This is a little niche (well, very niche really), but I rather liked this letter published in the Norwich Mercury 200 years ago this week.
“To JEHOSAPHAT POSTLE, Esq.
SIR,
On reading your Letter I consider not only the Yeomen are indebted to you, but the whole Landed Property of the county, for the services you have therein rendered them, in bringing to light an attempt of certain Magistrates in the county, to impose a burthen upon them in an unjustifiable manner; I say unjustifiable, because the attempt is illiberal, oppressive, and degrading to a set of men, who are esteemed an ornament to the county, and who bear the great burthen of the county, not only in expence, but from the fatigue and trouble they meet with in employing and providing for the poor, the difficulty of which is only known to themselves.
In many parishes where the poor are numerous, they are little better than slaves, the burthen is inconceivable, and the expences enormous upon them; but are they to submit to be treated as slaves, by having a district surveyor appointed over them, to be at his call – to be at his controul; and for what, to put them to great inconvenience, as well as unnecessary expence, most unwarrantable, because unnecessary and uncalled for.-The attempt has surprised many gentlemen, who can not see what could be the motive of those magistrates.
Every one must know the improvident improvements that have been made on the roads in this county during the last twenty years, and that they are now entirely under the controul of the magistrates; they appoint who they please to be the surveyors in the different parishes, and order any improvements they wish to be made in any parish as they please. What would they wish to do more?
Are not those magistrates aware of the heavy expences there have been in the county for many years past, and still continue, for the Asylum and for the New Gaol? And do not those magistrates know the dreadful situation the yeomen were placed in only four years back, from the great depression of the produce of the land, from the heavy burthen of the poor, and other charges upon them, to the entire ruin of hundreds of families? and that a vast number that did survive those difficulties, by the assistance of their friends, are still in a distressed situation; and are not those magistrates aware, though this unpleasant burthen is aimed at the yeomen, that ultimately the burthen must fall on the landlord!
For as a Noble Lord wisely remarked in the House of Commons, on the heavy expence on agriculture, it must fall on the land, for the rent of land was only a residue; it could be no more, for first the labourer must be paid – the tithe must be paid – the tradesmen’s bills must be paid, and the poor must be maintained, and the landlord could only have what was left.
The appointment of these district surveyors would prove an evil and nuisance far greater than any thing that could have been invented, and are calculated to break the peace of the county. I hope those magistrates will recall what they have done, and set the county at rest; not inflame the minds of the industrious yeomen, who are already heavily burthened, nor degrade them by tyrannical and arbitrary oppression, but keep them as lambs, and as they have ever been deemed, quiet and ready to submit to any burthen that has been put upon them.
The farmer has been compared, by a worthy member in the House of Commons, to a sheep that would suffer itself to be stripped of every thing. I recommend the magistrates not to irritate them, by degradation and oppression, for they have already as much burthen as they can well carry. It will be found bad policy to break them down, for they will find it far better to keep them as sheep, to be shorn every year.
You will now please to accept my most heartfelt thanks for your exertions in behalf of the county, which the yeomen and many others will never forget were made in their behalf.
I am, Sir, your most obedient humble Servant,
A LAND OWNER.”
This splendidly indignant letter in the Norwich Mercury of 11 November 1826 is addressed to Jehosaphat Postle and signed simply “A Land Owner”. Jehosaphat Postle was a prominent figure in Norfolk’s agricultural affairs, identified in an 1826 publication as chairman of the Norfolk Agricultural Association. He had also been elected president of the East Norfolk Agricultural Society at its foundation in Norwich the previous November. The letter was therefore addressed to someone already involved in representing agricultural interests, which helps explain the writer’s rather enthusiastic thanks for his intervention.
The writer’s immediate focus is the attempt by Norfolk magistrates to appoint district surveyors to oversee roads. It’s fair to note that even today any talk of changing the arrangements with roads will be met with resistance and probably some comment about potholes. The writer thanks Postle for exposing the proposal, then describes it as oppressive, degrading and liable to disturb the peace of the county. I feel that perhaps this fear might have been a little exaggerated, but I like an angry letter to start debate.
The surveyor in question was responsible for highways, rather than measuring fields or examining properties. Road maintenance involved a slightly complex patchwork of parish responsibilities and turnpike trusts, with magistrates exercising supervisory powers. There were also obligations to supply labour, horses and carts, or payments in their place, so maintaining roads could take farmers’ resources as well as their money. The writer says that magistrates already appoint parish surveyors and direct improvements. He therefore sees district surveyors as another layer of expense and authority, with farmers expected to be at an official’s call.
Before the Poor Law reforms of 1834, relief was largely organised through parishes and financed by local poor rates. Farmers could contribute both as ratepayers and as employers of agricultural labourers, making unemployment a concern for their businesses and their parish finances. The writer argues that they already carry an intolerable share of this responsibility, particularly where the number needing assistance is high. His description of farmers as “little better than slaves” is a rather extravagant assessment of their position. I wonder whether the poor in the parish would have entirely agreed with his account.
He then widens the complaint to include expenditure on the asylum and the new gaol, presenting the surveyors as the latest demand on people already paying for expensive county institutions. Complaints about allegedly wasteful officials and excessive public spending. The correspondence pages have retained some familiar themes. He claims that farmers have barely survived one financial crisis before the magistrates arrive with another improvement to be paid for. He also argues that any extra costs imposed on farmers will ultimately leave less money available to pay their landlords. The signature ‘A Land Owner’ becomes rather relevant at this point.
The ending is perhaps the most revealing part. Having warned the magistrates against provoking industrious farmers, he urges them to keep these men quiet and compliant, like lambs. He then develops the comparison, arguing that it is better to preserve sheep so that they can be shorn every year than to break them down altogether. It’s quite an ending for a letter written in defence of farmers.