THE LIBRARY OF THE NEW YORK STATE SCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR RELATIONS AT CORNELL UNIVERSITY "'Si Cornell University Library The original of this bool< is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924001668494 •^^ .i.-^ Flkoi REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED TO INQUIEE INTO THE ORGANIZATION AND RULES OF TRADES UNIONS AND OTHER ASSOCIATIONS: TOGETHER WITH MINUTES OF EVIDEJSrCE. ^r«gfiittb to hom,^ou&t& of parli'ammt ftp Command of In- Mnjt&t^* LONDON: RTTfTFD BY GEO]B^E EDWARD EYRE AND WILLIAM SPOTTISWOODE, PRINTERS fO THE QUEEN'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY. ■■;ll MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OEEICE. 1867. Prefented to The Cornell University, 1869, BY Goldwin Smith, M. A. Oxon., Regius Profeffor of Hiftory in the Univerfity of Oxford. EIEST EEPOET OF ^• &.. '^'•»''- -THE COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED TO INQUIRE INTO THE ORGANIZATION AND EULES OF TRADES UNIO^is AND OTHER ASSOCIATIONS. TOGETHER WITH '' ciO > MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. ^vtunten to totft ^ouu» of l^arliament tv (StommmiXt of ^tv Mm»t^, LONDON: PRINTED BY GEORGE EDWARD EYRE AND WILLIAM SPOTTISWOODE, PRINTERS TO THE QUEEnVmOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY. FOR HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE. 1867. fc^-i^G: ^'^- CONTENTS. COMMISSION EEPORT - - .Jl - MINUTES OF EVIDENCE j.'fi:- - •;,■:; :-j^,.- Page COMMISSION. VICTORIA R. Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith. Co Our right trusty and well-beloved Councillor Sir William Erie, Knight ; Our right trusty and right well-beloved Cousin Thomas George Earl of Lichfield. ; Our trusty and well-beloved Francis Charteris, Esquire (commonly called Lord Elcho) ; Our right trusty and well-beloved Councillor Sir Edmund Walker Head, Baronet, Knight Commander of Our most Honourable Order of the Bath ; Our trusty and well-beloved Sir Daniel Gooch, Baronet ; Our trusty and well-beloved Herman Merivale, Esquire, Companion of Our most Honourable Order of the Bath ; Our trusty and well-beloved. James Booth, Esquire, Companion of Our most Honourable Order of the Bath ; Our trusty and well-beloved John Arthur Roebuck, Esquire, one of Our Counsel learned in the Law ; Our trusty and well-beloved Thomas Hughes, Esquire, and Frederic Harrison, Esquire, Barristers at Law ; and Our trusty and. well-beloved William Mathews, Esquire , greeting. 212Si)tr£a£> it has been represented unto Us that it is expedient that inquiry should be made into the several matters herein-after mentioned. ^^OiU ^noiO ^0, that We, reposing great trust and confidence in your ability and discretion, have nominated, constituted, and appointed, and do by these Presents nominate, constitute, and appoint, you, the said Sir William Erie, Thomas George Earl of Lichfield, Francis Charteris, Esquire (commonly called Lord Elcho), Sir Edmund Walker Head, Sir Daniel Gooch, Herman Merivale, James Booth, John Arthur Roebuck, Thomas Hughes, Frederic Harrison, and William Mathews, to be Our Commissioners for the purposes of the said inquiry. 9[nll We do hereby enjoin you, or any Four of you, to inquire into and report on the Organization and Rules of Trades Unions and other Associations, whether of Workmen or Employers, and to inquire into and report on the effect produced by such Trades Unions and Associations on the Workmen and Employers respectively, and on the Relations between Workmen and Employers, and on the Trade and Industry of the Country ; with power to investigate any recent acts of intimidation, outrage, or wrong alleged to have been promoted, encouraged, or connived at by such Trades Unions or other Associations, and also to suggest any improvements to be made in the law with respect to the matters aforesaid, or with respect to the relations between Workmen and their Employers, for the mutual benefit of both parties. SlnlJ for the better discovery of the truth in the premises, We do by these Presents give and grant unto you, or any Four of you, full power and authority .to call before you, or any Four of you, such persons as you shall judge necessary, by whom you may be better informed of the truth in the premises, and to inquire of the premises and every part thereof by all other lawful ways and means whatsoever. 1 8425. IV gilllj Our further Will and Pleasure is that you, Our said Commissioners, do, with as little delay as may be consistent with a due discharge of the duties hereby imposed upon you, certify unto Us from time to time, under your hands and seals, your several proceedings in the premises. 9[ltlJ We do further will and command, and by these Presents ordain, that this Our Commission shall continue in full force and virtue, and that you, our said Commissioners, or any Four of you, shall and may from time to time proceed in the execution thereof, and of every matter or thing therein contained, although the same be not continued from time to time by adjournment. 9[nlJ for your assistance in the execution of these Presents We do hereby authorize and empower you to appoint a Secretary to this Our Commission, to attend you, whose services and assistance We require you to use from time to time as occasion may require. Given at Our Court at St. James, the Twelfth day of February 1867> in the Thirtieth Year of Our Reign. By Her Majesty's Command. S. H. WALPOLE. FIRST REPORT. TO THE QUEEN'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY. We, Your Majesty's Commissioners appointed to inquire into and report on the Organization and Rules of Trades Unions and other Associations, whether of Workmen or Employers, and to inquire into and report on the effects produced by such Trades Unions and Associations on the Workmen and Employers respectively, and on the Relations between Workmen and Employers, and on the Trade and Industry of the Country ; with power to investigate any recent acts of intimidation, outrage, or wrong alleged to have been promoted, encouraged, or connived at by such Trades Unions or other Associations, and also to suggest any improvements to be made in the law with respect to the matters aforesaid, or with respect to the relations between Workmen and their Employers, for the mutual benefit of both parties, have held several meet- ings, and humbly beg leave to submit to Your Majesty the evidence given before us up to and inclusive of the meeting held upon the 21st day of May 1867. (Signed) W. ERLE, Chairman. LICHFIELD. ELCHO. EDMUND HEAD. DANIEL GOOCH. H. MERIVALE. JAMES BOOTH. J. A. EOEBUCK. THOMAS HUCmES. FREDERIC HARRISON. WM. MATHEWS. a 4 M[NUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE ROYAL COMMISSION APPOINTED TO INQUIRE INTO THE TRADES UNIONS AND OTHER ASSOCIATIONS. 1, Park Prospect, Westminster, Monday, 18th March 1867. Present : The Eight Hon. Sir William Erle. The Right Hon. The Earl of Lichfield. The Eight Hon. Sir Edmund Walker Head, Bart., K.C.B. Herman Merivale, Esq., C.B. James Booth, Esq., C.B. John Arthur Eoebuck, Esq., M.P. Thomas Hughes, Esq., M.P. Frederic Harrison, Esq. The Eight Hon. SIE WILLIAM ERLE in the Chair. Mr. Egbert Applegakth examined. 1. {Chairman.) W^hat is the association which you belong to ? — The Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners. 2. What office do you hold in that society ? — The office of general secretaiy. 3. Will you explain to us the constitution of that association ? — I have brought copies of the I'ules and a set of documents issued ^nce May last, including the annual report, and monthly reports up to the present time {handing in the same). 4. Is it an association ccjnsisting of several societies, or having several bi'anchesimder it ? — It has branches throughout the United Kingdom. 5. What is the number of the branches? — You will find by the March report, which is before you, that we have 1 90 branches. 6. What is the total number of members? — 8,261, according to a report which I hold in my hand, issued a few days ago. 7. What is the annual income of the society ? — The income varies, on account of the society progressing so very fast ; but each year an annual report is issued, which gives a full account of the income and the expen- diture of the year, with tables of statistics, giving the income of the society during the whole of the time of its existence, as well as its expenditure, and the viuious purposes for which that expenditure has taken places. 8. Will you state the income for the last year ? — ■ The net income for 1865 Avas 10,487/. \os. Od. 9. What was the expenditure in the same year ? — 6,733/. lU. 5^d. 10. Leaving a balance of how much ? — It left us a balance at the end of that year of 8,320/. 13s. 7d. I desire to mention that our annual report for the past ye^r is not yet quite made up. I regret that it is not, for we have progi'essed very much during the past year. 18425. 11. I see that you state in this report that you have had an increase of members of about 2,500 in the last year ? — Yes. 12. What are the objects of your association ? — " The object of this society is to raise funds for the " mutual support of its members in case of sickness, " accident, superannuation, for the burial of members " and their wives, emigration, loss of tools by fire, " water, or theft, and for assistance to members out of " work ; also for granting assistance in cases of extreme " distress not otherwise provided for by the rules, for " which purpose a contingent and benevolent fund " shall be formed." These are the objects of the society as stated in the preamble of the rules. 13. What is the organization in respect of the branches of the society ? — Each branch consists of seven or more members in any to wn where they think proper to form a branch, and each branch conducts its own business in accordance with the code of rules which I hold in my hand. 14. The rules explain the management of the society ? — Yes ; the preamble provides for each branch electing its own officers and managing its own affairs, subject to general la-wn and regulations laid down in these rules. 15. Have you an executive council? — Yes. 1 6. How is that elected ? — It is elected by the branches in the district where the seat of government is held for the time being. At present it is held in London. 17. It being held in London, what would be the district included ? — The postal district. 18. Are you the secretary for the central district? — I am secretary for the entire society. 19. General secretary, elected annually by the uni- versal suffrage of the whole society ; that is the office that you hold, I suppose ? — Yes. Mr.Ii. Apphgarth. 18 Mar. 1867. TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Mr.B. Applegarth. 18 Mar. 1867. 20. {Mr. Hughes.) Is the general secretary elected every year ? — The election takes place annually. 