POVERTY. 243 



our departure from Halberton, after inquiry into Canon 

 Girdlestone's most interesting labours. The Canon was 

 anxious that we should be present at a trial he was 

 going to attend at Cullompton, after driving us to the 

 Tiverton Junction Station ; but a pressing engagement 

 in London prevented our doing so. The circumstances 

 occurred on 3rd June 1872, and were communicated to 

 The Times in a letter under the heading of " Migration 

 of Labour," signed by Canon Girdlestone. The letter, 

 verbatim, is as follows : 



" SIR, Will you kindly publish the following facts, which 

 I send you without note or comment, of which I was an 

 eye-witness yesterday, and which are reported in the local 

 papers ? 



" John Webber, a labourer, with a wife and three young 

 children, earning eight shillings a week, with a cottage 

 and garden free at Holcombe-Rogus, near this village, 

 applied to me for a place in Lancashire, which I got for 

 him, with sixteen shillings a week wages. After receiving 

 from me ^3, 153. for his expenses to Lancashire (on Monday, 

 2/th May, in order that he might start the next morning), 

 he was arrested on a warrant, at the suit of his master, 

 Mr. White, a farmer, on plea of breach of contract, had 

 his money roughly taken from him, was afterwards liber- 

 ated on bail, and had his money returned, but was bound 

 to appear at the Petty Sessions at Cullompton yesterday, 

 one whole week after he had sold the furniture and left 

 his cottage. I was present at the trial. Of the magis- 

 trates on the bench, one, the chairman, had granted the 

 warrant, and another was the landlord of the farmer, 

 Mr. White, who sued the labourer. The remaining two 

 were landed proprietors in the adjoining parish, from 

 which many labourers, much against the will both of land- 

 lords and tenants, had migrated. The warrant had been 

 issued under 30 & 31 Viet. cap. 141, in which Act 'con- 

 tract ' is denned ' as an agreement made in writing or by 

 parole.' No mention was made by Mr. White of a written 

 contract. He swore, however, that he had made a contract 

 for a year with John Webber by word of mouth, and that 

 he had done this in the presence of a woman servant ; 

 but when pressed he confessed that he had not summoned 

 that servant as a witness. John Webber swore that he 

 had never made any contract at all, but was merely a 

 weekly servant, and had given a month's notice, which 

 Mr. White admitted. John Webber's evidence was corro- 

 borated by that of his wife. The farmer White, moreover 



