portion of working humanity into the revolutionary movement.  But the longer agriculture had remained stationary, the heavier now became the burden upon the worker, the more violently broke forth the results of the disorganisation of the old social fabric.  The “over-population” came to light all at once, and could not, as in the manufacturing districts, be absorbed by the needs of an increasing production.  New factories could always be built, if there were consumers for their products, but new land could not be created.  The cultivation of waste common land was too daring a speculation for the bad times following the conclusion of peace.  The necessary consequence was that the competition of the workers among each other reached the highest point of intensity, and wages fell to the minimum.  So long as the old Poor Law existed, the workers received relief from the rates; wages naturally fell still lower, because the farmers forced the largest possible number of labourers to claim relief.  The higher poor-rate, necessitated by the surplus population, was only increased by this measure, and the new Poor Law, of which we shall have more to say later, was now enacted as a remedy.  But this did not improve matters.  Wages did not rise, the surplus population could not be got rid of, and the cruelty of the new law did but serve to embitter the people to the utmost.  Even the poor-rate, which diminished at first after the passage of the new law, attained its old height after a few years.  Its only effect was that whereas previously three to four million half paupers had existed, a million of total paupers now appeared, and the rest, still half paupers, merely went without relief.  The poverty in the agricultural districts has increased every year.  The people live in the greatest want, whole families must struggle along with 6, 7, or 8 shillings a week, and at times have nothing.  Let us hear a description of this population given by a Liberal member of Parliament as early as 1830. {264}

“An English agricultural labourer and an English pauper, these words are synonymous.  His father was a pauper and his mother’s milk contained no nourishment.  From his earliest childhood he had bad food, and only half enough to still his hunger, and even yet he undergoes the pangs of unsatisfied hunger almost all the time that he is not asleep.  He is half clad, and has not more fire than barely suffices to cook his scanty meal.  And so cold and damp are always at home with him, and leave him only in fine weather.  He is married, but he knows nothing of the joys of the husband and father.  His wife and children, hungry, rarely warm, often ill and helpless, always careworn and hopeless like himself, are naturally grasping, selfish, and troublesome, and so, to use his own expression, he hates the sight of them, and enters his cot only because it offers him a trifle more shelter from rain and wind than a hedge.  He must support his family, though he cannot do