21. {Chairman.) There are some other unions, small unions, of carpenters, that are not at present part of your association ? — There are. 22. But which are eventually, as you beUeve, coming into the general association ? — Yes, we be- lieve so. 23. How does a person become a member of the association ? — He applies through a member to be admitted into the society. He is proposed on a regular meeting night of the branch by a member who knows him to be a qualified workman, to be in good health, and who knows that he can comply with the condi- tions which are laid down in the rules for his admis- sion. They are as follows : — He must be in good health, have worked five years at the trade, be a good workman, of steady habits, of good moral character, and not more than 45 years of age. He is seconded by some member who also knows him well. He then fills in the following form (and pays Sd. for a copy of the rules). He says (after stating his name and addi-ess), " I hereby certify that I am in good health, " and, so far as I know, I am not afflicted with " any bodily ailment or constitutional disease, and " consider myself a proper person to become a " member of this society." Then he states his age in years and months, and how long he has worked at the trade, and says, " I hereby give my con- " currence in the rules " (which he has been fur- nished with previously), " and should these statements " be proved to be untrue, I shall be wiUing to submit " to the penalties contained therein." He is then asked several questions, whether he has belonged to the society before, for the purpose of ascertaining whether he has left in a disgraceful manner or not. He pays 2s. 6d., which is called "proposition money," and stands over for inquiries to be made respecting his character and abilities. The second time that he puts in an appearance, which must be within three months of the night when he was proposed, he answers aU questions put to him, and is admitted or rejected by a majority of those present. If he is rejected his money is handed back to him ; if he is accepted he pays his second 2s. 6d. and is furnished with his member's card, and he pays a shilling per week from that time. 24. Does Is. per week entitle a man to all the benefits you have specified ? — A shilling per week and 3d. per quarter to a benevolent and contingent fund. The bene- fits are as follows : — Donation benefit for 12 weeks, lOs. per week ; and for another 12 weeks, 6s. per week. For leaving employment satisfactory to branch or executive council, 1 5s. per week ; tool benefit to any amount of loss, or when a man has been a member for only six months, 51.; sick benefit for 26 weeks, 12s. per week, and then 6s. per week so long as his illness continues ; funeral benefit 12Z., or 31. 10s. when a six months' member dies ; accident benefit, 1001. ; super- annuation benefit for life, if a member 25 years, 8s. per week ; if a member 18 years, 7s. per week ; if a member for 12 years, 5s. per week. The emigration benefit is 6/., and there are benevolent grants, according to circumstances, in cases of distress. 25. Have you anything further that you wish to add showing the constitution of your association ; the rules we consider as being put in ? — I think it would be advantageous if the Commissioners had a perfect understanding as to the details of the working of some one society (I care not whose society it is), as to how it is really managed internally, how members are drafted about from place to place, as to the receipt of benefit, and so on. I think that would assist the inquiry at a further stage. 26. (Mr. Hughes.) Yes, but that we shall get from you in detail ; have not there been decisions lately at Bradford and elsewhere declaring that some one or more of your rules has been a restraint to trade ? — Yes, unfortunately there has. 27. How many decisions of that kind have there been ?-— Three. 28. What was the date of the first ?— The 16th of January of the present year. 29. And since that time there have been two others, have there ?— Yes, two others. The first one arose in connexion with the boilermakers' society at Brad- ford, wherein an officer of that society had withheld some 201. or 30/. They took the case into the police court, and they had certain clauses in their rules which were considered to be in restraint of trade, and the magistrates stated that they were not en- titled to the provisions of the 44th section of the Friendly Society's Act. The case was taken to the Queen's Bench and the magistrates' decision was con- firmed. One of our cases was also tried in the Bradford police court. 30. The first cuse of your own was at Hull, was it not ? — Yes. We made a formal application for a warrant there, and it was refused. 31. Which came first, the Hull or the Bradford case ? — The Bradford case, the boiler makers' case. 32. I want you to confine yourself to your own society. The boiler makers' case was decided last year, was it not ? — No ; on the 16th of January of the present year. 33. Will you tell us when your first case came on ? — Before the Hull magistrates, on February 8th. 34. What was the decision of the magistrates in your case ? — They refused to grant a warrant for the man's apprehension on account of the decision that had been previously given in the case of the boiler- makers. 35. Why did you apply for a warrant? — The man had absconded with monies belonging to the society to the amount of 30/. or 40Z. 36. Was it as secretary that he had done that ? — ^No, as trustee ; he was appointed to bank a certain sum of money and he had never banked it. 37. Will you point out upon what rule in your book the magistrates acted on that occasion ? — Clause 7, rule 18, page 34. 88. Can you refer us to any printed report of the decision of the magistrates in that case ? — The reports are simply paragraphs in the newspapers ; that is all that we have. 39. Have you got those paragraphs from the news- papers'to put in? — I have. " The Legal Status of Trades' Unions. — At the Hull police court on Friday, Mr. F. Summers, soli- citor, applied to Mr. Travis, the stipendiary magistrate, to institute legal proceedings against a member of the Hull Carpenters and Joiners Friendly Association.* Mr. Sum- mers stated that a trustee of that society had appro- priated part of the funds of the association to his own use, namely, two sums of 15/. each and one of 51. With re- spect to the smallest amount he might state that 6Z. was paid to the defaulter on account of the society that he might deposit it in the bank. Subsequently it was found that he had only deposited 1/. out of the 6Z., and no portion of the first-mentioned two sums of 15/. had been paid into the bank. A copy of the society's rules was handed to the magistrate, and, after he hgd perused them, he stated that he was of opinion the provisions of the Friendly Societies Act would not apply to the Hull Carpenters and Joiners Association, because it seemed to him to have been formed for the purpose of supporting the members when on strike, in addition to carrying out the intentions of a benevolent society. Therefore, in consequence of that, and in view of the recent decision regarding trades' unions, he did not feel justified in interfering in the matter. Mr. Summers, in furtherance of his apphcation, urged that there was only one rule of the society which might be said to have any reference to strikes, and that was the rule which stated that if any person held office in that society and was compelled on that account to leave his employment, he should, during such suspension from work, receive a stipulated sum per week. Mr. Travis again looked at the rules, when he said there were three or four which had a distinct reference to strikes, and therefore he should not grant the apphcation." 40. The Hull decision was upon clause 7 in rule 18, you have said ? — Yes. • Instead of " Hull Carpenters and Joiners Association," it should read the " Hull 1st Branch of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners." TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 41. Was the attention of the magistrate called to any other rule in your book on that occasion ? — One or two others he referred to. 42. {Mr. Harrison.) Were you present ? — No, I was not at that time. 43. {Mr. Hughes.) Will you read us that clause to which you have referred ? — " Any free or non-free " member or members leaving his or their employment " under circumstances satisfactory to the branch of " executive council shall be entitled to the sum of 15s. " per week." Those are the words on which the magis- trate decided that we were not entitled to the benefit of the 44th section of the Friendly Societies Act. 44. I understand by that rule that your executive council are enabled to withdraw a man from work on any pretext they may think satisfactory, and to allow him that sum weekly. That is so, is it not ? — Yes. 45. Will you be good enough to tell us whether that is the only rule bearing upon that point in your book of rules ? — That is really the only clause that we have which may be said to bear on strikes, or to have any connexion with strikes. But in the Hull case the magistrate selected a few words from clause 2 of rule 18. That, you will see, provides that a man shall receive a certain amount of donation in one given year, and it goes on to explain that if he has received the full amount in one year " he shall work four " successive weeks before he can again claim donation, " and must receive the average rate of wages of the " town in which he is employed." The intention of that is that if a man has received the full amount of donation in one year, that is to say, has been reaUy out of work so long as to receive the 91. I2s., he shall give some guarantee that he is not imposing upon the society, and the restriction is that a man shall find employment for four weeks before he can again claim donation. But unfortunately in the Hull case the magistrates used this rule against us, and at Bradford also ; at the latter place we were asked what right we had to require any man to receive the average rate of wages. 46. What was the second case of yours which was decided ? — It was a case that came on at Bradford on Friday, February 15th. 47. What were the particulars of that case. Did you apply for a warrant ? — We applied for a warrant and had the man apprehended. 48. Was he treasurer or secretary ? — Secretary ; he had been entrusted with 40Z. on one occasion and 15^. on another to take to the bank, and he spent the money. 49. You say that you had him apprehended ? — Yes. 50. Before the magistrates what took place ? — He was defended by an attorney^ who stated that our rules were in restraint of tradd. He pointed out this clause 7, rule 18, and said that clearly this case was analogous to that of the boiler-makers, and that we had no more right than they had to the protection of the Friendly Societies Act ; the magistrates concurred, and dismissed the prisoner. We then applied for a case to the Court of Queen's Bench, and they decHned the appUcation. The following is the report of the trial : — " The Alleged Charge, of Defrauding a Trade Society at Bradford. — "t'esterday, at the Bradford borough court, William Close was brought up on remand from last Friday, on the charge of appropriating two sums, the one 40Z. and the other \bl., the moneys of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners. Mr. Berry conducted the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Terry defended. At the outset of the case, Mr. Terry took a legal objection, nevertheless Mr. Berry addressed the bench at some length, maintaining that there was nothing in the rules of the society that debarred it from being looked upon merely as a benefit society, and, although admitting that there was one rule against the position he took, yet he contended, and quoted the Lord Chief Justice in support of his argument, that the existence of that rule did not deprive the society of the privilege of proceed- ing against the prisoner, and of his asking the magistrates to make an order for the payment of the money by Close, and mulcting him in a penalty not exceeding 20Z., as pro- vided by the Act. Mr. Terry took a different view of the matter, and argued that the society was essentially a trade organization and nothing else. He said that it was absurd to ask the Bradford magistrates to override the opinion of the judges, given so late as the 16th January, in the Court of Queen's Bench, in the case of ' Hornby y. Close,' and which had been brought before the court by the Boiler Makers Society. In that ease the judges decided against the society, and this case was on a par with it. Mr. Bwry stoutly asserted that there was no parallel in the two eases, and after a long argument, and the production of the rules, extracts from which were read, the Bench decided to dis- charge the prisoner on the ground that the society was not purely a benefit society within the meaning of the Act, and hence the prisoner could not be legally convicted of appro- priating the money which it was alleged he had not accounted for to the society." 51. Have you recovered any portion of that money ? — None whatever. 