the gambling which is now going on in land. It is also due, in part, to the bad farming which has been prevalent for many years. That is responsible for the great decrease in the number of men employed on the land. We ask the Government, as far as the land question is concerned, to do what they did during the war, namely to put into force the compulsory clauses of the Defence of the Realm Act. We have to-day, I believe, between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 acres of land out of cultivation. We were told the other day that there were 800,000 acres less under wheat this year, and I believe I am correct in saying that since the Armistice 80,000 acres of land have gone out of cultivation that were brought under cultivation during the war. Why do not the Government put into force the compulsory clauses, and compel those who call the land theirs to keep it in cultivation? Something has been said about afforestation. In my own county we have something like 3,000 acres of land that is useful for that purpose. I do not say, with my knowledge of agriculture, that all the land is suitable for producing food; I know it is not; but it will produce something that the nation wants. That land is now lying derelict. It is only used as rabbit warrens, because it pays the landlord better to keep it for game preserving than it does to produce things that we want.

If the Government would step in, and I appeal to them to do so, they could at once set to work most of this unskilled labour--we are told that it would require no skill--if they would insist upon the use of this land for this purpose. I know that it is suitable for the production of wood, which is greatly needed.

The Government were forewarned of these things. They know that this land is there ready to produce something. Indeed, I would venture to state that there is not an acre of land in this country which does not produce something that the nation needs. All that is necessary is that the people should have an opportunity of getting on the land. With regard to the Land Settlement scheme, as a County Councillor I have had something to do with putting this Act into force. What are the facts? We were told that there were 8,000,000 set aside for this purpose. So far as my County Council is concerned--and I think we stand second in the country for putting the Small Holdings and Allotments Act into force--we were told that we were to have this money to purchase land. What does the Land Settlement Act do? It compels us to give inflated prices for the land, and, having given inflated prices--not pre-war value, but war-profit value, the price to which it has been run up in the market by the land gamblers--we are compelled to charge these ex-service men, these heroes who have fought our battles, and who were told by the Prime Minister that they should have a land fit for heroes to live in, where no inhabitants should ever hunger--we have to charge them a rent that we know full well they will never be able to pay and get a living. The Government come along and say: "Yes, we will lend you money, but will charge you 6 per cent. for it," and we have to charge that back to these poor fellows. In my own county we have 500 ex-service men who cannot get on the land, and we have spent all the money the Government will let us have. I would make an appeal to the right hon. gentleman opposite and to the Government to take this question seriously. I have spent fifty years of my life trying to upraise my cla.s.s. I have endeavoured to exercise a moderating influence, and I think that up to the present I have been successful. No one can charge me with being an extremist. I want, however, to point this out to the Government.

Our influence over men and women may be lessened when they know that the barns are full and the cupboard is empty. Therefore I ask them to use all the powers they possess under the Defence of the Realm Act and to deal at once with this land problem. It can be dealt with at once. Set these men to work. We do not plead for doles; we do not plead for charity. What we say is: "In Heaven's name, find them work!"

During the Autumn Session I never left the House nor missed a Division.

In the middle of November the Agricultural Bill was brought before the House on its report stage. This received my whole-hearted support in all its stages and I spoke several times when it was before the House. With my friends Mr. Royce and Mr. Smith I tried to improve it by moving new clauses from the point of view of giving the labourer who lived in a tied cottage some security in his home and, after several interviews with Sir Arthur Boscawen, the Minister who had charge of the Bill, we were able to make a little improvement by securing to the labourers compensation in the shape of a year's rent and expenses of removal if compelled to leave his cottage at short notice. We also secured to the tenant farmer some security of tenure or compensation for disturbance and we also secured a minimum price for his corn and the re-establishment of the Wage Board for four years, which alas! was so soon to be abolished by the repeal of the Agricultural Act of 1921.

During the pa.s.sage of the Agricultural Act we had many late nights. The last days of the sitting, December 20th and 21st, I never left the House for thirty-six hours and went into the Division Lobby nearly thirty times against the Lords Amendments. This concluded my first experience of the House of Commons.

Soon after my entrance into Parliament I was asked to become a member of the Industrial Christian Fellowship, an a.s.sociation established by leaders of the Church of England for the purpose of bringing our industrial system more into harmony with the principles taught by Christ Himself and further of endeavouring to create a higher spiritual life in the great Labour movement and preventing it from becoming too materialistic. As that had been my ideal all through my long public life, it at once appealed to me, and I decided to accept the invitation to become a member of the General Council. The first meeting I attended and addressed was at Hull. Before going, however, I expressed a wish to meet members of the Trades and Labour Council. A meeting was arranged and I found there was a suspicion amongst the Trade Unionists in the city that there was some ulterior motive behind it. I endeavoured to dispel this suspicion. My address was ent.i.tled "The High Ideals of the Labour Movement." The large hall was full and the Mayor presided.

In November of the same year (1920) I received an invitation from Canon Newson to give an address in Newcastle-on-Tyne Cathedral on December 5th. I accepted the invitation and at Newcastle was met at the station by Canon Newson with whom I stayed the week-end. During the afternoon I was introduced to the Bishop with whom I had a long talk on the religious aspect of the movement. In the evening I met members of the Trades and Labour Council at the Canon's House. On Sunday afternoon I gave my address on "Religion and Labour" in the cathedral.

This address was listened to with marked attention by a large congregation. The fact that a layman and a prominent Nonconformist had been invited to give an address in a cathedral had created widespread interest. Many of the daily papers gave a long report of my address.