52. Was any other rule referred to on that occasion except clause 7 of rule 18 ? — Yes; the same one as was refeired to in the HuU case. 53. The magistrates proceeded in fact on exactly the same grounds as the HuU magistrates proceeded on ? — Yes. 54. Without stating the exact number of times (for I do not want you to consider that you are bound to absolute accuracy), in reference to that seventh clause, what number of times do you find it necessary to act upon it in the course of a year ? — In roimd numbers a dozen times a year ; that is, in general cases, where it involves a large number of men, say from 20 to 100 or more. 55. Can you refer us to any place in your balance sheet where we shall see the amount which the men receive under the hberty given by this clause 7 of rule 18 ? — You will find an item for trade privileges at page 90 of that annual report. 56. 1,941/. 8«. \\d. was the whole of that sum ex- pended in a year under clause 7 of rule 18 ?^ — Yes. 57. And the whole expenditure of the year was 6,733Z. ?— Yes. 58. Then in that particular year it would appear that nearly a third of your expenditm'e was expended under that rule ? — Yes, nearly a third. 59. Is that the common average ? — No, it is not ; and it requires an explanation. In addition to paying 15*. per week to members who are out of employment, under those circumstances, we assist our members in obtaining what we call privileges of trade, that is to say, summoning their employers when they refuse to pay them their wages, and when they discharged them vsdthout the notice which was agreed upon, there is the lawyer's fee, a guinea, and court expenses ; sometimes we are successful and sometimes unsuccessful, but in aU cases it entails a heavy expenditure, and we put down under that item all money spent in connexion with the trade privileges, as well as what is paid to members who are out of work under the provisions of that clause. But in all probabihty 100?. or 200Z. of that particular sum may have been for law expenses. 60. {Sir E. W. Head.) Have you no means of dis- tinguishing what portion of that went to the workmen directly under clause seven, and what portion went in contingencies of the sort you have mentioned ? — Yes, we have printed balance sheets which detail every penny expended in every branch of the society ; but in the annual report we do not think it necessary to give those details. 61. {Mr. Roebuck.) Amongst the pri^•ileiies you talk of would you include a man having stood out against a master who had refused to raise his wages ? — Yes, undoubtedly. 62. {Mr. Hughes.) Have you had any strike during the last year ? — Yes, several. 63. {Chairman.) Was this money paid to men absent under strike ? — A great portion of it. 64. {Mr. Hughes.) Have the strikes which have occurred in the last year been strikes in London ? — No, we have nothad one in London during the last year. 65. Where were they ? — In Manchester there was a strike on a small scale (which resulted in a lock-out), and there were several others in different parts of the country. A 2 Mr.R. Applegarth. 18 Mar. 1867. TRADES UNIONS, KTC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OP EVIDENCE, Mr.B. Applegarth. 18 Mar. 1867, 66. I want to know whetlier, so far as your society is concerned, men are able to strike as they please, or how the strike is conducted, and ho\v it is authorized. I want to discover how for this clause seven is a restraint on strikes, or how far it is an encouragement to them, and how were these strikes of the last year authorized, this one at Manchester, i'or instance ? — The one at Manchester is perhaps not a fair case to take. The men there desired an advance of wages ; they had given their employers notice for it, and the employers did not feel inclined to give it. The result was that the men decided to strike one shop. That shop was struck, and the employers met and resolved on a lock-out, which followed. Now that strike our executive council never sanctioned ; they disap- proved of a strike at that time on account of the monetary crisis. There was another society, how- ever, in Manchester which had far more members than we had, and they struck without the sanction of their society, and were not supported from its funds. We were obliged to acknowledge the lock-out because our members were forced into it by a larger number. But that is not the way in which the strikes are generally brought about that our society has to deal with. 67. I understand you to say that on this occasion the members of your society and of some other society were concerned ? — Yes. 68. And that your executive council and your society were against the strike ? — Yes, our council disapproved of it. 69. And that the executive council, so far as you know, and the authorities of the other society, were also against the strike ? — I will put it in this form, if you please, that the men connected with the other society struck without the consent of their society. 70. Was that consent given afterwards ? — No, it was not ; they had to support themselves on their own local resources. 71. But then your council allowed 3'our members on strike (or rather locked out) the benefit of clause 7, rule 18 ? — Yes. The ground on which we allowed the claim was this, that our members, if they had been ever so willing, had not power to turn the lesult. 72. Then in fact on that occasion your society acted as far as it could against the strike ? — I am not prepared to say that much for our Manchester members, but as far as the council is concerned who have the power in this matter they did ; and only granted the men support when they felt absolutely compelled to do so. 73. In fact they would have stopped the strike if they could ? — If they could they would have stopped it, on account of the commercial depression. 74. What was the result of the strike ?— The men got one half of what they asked then, and the other half they have received now, according to arrangement. 75. So that in fact that strike has been successful ? —Yes. 76. (Mr. Roebuck.) What did they strike for ? 2s. a week advance, and is. of it they got then, with one hour reduction of time, and they get the other Is. now. 77. {Mr. Hughes.) You have told us of a strike in which your society took no active part, is there any other strike of last year which has been sanctioned by your society, or which has been advised by your society ?— I have been looking over the records of our society, and there is no special case of any particular interest that has taken place during the last year, but I have selected one from the year previous (which perhaps will serve the purpose) at Torquay. The members of our branch there sent in a printed notice in respectful language to the employers. I will read the document containing an epitome of the case, which was written by the branch secretary there. He says, " In the first place the circular was " sent to the employers on the 19th of October " 1865, and the first week in March we received a " letter from the secretary of their association asking " a deputation to wait on them the next evening. " which they did, but to no purpose. They only told " them that they could not afford to give the money. " The men then oft'ered them arbitration, which they " refused. The next week we met them again, but " only got the same answer from them. Then you " advised us to call a public meeting." I would here take the liberty of explaining that I have always held that men have no right to strike, nor masters to lock- out, without first making the public acquainted with the causes that are likely to lead to a strike or lock-out, for I believe that the interests of the public are of much greater importance than either those of the masters or of the men, therefore I hold that neither masters nor men have any right to run the risk of paralyzing any branch of industry without consulting the public. Believing this, I advised the men to call a meet- ing, and lay a fair statement before the public, and say to them, " You be the impartial judges, and teU " us whether we are right or wrong." They called this public meeting on the 28 th of March, and a statement was laid before the public as to what the men really wanted. The letter goes on to say that a gentleman, an architect, Mr. E. Appleton, proposed as follows, " That this meeting express our opinion " that arbitration in matters' of trade disputes is a " desirable method of settling differences, and there- " fore urge the consideration of the subject upon " masters and men ;" (but prior to this it must be remembered the masters had refused arbitration when the men had offered it,) '■' and the majority of the meeting voted for it," and they then sent one of their men to the employers to give them information of the result ; but subsequently the men in turn refused arbitration on the ground that the masters had refused it once, and that it was of no use asking them to accept it again or agree to it. They said in fact, " We will refuse it, and have done with it." The result was that the strike took place. The letter goes on, " Mr. Eales told them that the builders had " refused arbitration in the first place, and now we " feel it our duty to do the same ; but notwithstand- " ing a few of us called the members together again " on the 31st of March, and as the strike was to " commence soon, we called the masters together at " the same time, thinking to settle it that night, but " the masters said that they could not afford to give " what was asked for. 78. What did they ask for ?— 3«. per week. 79. Did they ask for any alteration of hours ? No alteration of hours. 79fl!. {Earl of Lichfield.) Have you any statistics to show what wages the men were then receiving ? You will find on page 7 of the annual report a tabulated form of all the towns in the United Kingdom, as far as our society is concerned, stating whether the men worked by the day or the hour, the number of hours worked per week during the summer, the number of hours worked during the winter, and the amount of wages which they receive in summer and winter. 80. {Mr. Roebuck.) Did the men make no demand about the time ?— No demand about the time. 81. Merely 3s. advance ?— Yes. 82. What was the former wage ?— 24s. they were receiving at that time, and this wiis an advance to 27s. 83. {Mr. Hughes.) I see that the average wage stated at page 8 is during the summer 24s., and durmg the winter 22s. ? Yes. 84. So that now you have got it up to 27s. ?— Yes 25s. m the winter and 27s. in the summer. ' 85 In this strike, then, the men obtained what they struck for ?-In that instance, when our executive council found that the men had offered to meet the masters and settle the matter by arbitration, and that the masters had refused, they said, " Call a public meeting, ask the public what they think about it, and be guided somewhat by their decisioh " A resolution was passed at the meeting recommending arbitration, and the men, although at the meetinS accepting the resolution, considered it would be useles! offenng It to the employers, and said, We will decline this arbitration which the meeting has recommended TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION : — ^MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. there was nothing to show that the masters would have accepted it. Therefore the council considered that the men were entitled to support. 86. Have there been any strikes during the last few years in which the men have not gained their object ? — Yes, one at Darlington. 87. Will you state the facts shortly ?— The fol- lowing is a history of that strike from the pen of one of the members engaged in it : — " I take " this opportunity of placing before you an account " of our proceedings from the commencement up " to the present time. At a general meeting held the " first week in February 1866, it was unanimously re- " solved to request nn advance of from 27s. to 30*. per " week, with an hovu" on Monday morning, and a code of " working rules, notice to expire on the fii'st Monday " in April, and the enclosed memorial was sent with " the notice. At the end of live weeks the secretary " of the Masters Association ' was instructed to " ' inform us they objected to the terms, and thought " ' they ought to have a word in making rules that " ' they would have to be guided by.' Our reply was " that we were desirous to meet them by deputation " to discuss said terms and rules. They never " deigned to answer our request, treating our offer to " meet them with silent contempt. Finding, at the " expiration of the two months notice, that instead of " meeting us in a conciliatory spirit to try to arrange " matters, they had rushed all the work off they " possibly could in order to strengthen their position, " it being evidently their intention to compel us to " ask their pardon for expressing a desire to better " our position. In our opinion our only course was " to turn out, and endeavour to convince them that " we were not to be treated with such contemptuous " indifference with impunity. After we had been " out a week, they requested an interview ; we accord- " ingly met them by deputation, and after an hour " and a half s discussion tliey offered us sixpence an " hour, which was an advance of ninepence per week, " and 7 o'clock on Monday mornings. It is hardly " necessary now to state that, smarting under their " previous treatment, and fully conscious that at that " time we were completely masters of the position, we " declined the generous offer (had they made the " offer before the notice expired a fortnight would " have settled it). Of the course then pursued, we " leave the comparative lightness of the expenditure to " testify. About the 1st of May the towns of the " North were visited by a delegate from the Birming- " ham Masters Association, and were amalgamated " with them, he at the time promising to fill all their " shops in a short time, which he has failed to do uji " to this time. At the same time was distributed the " printed lists of those who came out on strike. " After visiting the southern counties and Scotland " in search of men, and failing, several of them can- " didly confessed they were beat, but they could not " go against the association. How the failure of " banks, &c., and consequent higli rate of discount, " the continental war, and the iron trade lock-out " have eventually reversed our relative positions of " masters of the situation, now belongs to the past. " After a struggle extending over 23 weeks, seeing " we were playing a losing game, after a sliarp " struggle to obtain a majority, the strike was closed, " thinking it much better to try to maintain our " position by getting as many of the old hands back " to their several sliops as possible rather than con- " suiting mere personal feeling by keeping the town " open for strangers, which would evidently have " grown worse and worse as the back end advances. " How it has resulted, so far as regards we who were " unanimously elected at a general meeting of the men •' to act as day committee, only exhibits the petty " tyranny of narrow-minded individuals, who it is no " self-praise to say have found themselves consider- " ably overmatched on any and every poi)it by men " whom they affected to despise, but who of course " cannot control the fluctuations of trade and capital, " and other such like circumstances. Aftei' the close " of the strike we ivaited on our old employer, and " the result, you already know, was the production of " the precious document to sign, confessing that we " had been very naughty for endeavouring to obtain " an advance of wages, but to go and sin no more — a " suggestion too contemptible for any more serious " consideration than it has already obtained." The following notice of the matter, with a copy of the "document," appeared in our monthly report for October, 1866, under the head of Trade Intelligence : — " The Darlington dispute has ended by the men resuming work without obtaining what they struck for. However unpalatable this may have been to our members, they had the good sense to see that circumstances were against them, and considered a ' good retreat better than a bad battle.' The following is a copy of a document presented to three of our members who had been elected by the Darlington Branch to conduct their business during the late dispute. We need harcJly state that our members had a ' slight objection ' to dignifying the document with their auto- graph, believing with us that the day for such nonsense is past. The three members alluded to will receive from our funds fuU wages till they obtain employment. " Copy op Document. " Darlington, Sept., 1866. " We hereby promise and agree that, in consideration of our being again received into the employment of Messrs. Richardson & Co., we will not, so long as we remain in their employ, or in the town or neighbourhood of Darlington, take any part whatever in commencing, carrying on, or encouraging any movement for obtaining any alteration of wages, time, or rules for the workmen as a body, or for any other workmen, than each one of us for himself; and that in case of a strike among joiners taking place or being likely to take place, we will still continue at work as before." 88. Had the executi-\'e council justified their strike ? — Yes. 89. And supported them in persevering in it ? — Yes. 90. {3ir. Boebuch.') Ee\'orting back to that strike at Torquay, was there any influx of business to the masters on that occasion ? — We have our monthly trades reports, of which 1 have fm-nished the Commis- sioners with a copy, in which you will find the state of trade stated to be good, bad, or indifierent, as the case may be, from month to month and year to year ; that is the ground on which we judge of the condition of the trade. In the particular case in question there was every reason to believe that the men were going to have a busy summer, and comparing things there with other towns near them, we felt that they were under- paid, and that the state of trade would waixanfc an increase of wages. 91. So that the strike really originated in Torquay out of the briskness of trade ? — Yes. 92. And the briskness of trade on the part of the masters caused the men to ask for an increase of wages ? —Yes. 93. Do the men in time of depression of trade ever mention to the masters a diminution of wages ? — It is not very natural that men should mention it ; but I can refer to instances where men ha\e agi'eed to it when it has been mentioned to them liy the masters. 94. Do not they usually refuse it ? — Yes, they do not like a reduction of their wage, of course. 95. They take advantage of the briskness of trade on the part of the masters to ask for an increase of wage, but they do not like that the masters should take advantage (if you can call it an advantage) of the slackness of trade to lower the wage ? — They do take advantage of a briskness of trade to ask for an increase, and they do not like a reduction any more than we suppose the employers like to pay an inci'ease. 96. {Earl of Lichfield.) Will you explain to us a little more what control your central executive has over your branches ? — In the first j)laco, there is a code of general laws issued for the guidance of the entire society. The branches have no byelaws, nor have they any need for any. The ordinary powers of the council are limited and defined. But in any ease in regard to which the rules are really silent, the executive council has power to decide, and their decision is binding on the society. But if that decision is in any way objectionable, A3 Mr.R. Applegarth. 18 Mar. 1867. TKADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION : — ^MINUTES OF EVIDBNCB. 3Ir. if. Applegarih. l8 Mar. 1867. then the members by universal sufirage have a right to upset that decision, or to test whether it is agreeable to the wants and wishes of the majority of the members. 97. How is that done ? — By issuing voting papers to every memb'"' of the society, on which he records his vote, stating whether he will be bound by the decision of the executive council in the particular case or not. 98. My question has not so much reference to any action that may be taken by the central executive under your rules, as to the influence of its opinion on the question whether there should be a strike or not. For instance, if one of your branches should propose a strike what power has the central executive over them ? It is merely a matter of opinion I suppose. But you have referred to a case in which the men struck, and did so contrary to the opinion of the central executive ; and yet it appears that in that case the central executive supported the men when they were on strike, notwith- standing that it was against their opinion that they should be on strike ? — Yes, because in that case our men were so few in numbers compared with the large number belonging to the other society that we were obliged as amatter of expediency to support them, other- wise we should have been playing into the hands of the employers by forcing men to stop at work against their fellow men, or leaving them to their own resources if they left their work. 99. Do you think that you were justified in expend- ing the funds of the society upon men who were on strike, although you believed the men to be wrong ? — Yes, we felt justified, undoubtedly, because we did not think it right to see them suffer for what they were really not responsible for. As to the question what powers the council has over the branches, you will see on the first page of every monthly report the following words : — " That in the event of the members of any " branch of this society being desirous of soliciting " their employers for any new privilege, they must first " forward to the council fuU particulars of the privilege " required. The council will immediately consider the " same, and if circumstances wan-ant grant the appli- " cation ; but should the employers fail to comply with " the request made, the branch so applying must again " consult the council as to their future course. And " under no circumstances wiU any branch be allowed " to strike without first obtaining the sanction of the " councU, whether it be for a new privilege or against '■' an encroachment on existing ones." So that the council have fuU and absolute power to grant support to members in case of strike, and if they struck against the decision of the council, then the council would withhold support from them. 100. (Mr. Noebuck.) What are the circumstances that the council consider to justify a strike, stating them in gCDeral terms ? — I will mention a case in point. So far back as August 1866 the operative car- penters of Hull sent a request to the employers to aUow them the Saturday half-holiday. The employers, in reply to that request, considered the application prema- ture, but would consider it in the spring of 1867. The men wore naturally led to suppose that in the spring of 1867 the employers would be prepared to consider the question. Therefore in order to give them plenty of time to consider it, on the 1 2th of last December the men sent a requisition asking them to grant the Saturday half-holiday. The following is a copy of the requisition: — "December 12th, 1866. To the " secretary and members of the Master Builders " Association. Gentlemen, we, the operative joiners " of Hull, in special meeting assembled, think the time " has anived that we should enjoy the same privileges " as the other branches of the building trade in refe- " rence to the Saturday half-holiday ; and in submitting " this to your notice ask you in a considerate manner " to comply with our request, that is, that we cease " work at 12 o'clock on Saturday, the same to com- " mence the first full week in April 1867. We also " at the same time submit to your approval a code of " working rules to come into operation at the same " time, if practicable. Respectfully requesting a reply " as speedily as possible, we remain, gentlemen, yours " obediently, on behalf of the committee, James Miller, " chairman, W. McMillan, secretary. All communica- " tions to be addressed to W. McMillan, secretary, &c." This communication, I may say, was from the