Since then I have spoken in two churches in London on "National Righteousness." This I think is a sign that there is a great awakening in the social consciousness of the people and that a spirit of fellowship and goodwill is abroad such as has never been manifested before. I consider that I have never been connected with a movement that was calculated to bring our industrial and social life on to a higher platform and I wish it G.o.d-speed in its good work.

In February 1921 I was invited by His Majesty the King to an afternoon garden party at Buckingham Palace, and on my being introduced to the King and His Majesty ascertaining that I came from Norfolk, he expressed a wish to have a few minutes' talk with me. His Majesty asked me concerning my early life, also the condition of the people in Norfolk.

The matter was given publicity through the press and the following appeared in one paper:--

By invitation of their Majesties the King and Queen, Mr. George Edwards, M.P., attended the afternoon party at Buckingham Palace last Thursday. Mr. Edwards had the honour of being presented to their Majesties, and during the afternoon the King expressed a wish to have some further conversation with the member for South Norfolk, to whom His Majesty directed inquiries respecting his early days. The King evinced deep interest in the story Mr. Edwards told, and later the Queen also invited the member to relate to her the story of his early struggles.

After cordially greeting Mr. Edwards, the King said he was interested to know that he came from Norfolk, and inquired if the member was a native of this county. His Majesty also inquired what occupation Mr. Edwards' father followed.

The remarkable story of the member's progress from workhouse to Westminster greatly interested the King, who plied Mr. Edwards with questions relative to his early life.

Mr. Edwards told His Majesty that he was a native of Norfolk, and that his father, like himself, was an agricultural labourer. "At the time of my birth," said Mr. Edwards, "the wages of the agricultural labourer were 8s. a week, and at the time of the Crimean War in 1854 the cost of living rose to its highest, but the wages of the labourer remained stationary."

"And how did you fare?" inquired the King.

"My father and mother had to undergo the greatest privations," Mr.

Edwards replied. "We never had bread enough and the family were fed largely on turnips which my father brought from his master's field.

At five years of age I was a workhouse boy."

"And this was really the way you lived?" exclaimed the King.

His Majesty was obviously touched by the account given him and expressed the deepest sympathy.

"One of my own labourers," said the King, "brought up a family on 13s. a week, but this is much worse. How were you educated?"

"I never went to school in my life," said the member. "My wife first taught me to read, and I put myself in a position to purchase books by giving up the luxury of tobacco."

His Majesty asked as to the welfare of the labourers to-day and inquired if they were better off?

"Yes, decidedly," replied Mr. Edwards, "but there is a good deal of privation now."

The conversation then turned to the position of affairs on His Majesty's Norfolk estate at Sandringham, the King suggesting that working conditions there were satisfactory.

Mr. Edwards agreed, and said he desired to express the greatest appreciation of the efforts of the King in regard to working conditions at Sandringham. "If all other landlords followed along the same lines," added Mr. Edwards, "there would be little trouble."

The King expressed his best wishes for Mr. Edwards' future.

Mr. Edwards had several minutes' conversation with the Queen, who gave further proof of her interest in the housing of the people.

Her Majesty referred to housing conditions at Sandringham, and Mr.

Edwards expressed appreciation of what had been done for the labourers on the estate with regard to housing, and remarked that everything had been done that it was possible to do for the home comforts of the tenants.

This brings my story almost to a close.

During my time I have seen what amounts almost to a revolution in the lives of the people. There is no comparison between the life of the village worker when I was a lad and now. I have seen one Trade Union spring up and fall. But during its short life, under the leadership of Joseph Arch, George Rix, Z. Walker and others, it did some wonderful work for the agricultural workers. Through its influence the labourers were enfranchised. The District and Parish Council Act was put in force, and I look back with pleasure at the humble part I was able to take in this matter. Many years after that, as stated above, I founded the present Union, and I have lived to see it spread from Norfolk into every county in England and Wales. It has gone from a little back-room of mine in a little cottage in which I lived at Gresham to a fine block of buildings at 72, Acton Street, London. It has accomplished much for the agricultural labourers. It has entirely altered and brightened up the monotonous life of the labourer. It has given him a broader outlook on life and I hope he will let nothing separate him from the Union that has in so short a time done so much for him, his wife and children.

As in the days of Arch there is again another attempt to divide our forces by introducing what they call a New Union. This is being done by those who ought to have known better. Are the labourers going to let history repeat itself? If so, then all the sacrifice I have made and the years of labour I have given on their behalf will be thrown away. No, I cannot believe they will. I have too strong a faith in their good common sense and in their devotion and grat.i.tude towards those who laboured so hard for them to be led away by the plat.i.tudes of some new-born friends.

In presenting my readers with my life-story let me ask them, especially the young readers, as they read it to watch carefully my limitations and failings (and they will detect many), to study them attentively, and in starting out in life to try and avoid them. Also, whatever they may see in the story that is worthy to be followed, let them try to follow it.

They are starting life now, thank G.o.d, under much better circ.u.mstances than I did.

As they read the facts here related they will notice a touch of sadness running through it all. They will also notice the many bitter struggles I have had coming along this somewhat rugged road of life; how I have battled to lift myself above my environment; how I have laboured to educate myself and to inform myself on all public questions, and I hope they will also detect a burning desire from the first to use the knowledge I had obtained for the benefit of my own cla.s.s, as I hope, with some amount of success. They will, I trust, gather from the early pages of this story that the sufferings of my parents and the privations that they underwent for their children had branded themselves on my soul like a hot iron and that from my very early days I became determined to do all I could to make the life of my own cla.s.s much brighter and better than it was in those dark days.