members of the societies ; but in most towns there are a number of non-society men, and, generally speaking, they get up a meeting of the non-society men in conjunction with the society men, and then they send in a general request. The general request in this case is as follows : — " Sir, " we, the operative joiners of Hull, in special meet- " iug assembled think the time has arrived that we " should enjoy the same privilege as the other branches " of the building trade in reference to the Saturday " half-holiday ; and in submitting this to your notice " ask you in a considerate manner to comply with our " request, that is, that we cease work at 12 o'clock on " Saturdays, the same to commence the first full week " in April 1867." The employers did not reply up, to the 15th of February, and the following is a copy of the note sent by the secretary of the men to remind them that they had not yet acknowledged the receipt of the requisition of the 12th of December previous : — ■ " Sir, I am requested by the committee to express " their surprise at not receiving any reply to the " notice sent to you by them with reference to the " half-holiday and the introduction of working rules/ " and they appeal to you as a matter of business to send " a reply, also to refer you to the preface of the work- " ing rules submitted to you, wherein it is stated that " should there be any difierence of opinion with regard " to any of the rules contained therein, they were " desirous of meeting a deputation of equal numbers " to endeavour to arrive at some permanent decision. " And the committee would state that from the ex- " pressed opinion of the operatives they (the opera- " tives) would not feel satisfied until they are placed " on the same footing as other branches of the building " trade in Hull aud other large towns. Hoping that " instead of treating this with silence you wiU send a " reply on or before tlie 28th instant, we remain^ on " behalf of the committee, W. McMillan, secretary." I desire to call your attention to that clause which they allude to, asking for a certain number of masters to meet an equal number of men. The code of working rules which they sent contains a provision for the rates of wages, working hours, and other matters. In one of them they state " that when any employer wants " to quit any of his men he shall give one day's notice " thereof, and the same notice be given by the men " to then- employers. And payment to commence as " soon as work ceases on pay-day ; and if more than a " quarter of one hour elapse between the time of " leaving off work and the commencement of payment " the time shall be charged for at the same rate as " overtime. No payment to be made at a public - " house or beershop." 101. {Mr. Hughes.) Is not weekly notice the custom of the trade ? — Yes, generally, but in some cases they agree to a day's notice, and in some cases to a notice of only a quarter of a day ; but these are matters for the- masters and men to agree upon between them- selves. In addition to having rates of wages and working hours specified, there are several minor conditions embodied here, for instance, they say " that these rules will not allow any workman to ■' take work offered by a customer of any employer •' to execute after his day's work." If a clever work- man is sent out to do any job in a gentleman's house, perhaps the gentleman will say, " If von will come " and work for me in an evening at a lower rate you " shall have as much work as you like to do." But that IS a thmg which we do not tolerate at all, and it is not a thmg that ought to be encouraged, for the result is that the man goes to his work next day perhaps half worn out, and we think that that is not fair to the employer, and therefore the provision is made that a man shall not be at liberty to do that. I have explained the general aims and objects of the " code " of working rules" proposed by the men for the consideration of the employers, which, when summed up, amounts to this : That the men desire to TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION : — MlNTJTES OF EVIDENCE. see adopted sucli conditions (on which the one may ■work and the other employ) as may appear mntaally advantageous to masters and men, that hoth being affected by them, both shall have a voice in framing them, and they frankly and respectfully invite the masters to meet them to discuss and improve the working rules wherever improvement can be made. Their reasons for desiring "working rules" are important ones. In Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Halifax, and a great number of other towns " working rules " exist, they bring employers and workmen more frequently together, small grievances are nipped in the bud, and large disputes thereby frequently prevented, and altogether a more sound, healthy feeling exists between masters and men where such rules are in operation than where they ai-e not. I have also shown that the men are seeking to obtain the Saturday half-holiday, which (with the exception of the joiners) every other branch of the building trade in Hull has enjoyed for some time. I have shown too, that the men have given fair and timely notice of the alteration so that it might not interfere with any contracts their employers might have on hand when the request was first made. I have also shown that when in August 1866 the em- ployers stated they could not grant the half-holiday, but would again consider it in the spring of 1867, the men agreed not to press their claim then but wait until the time named by their employers ; and on December 12th sent in a respectful reminder with the pro|posed rules. That on the l5th of February they had not received even an acknowledgment of their reminder, and again wrote requesting a reply, and on the 18th of February they received the following : — 9 Somerstown, Holderness Road, Hull, Sir, Feb. 18, 1867. I SUBMITTED the Code of rules and note of the )2th December to the annual meeting of the Master Joiners As- sociation on the 28th January. For any delay which may be considered to have occurred in forwarding the resolutions passed thereon you may con- sider me personally responsible, press of other business having prevented nie from giving it earlier attention. Aftermost careful consideration the meeting unanimously adopted the following resolution : — " That this meeting, considering the present depressed gtate of the building trade, believes that any alteration in the hours of labour, involving, as it does, an increase in the price of labour, would tend still further to depress our branch of the trade, and therefore must decline to comply with that portion of the request ; and that this meeting is of opinion that the code of rules proposed by the operatives is such an interference with the rights alike of employer and em- ployed that they decline to adopt them." I am, &c., Alfred Brown, Mr. W. McMillan. Hon sec. At the earliest opportunity a meeting of the men was convened, the decision of the employers con- sidered, and the following reply agreed to : — Sir, March 7, 1867. I SUBMITTED the resolutions received from you (on the half-holiday question and rules) to the operatives. With reference to the first resolution they express great dissatis- faction with the reasons given for declining their request ; they consider that the state of trade on the 28th of January is no criterion to the state of trade in April next. Further that the increase in the price of labour is so slight that they are surprised that it should be given as the chief reason for not complying with their request, and they consider the way of dealing with the question far too summary, as no iiotice whatever was taken of their request with reference to meeting a deputation of equal numbers to discuss the matter, and they would take this opportunity of again pressing that part of their request, as they would wish to take every pre- caution to avoid a collision, at the same time desiring to put an end to the anomaly at present existing in the building trade. Hoping you will lay this before the Master Joiners Association so as to send us a reply on or before the 15th instant. W, McMlLLAK. The " anomaly " alluded to is that the workmen in the other branches of the building trades should leave work at noon on Saturday, and the joiners continue at work till 4 p.m. ; and are frequently sneered at and Mr. R. taunted for doing so by their more fortunate co- Applegarth. workers. In reply to the last letter of the workmen the 18 Mar. 1867. following has been received : — 9, Somerstown, Holderness Road, Hull, Sir, March 8, 1867. Yours of the 7th to hand. I shall have pleasure in laying it before a meeting of the Master Joiners Association, but Ifear I shall not be able to send you reply by the date you name (15th). You may rely, however, on my giving the matter my best attention. Yours, &c., Mr. McMillan. Alfred Brown. I have traced this matter almost up to the present date, and have now only to add that the grounds on which our council consider a strike justifiable in this case are these : — Firstly. Because that when the employers declined to grant the Saturday half-holiday in August 1866, the men did not press their claim, but waited till the time fixed by the employers for a re-consideration of the matter. Secondly. Because the request made by the men for the half-holiday is a reasonable and proper one, and an advantage enjoyed by the workmen in every other branch of the trade in that town and is fast becoming general throughout the country. Thirdly. Because the men have taken no advantage of the employers, have given due and proper notice of what they required, and have offered in a respectful manner to meet the employers to discuss and settle in a friendly manner any points of difference between them (and thus done their best to avoid a dispute). This the employers have not agreed to or in fact noticed up to the date of their communication of February 18 th. Fourthly. Because the objection made by the em- ployers to granting the half-holiday is not a valid one ; we do not think that to grant it would have the depressing effect the employers state, but believe that the public would as cheerfully pay such prices for the work done by the joiner as would enable him to enjoy the Saturday half-holiday, as they at present do in case of the mason, the bricklayer, the plasterer, and others, and as for the state of trade it is well known to be steadily improving. Fifthly. That for years past the men in our trade as a rule throughout the country have worked longer hours and received less wages than the masons and bricklayers, while the labour of a joiner is far more skilful and his working tools 75 per cent, more expensive than theirs, and we have had ample proof that the advantages they have enjoyed (and which we have not) may be attributed to the fact that their efforts in the past have been more united than ours. But we, having now an efficient organization, think it only right that we should use it to our advantage, and tbe past four years have produced ubundance of evidence as to what it enables us to do when wisely used, therefore, for these general reasons, as well as the special ones, we think a strike justifiable in the Hull case if all other means fail. 102. {Mr. Roebuck.) You do not approve of men working for customers of their employers ? Is not that interfering between the man and the employer? — No ; I think it is protecting the employer. 103. I am looking at it as it affects the public. Supposing that I found a clever artisan in my house, and said to him, " Now I see that you are a clever " workman, I should like you to come and work for " me," why should you interfere ?— We do not attempt to interfere in that way ; but if you had a man work- ing in this house and he was working for an employer, and you knew that by offering that man your job to do he would do it at less price, we do not think it fair that the man should be allowed to undermine his employer's interest in that way. 104. If the employer asks me 21. a week and the man does the work for \l. 15s., why should you inter- fere to prevent me from employing the man ? — We A4 8 TKADES UNIONS, fiTC. COMMISSION ! — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Mr.R. Applegarth. 18 Mar. 1867. have a strong notion that there are so many evils connected with that way of acting, that we had better say that we do not allow the men to interfere with their employer's interest. The man's business is to work at the bench side, and the master's business is to take work from the public. 105.' {3Ir. 3Ierivale.) What is the meaning of the term " non-free members ? " — It means men that have not been twelvemonths in the society. 106. {Sir E. W. Head.) Arc we to understand that that rule of not suffering a man to work for a private customer of his employer is maintained by the society in the interest of the employers ? — Solely in their inte- rest ; it could not be to our interest. The fact is that we have found that the employers have met us in this way sometimes : they say, " There are lots of your " men that take work from our customers to do of an " evening," and in all such cases we consider the em- ployer has a, just ground of complaint ; and we say, " We will put our veto upon that proceeding." 107. Then you consider, do you, that your society is exercising its proper function in protecting the em- ployer as well as the Avorkman ? — Yes. 108. {Mr. Roebuck.) So that you do really inter- fere with a man's judgment of his own interests ; you say, We the trade interfere and tell you that you shall not be governed by your own judgment ? — In matters Uke that we believe it to be on the whole very injurious for the men to act in that way. 109. What do you mean by " injurious ? " — We believe that when a man has done a day's work he has done suificient. 110. Do you not suppose that he is a better judge of that question than you ? — No, we do not ; wo believe that the men are thorouglily selfish who act in that way. 111. How should you like me to interfere with you as you intei'fere with those men ? — If you were a member of my society, and you, in conjunction with a majority, decided that I must conform to certain regu- lations, I should be bound to do so ; but if we are all to be left to do as we like the sooner we dissolve our society the better. 112. Is not that bringing the opinion of the majo- rity in all cases to govern mankind ? — Undoubtedly, and I see no reason against it. 113. Then you think that the minority should have no voice ? — Undoubtedly, let them have a voice, and if they have right on their side let them agitate till they convince the majority they are right. 114. But who is to decide whetlier they have right on their side ? — The same remark may be applied to the question of the suffrage, about which I suppose we shall have to go on agitating till we get what we wish. 115. Here is, we will say, an individual man who hps a jseculiar power, who is in fiict a genius ; you interfere with him and say, Your genius shall not help you, we will bring you down to the mediocrity of the society ? — That is a mistake. I would ask whether it adds to a man's genius to overtax his own strength. 116. Is not he the best judge of that question ?~-No, I think not. 117. So that you would have the society a nursing mother to genius ? — I would have a man do a fair day's work for a fair day's wage. 118. And that is the rule you lay down in your society, is it ?^ — Yes, and as far as we are able we carry it out. 119. {Earl of Lichfield.) Have you any rnle in your society against overtime by employers ? — No. If the employers mutually agree to such a rule, then it will become binding so far as that town was concerned, but our rules have nothing whatever to do with those. I was merely giving a specimen of a rule as it emanates from the men to the employei-s. 120. Then you do not prevent yom- members work- ing overtime for their employers ? — No, we do not, but we have a great objection to it, and to piecework in particular. 121. {Mr. Boebuck.) What is your objection to piecework ? — The introduction of piecework leads to the introduction of bad material. 122. What do you mean by that ? Will you illus- trate the statement ? — Thin wood instead of thick, for instance ; bad bricks instead of good, or bad mortar instead of good. 123. If I engage to lay a certain number of bricks a day, and am paid by the number I lay, does that introduce bad material ? — It has a tendency to intro- duce bad material. 124. How? — I will speak with reference to my own trade, for those who come after me will be better able to speak for their trades than I can. For instance, in the outskirts of London there are many villa residences put up by the piece. The general rule is for the employer to give a certain price for the work, and that a very low price, and they know well that the men cannot make the same rate of wages that men can get in a shop in London. The con- sequence is that the men have to work so much longer and to make more exertion. The employers know the men exert themselves to throw the work together as speedily as possible, and at every oppor- tunity they introduce indifferent material. Now, as an instance, what we tei-m the treads (those are the boards you tread on coming upstairs) of the stairs in all good buildings are the same thickness at the back as they are at the front. You see the round edge, and tliat .should l)e the thickness of the board from back to front. They make a practice here in London, and in some parts of the country also, of having the boards cut aslant in such a way that the thickness is not the same throughout. Now, when these men work by the piece their object is to get the work as quickly thrown together as possible, and having this desire they will cover up and hide bad material, and the employers know this, and hence they introduce it. That is only one instance, but many others might be given. 125. lonlyaskyou these questions for information sake, but I think there is a 2wint which you have not directed your mind to. Supposing a very good work- man — for instance, such a sculptor as Piaxiteles — were to come to me and say, " I will make you a statue of " Venus, and I must ask so much money for it," that is doing work by the piece. You, as I understand, would interfere and say, "No, you must 'work on the " same terms as Thomas Smith, and not work by the " piece ? " — I do not admit that that is a fair applica- tion of the principle. We are not all Arkwrights, Brunels, or Stephensons. Men of such extraordiiiaiy talent soon become other than working men. We have to make rules and regulations i\'hich shall apply to workmen generally, and wherever we find a man who has extraordinary ability -we always find him in some position of responsibility ajid trust, and therefore it is that we delight in assisting such a man. These piece work regulations that you sccni to object to would not apply to a case of that kind at aU ; they do not tend to bring down the men of superior genius. 126. Take the case of a man of inferior ability to the great name I have mentioned ; take a carver in wood and take it in your own case. I will suppose he is of the bettermost sort of workmen, that he can do his work more rapidly than, ^ve ^^■\l\ say, Thomas Smith by his side.^ You would interfere with him ; you would say, " No, you are not so great a man as to " take yourself out of the rest of mankind ; we will " reduce you to the niediocritv of our standard ? "—No nothing of the kind. It does not follow, because we set our faces against piecework, that one man is not to have more pay than another. When there is a man of hrst-class ability, whether he is working by the day or the hour, or tlic week, or the month, his employer can and frequently does single him out and o-ive him a higher rate of wages, even where piecework is prohibited. 121. {Mr. Hughes.) You do not object to the em- ployer doing that, do you ?— Not in the least. 128. {Mr. Roebuck.) But that does away with vour in the notion of piecework, I apprehend ? — Not XfiACliS UNIONS, £TC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. slightest. We object to piecework, because it leads men to neglect their homes, to work too long hours, and to attend more to work than to the education of themselves and their famiUes. We believe that it deters men from pursuing educational and other matters which really tliey should attend to. 129. So that if a man can do half as much work again as the ordinary race of men, you say that he shall not take advantage of that peculiarity which nature has given him ? — Yes, he can take advantage of any such peculiarity. He janj work as hard as ho likes, and generally speaking the employer will single him out and give him a higher rate of wages. 130. That takes him out of your rules, but so long as he is under your rules the man of great capacily is reduced to tlie standard of jour society, is he not ? — I really cannot see how you can make it appear so.- 131. {Mr. Merivalc.) WiUyouaUow me to call your attention to rule 34, clause 7 : " Any member upbraid- " ing another for leaving a situation and returning to " it again (if he has done so to the satisfaction of his " branch), shall for each offence be fined Is." The amount of the fine is not my point, but wiU you have the kindness to explain the bearing of that rule. What is meant by one member " upbraiding another for " leaving a situation and returning to it again, if he " has done so to the satisfaction of his branch?" — Supposing a man had had a dispute with his employer on a question of wages or working hours, he would report the fact to his branch, and the branch would say, perhaps, " Ton have no just cause of complaint, " and ought to return to your work, you are in the " wrong and not your employer." That man would go back to his work, or should do so. Now if there were a member in the same shop who upbraided him for coming back, that would be a fin cable oifence according to the rule just read. 132. Supposing that a man has a difference with his employer in regard to something not provided for by the rules, a difiTerence between him and his employer of a more personal kind, would the branch act as arbitei' in a matter of that kind ? — Certainly, if asked to do so. 133. Supposing, for instance, in a case of piecework (though you have no rule against it), that a man had a dispute with his employer because the emploj^er did occasionally send out work to be done by piecework, would that be a case in which the branch would arbitrate between the master and the man ? — Yes, if desired. But if the member wanted to leave his work he would want to receive some of the benefits of the society, then we should be obliged to investigate the matter. 134. It is the case, tliei'efore, that not only matters relating to the rules but other matters are under the cognizance of the branch in that way ? — Yes. 135. (Mr. Harrison.) You have spoken of the executive of the society sanctioning on consideration a strike. Is the executive in the habit of suggesting and counselling a strike ? — It never does so. 136. Is it the case that the executive for the most part does not sanction the apjDlications to strike which it receives, or what proportion of them are refused ? — About one-third, as near as I can recollect, of our appli- cations during the past four years have been refused. 137. On what principles does the executive proceed when it considers the desirableness or the reasonableness of an appUcation to strike. What data have you for examining the state of trade, and on what principles do you come to a decision ? — We have before us the monthly reports, compiled out of returns which are carefully fiUed in by the branch secretaries all over the country, sent to the general office, and then compUed by myself and issued again to the branches, stating the condition of trade in each locahty and the number of members unemployed. These are carefully preserved from year to year. In addition to that we have a table of statistics as to the rate of wages they are receiving, and the num- ber ©f hours they are working for those wages, and the general conditions of their work. These statistics are referred to, and they are compared with the price of provisions and the ' conditions under which 18425. other branches are working. We have a correct record month after month and year after year of the state of trade in any given town. We will take, for instance, Liverpool. We have a record which has been kept ever since the society has been in existence, telling us how the trade has been in Liverpool each month during that time, and we know the rate of wages that the men have received, and the number of hours they have had to work for them. When they apply for leave to solicit an increase of wages we say, " Liverpool is working under such con- " ditions ; what is Sheffield doing ? what is Manchester " doing ? what is London doing ?" and then we consider the question whether Liverpool has got its fair share of wages when compared with the other towns. 138. When you say the state of trade, does that mean the price that the article is fetching ? — No ; I am re- feiTing particularly now to whether trade is brisk or duU in our particular line. 139. Does not the price that work is fetching affisrd you the indication of what ought to be the rate of wages? — We have no means of knowing what price our employers' work is fetching. 140. {Mr. Hughes.) You take the cases where the men in your trade are well employed to guide you in your decision ? — Yes. 141. {Mr. Harrison.) Have you any means of ascer- taining what is the amount of demand for your labour, what is likely to be required by the pubhc, by contractors, and so forth ? — Yes ; we have the " Builder " and other very excellent newspapers which give accounts cf tenders and large jobs, and if there is any doubt at all on the question, two disinterested parties (or one, as the case may be) are sent down to ascertain what jobs are going on in the neighbourhood, and to make the fullest investigation into the state of trade, so as to know whether the men are really asking what is reason- able, and whether they are pretty unanimous in what they are asking. 142. Can you bring anything to show whether strikes have been more fi-equent or less frequent since the time that your society has been in vigour, as com- pared with the time when it was not in fuU operation, or as between districts where your society has not many branches compared with districts where it is strong in branches ? — As far as my experience goes, strikes have been rather more frequent, but on a very small scale, during the last four years. I have not ascertained accurately what strikes there have been outside of our own society ; but taking the past 10 years previous to the existence of our society I think that certainly, so far as I am able to judge, there would be more stiikes then than now ; yet during the last four years they have been frequent, but of \-ery short duration. 143. Can you compare the strikes in districts to which your society does not extend or in which similar societies are not in existence with those in districts where your society is strong ? — We have no means of getting accurate information. Generally speaking, men not in association accept terms less favourable than the men in association. * 144. Do you consider that the existence and the strength of your society has done much to raise the rate of wages and to shorten the hours of labour in different towns, and have you constructed any table showing the average increase in this respect ? — You will find that on page 10 of the last annual report, I make the following remarks on the tables which show the increase of wages and the reduction of working hours which has taken place. I say, " The preceding " table and summary contain much valuable informa- " tion, and also present facts which are as remarkable " as they are encouraging. During the past year no " less than 52 different towns have obtained an advance " of wages, varying from 8c?. to 4s. per week. In 30 " different towns the members have obtained a reduc- " tion in their working hours, varying from half an " hour to five hours per week ; and it is worthy of " special remark that, since the opening of a branch of this society in Bradford, the' working hours of Mr.R. Applegarth, 18 Mar. 1867. that town have been reduced 8^ per week, and B 10 toADBS UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSIOJST : — MINUTES OF BVIDBNGE. Mr. H. " advance obtained of Is. , per week, and this, at the .Applegarth. " cost of a few shillings." 146. Can you show that that result is due to the 18 Mar. 1867. existence of the society ? — I can only say, so far as Bradford is concerned (taking that as an instance), there was no other society in existence, that our men were continually agitating in a very business-like manner with their employers, and that the result has been, as here stated, that they have got their hours reduced and the wages increased. 146. Could you mention any two towns where the circumstances are sufficiently alike to show that in the town whei'e your society has been strong a rise of wages or some other advantage has been gained, while in the other town where your society was not strong, and where, so far as one can see, there was the same reason cmteris paribus for those advantages being gained, they have not been gained ? — Yes ; if you refer to the table of statistics at page 8 you wiU find that in Sheffield we have one of the largest branches of our society, in summer they are work 57^ hours for IZ. 10*. per week, and 52^ hours in winter for II. 8s. per week. Now at Rotherham, which is only a few miles from Sheffield, and where our society is weak, in the summer they get 4s. less and in the winter 2s. less than the men at Sheffield, and they also work in the winter longer hours than the Sheffield men do. 147. Could you mention -any other instances of the same kind ? — I believe that a number of instances could be selected from those tables. 148. {Mr. Roebuck.) And you assumed that those facts are a proof of the great advantage of your society ? — Yes. 149. You do not know the effect that the society has had upon the employers I suppose ? — No ; in a selfish world the employers look out for their own interests as well as we for ours. 150. The fact that the society is doing what is favourable to you is not a proof that it is doing what is favourable to the public ? — No, it may not be a proof. 151. {Sir E. W. Head.) Do not your interests depend somewhat upon the amount of capital employed in the trade ? — Yes. 152. And does not the amount of capital employed in the trade depend upon the employer and what profit he makes by it ?- — Yes. 153. Therefore your interests may be affected in- directly through the employer, although the direct benefit apparently is gained by the workmen ? — Yes ; but I would ask what we should do in the event of all the rest of the trades getting an advance of wages and the price of things going up, if wo were to stand still. 154. {Mr. Hai-rison.) A good deal has been said i-ecently in your trade with respect to the importa- tion of foreign woodwork from abroad ? — Yes. 155. I suppose that from the central position which you occupy you must have turned your attention to that subject ? — I have. 156. Are you able to state to what extent you con- sider that that has gone on, and whether you have practically felt that it has interfered with your woi-k? — So far as I have been able to ascertain (it is quite a new thing in our trade) it has not interfered with us at all, and I do not think it is likely to do so. With regr.rd to the class of work that has come over here, I understand that there is a great quantitv lying at the east ead of London, and the employers themselves are fighting shy of buying it. 157. What does that consist of? — Doors, I believe, principally. 158. And window sashes? — I have not heard of any sashes being brought over, they are doors principally, and the employers seem not to like the look of them at all ; they would sooner purchase the rough material. 159. {Mr. Roebuck.) Supposing that it was better and cheaper than the English work, should you oppose the introduction of it into this country ? — Not in the least. If they can produce it better or cheaper abroad, let them do so, I say that either they are doing it at starvation prices, or we must go there ourselves and manufacture it and have a share in the advantage. 160. {Mr. Harrison.) Have you found that any men have been, so far as you can judge, thrown out of employment, or that any contracts have gone off, because of the introduction of this foreign work ? — I have never heard of one case of the kind. 161. You cannot see that practically the thing has affected you ? — No, and during the last five weeks I have made very many inquiries on the subject. 162. You have spoken about the locomotion of your trade, that is to say, about sending men to places where more workmen were wanted ; will you briefly describe the system which your executive adopt in supplying men to a district where there is a want of labour ? — When the monthly returns come, on or about the 6th of each month, into my hands I run down the reports to find where men are wanted and where men are out of employment. I then take the earliest opportunity possible of writing to the secre- taries in the towns where men are out of employ- ment to tell them where men are wanted, and we make a practice of paying the railway or steamboat fare of the men that are out of employment when we send them to the places where men are wanted. 163. Are they bound to go ? — No, not if a man gives anything like a reasonable excuse for not going. 164. {Mr. Roebuck.) Do you transport the man's family as well as the man himself? — No; in those cases it is a temporary thing ; we consider that a man is better off 100 miles away in full work than stay- ing at home with 10s. a week. 165. {Mr. Harrison.) Are you or your branch secre- taries ever applied to by employers or their agents to provide men for them f — Yes, frequently. There is an instance mentioned by Mr. Beesly, in the " Fortnightly Review." In the March number of that review he gives a history of the everyday life of our society from the commencement up to the present time. There was a case in a little out-of-the- way place near Dorking, where an employer who was building a large house wanted more men ; he could not get any and he applied to our Dorking secretary, and the secretary wrote down to Manchester, where there was a lock-out, telling them to send men, they did so, and we paid their expenses to Dorking from the society's funds. 166. You consider then that the society does some- thing to supply labour in the places where it is wanted, and to draw it away from those where it is not wanted ? — Certainly ; it is a common thing for the foremen in all parts of the country to make application to our secretaries. They can not only depend on having men from us, but they know that the men are good workmen and of good moral character. 167. With reference to the last remark, what guarantee is there that the members of your society are men of good character in their trade ? There is a fine inflicted upon the proposer or seconder of any man if he knowingly introduces to the society a man who is unfit to become a member of it, and the rules require that they shall possess that qualification. 168. Do you consider that the best men in your trade are members of your society or not ? — They ai-e as a rule, members of trade societies. 169. {31r. Roebuck.) Supposing that there was a job going on, and that 15 of the men engaged on it were of your society, and that five were not of your society, would it often happen that your 15 men would render the state of the five men very uncomfortable ? Never so fai- as our society is concerned, have we heard of an instance where a member has objected to work with a non- society man, or attempted systematically to make it un- pleasant for a non-society man to work with him ■ and if any special case could be brought to the notice of the executive council where that had been done, we should as soon take proceedings against a member of om- society who had done so as we would against an em- ployer who had acted unfairly towards our men. TBADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION :— MINUTES OF EVIDEIirCB; 11 170. That being your statement,, if it should appear that even here in London such things do happen, you would be very much surprised, and I think you would allow that there was a want of power in your society that that should occur ? — Cases may occur that we do not heal' of. 171. May it not be that you do not hear of them because you do not wish to hear of them ? — No, we ai'e only too glad to get hold of any information of the kind, if it is to be had. 172. Supposing it should happen that instances come before us hereafter of such transactions having occurred, you will be very much surprised ? — We shall not be very much surprised, but we shall be quite prepared to deal with th,em as we should have dealt with them if they had come to our knowledge in the first instance. 173. {Mr. Harrison.') Have you had cases of inti- midation brought to yom" notice on the part of one member over another, or of one member over a non- member ? — We never had a case of the kind. 174. {Mr. Roebuck.) So that we may say that in the case -of the carpenters and joiners the thing has never happened ? — I am speaking only of my own society, which has been in existence since June 1860, and I say that such a thing has not happened in our society. I do not speak of any other society. 175. {Earl of Lichfield.) Is there any other large society in your own trade ? — There is what is called the general union ; that has more members than ours, but not so many branches. 176. {Mr. Roebuck.') Have you ever heai-d, in the case of that society, of anything having occurred like what I have referred to ? — Yes. 177. Does your memory call to mind any one instance ? — I remember a case at Bolton, where some members of that society threatened to strike against one of our members because he was not a member of theirs and refused to join them. He said, in the Lancashire dialect, " Well, if you do I'll fill t' shop," meaning that he would go back to Bury and fiU up their place with members of his own society. 178. {Mr. Harrison.') Has it ever come to your knowledge since you have been secretary of the society that any practice analogous in any way to that of rattening at Sheffield has been practised in your trade ? —Yes. 179. What is the practice ? — As far as my experience of trade matters goes, the rattening that we have heard of only in reference to the Sheffield trades is common to every trade, and what is meant by rattening is that if a man renders himself objectionable to those he is working with they try to make it unpleasant to him in some way or other. 1 will mention an instance of rattening that took place at a large job at Trollope's, in Pimhco. Two men were discussing over their breakfast, and one struck the other. On that occasion the other men agreed amongst themselves to " Put the man in Coventry " for a month who had struck the other — that is to say, not to speak to him at all. Every man on the job pledged himself under the penalty of a fine not to speak to him, and they did not speak to him during that month. They faithfully carried out their decision. That is the mUdest form of rattening, and that is common to all trades. Again, it is the practice in many trades to remove a man's working tools, not to steal them. Now that is a thing which I do not sanction or believe in at all, and it is a thing that is very fast dying out, but it is only fair to the Sheffield trades to say that it is not pecuhai' to them. I believe these practices are to be found amongst the trades that may be considered the most highly educated trades. 180. {Earl of Lichfield.') You have a great many offences mentioned in your rules as subject to fines ; have you any fine for a man acting in the way you ' have described, using violence, or making himself dis- agreeable in any way to another man with whom he may be working ? — We do not take cognizance of the conduct of members, so long as it has not any connec- tion at all with the matters, pertaining -to the society, unless it be that they are guilty of felony. 181. {Mr. Roebuck.') Striking a man in the face has nothing to do with your society, as 'I understand you, then ? — No ; I mean that we have no rule whatever to enforce a penalty in a case of the kind I have mentioned. 182. You spoke of rattening, and made use of the mUd phrase of " removing " not "stealing" tools. Now re- moving tools from a man I suppose takes away his po^rter of doing his work ? — Yes. 183. And therefore deprives him of his wages? — Yes. 184. And therefore reduces him to starvation? — Yes, it may be carried out to that extent. 185. That is rather a heavy result, is it not ? — It is, but you will remember that I said I did not agree with the practice. 186. {Mr. Harrison.) Does your society officially recognize the isractice ? — Certainly not. 187. {Earl of Lichfield.) Do they discourage it ? — • They do discom'age it, 188. What steps do you take to discourage anything of that kind ? — I can mention an instance ; one of our members was working at Cambridge at a job for Mr. Myers, of London. The men there attempted to make him pay a footing, a most objectionable thing to the man. He did not pay for the first week or two, and then he decHned I think the next. At all events some of his tools were hid. The man came to the branch and complained. The case was referred to the executive council, and they said, " If the work- " men on that job have done so he shall have all the " protection which our funds can afford, and we wiU '' render him support, and if we could find out who had " hid his tools we should take the case into a court of " law." That is a case which we have now imder consideration, and if we find out the man who hid the tools we shall make an example of him. 189. No such case has come before you since you have been on the management of this society, as I understand you ? — Never one. 190. {Mr. Harrison.) You have spoken of the cus- toms of the trade. Are there many towns in which a code of rules agreed upon between the employer and the employed is in force ? — Yes. 191. Does the society desire to extend that, or do you consider that a beneficial state of things ? — We are doing all we can to extend it ; we believe that nothing can be more advantageous than for the masters and men to meet and agree upon certain conditions, and we think that it should be a matter left to themselves. 192. Have you any evidence that that has acted beneficially upon the state of the trade, that any town, for instance, has been the better for it since it has been enforced ? — Yes. There is a very remarkable instance at Sheffield. Our society has been in existence since March 1862 in that place. They were receiving then 26*. per week, and working 58^ hours, and receiving' the same rate of wages in winter as in sum- mer. After our branch had increased there, the men began to think that they were not so well paid as men in other towns, and they applied to the masters for more. It was not settled without a dispute, they had a strike of some few weeks, and then they got what they desired, including a code of working rules. Since that they have had many meetings with their employers, and the employers were well satisfied with the conduct of the men, and expressed themselves so. It happened that the masons and other branches of the building trade had asked for and obtained the Saturday half-holiday, and our men thought it was not fair that they should work longer than the others, so they went to the em- ployers, simply instructed by a resolution of our branch, to ask the employers if they would grant the half-holiday. The employers said, " Yes, we will," and a short time afterwards granted it. They said, " what is more, " we have a suggestion to make to you carpenters." We are well satisfied with the manner in which you have met us during the last few years on trade affairs, but there is one thing that we should like to suggest to you, and that is, that we should have a board composed of an equal number of masters and men, and that any little grievance on the part of either one or the other B 2 Mr. a, •Applegarth. 18 Mar. 1867. 12 TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OP EVIDENCE. Mr.R. Applegarth, 18 Mar. 1867. should be submitted to this board so composed, thus preventing our getting into a large dispute ; " -\ve will agree to appoint a number of masters if you will appoint am equal number of men." The men went back to those who had sent them, and they gladly accepted that proposal, and there has been no such thing as a strike since that board of arbitration was established; there is not a town of England where, taking into consideration the v>'orking hours and the wages and price of provisions, the men work on bettei- conditions than they do in Sheffield. 193. (Chairman.) Do you mean that the men are paid higher and that provisions are cheaper ? — I mean that taking into consideration the amount of wages received, the number of hours tliey work for lliat amount of wages, and the price of provisions, there are no men in the tiadc better off. I think that the manner in wliich the employers met the men may be attributed to this fiict. When I left ShefBcld some five years ago they were receiving 26s. per week the year round. The cmjJoyers felt this wiis unfair, as the time worked was so much shorter during the wiutei', and they said to the men, " You ask for more wages, " but you have an advantage in getting the same rate in " the winter as in the summer." The men said, " We " will agi-ee to 2s. less in the winter time than we receive " in the summer." This showed a desire on the part of the men to deal fairly with their employei's, and they have benefited by so doing, for at one of the last interviews they held with their employers, it was agreed, on receiving proper notice, to give the men an addi- tional 2s. per week if the state of trade would warrant it ; this the men had not a;-ked for. 194. [Mr. Harrison.) What is the nature of youi' instructions ; where you have a special code of iiiles does that code of rules go to othei' questions besides the price of wages and the hours of labour r — Yes. I have some with' me as a specimen {handing them to the Commissioners) . 195. There are no rules here relating to truck, I think ? — -No, we are not troubled ■\\it!i it at all in our trade. 196. (Mr. Roehuck.) There is one verjr peculiar ride, No. 12, " That no workman shall work for an employer " who is not a master builder without receiving 6rf. " per day advance upon the rate of wages ; " will you explain tliat ?■ — That is in the interest of the employers purcl}' ; it cannot make any difference to a man work- ing 10 hours whether he works for an employer or for anyone not an employer. 197. You just now told me that you looked to your own interests. I suppose there is sonietliing behind that rule which is connected with your own interests, is there not ? — I am not aware that there is. That is a resolution which has been proposed by the men in the Newcastle and Potteries district to their employers, and if their employers sanction it well and good. 198. Thei'e are rules in your society printed and put before the public, are there any hidden rules ? — We have often been told, sometimes by employers and some- times by the public, that it is our written and not the printed rides that caused the mischief. Now, our " written rules " are here for your perusal ; these books before me are the minute books of the society, and they contain nothing but what vi'e should desire to see printed, nothing but what gentlemen here are at liberty to print and make public, so far as tliey think proper. 199. You are a Shefiield man, I think ? — I have been in Sheffield many years. 200. Did you ever hear of a rule by which so much is paid for cutting off" a man's finger ? — I never heard of such a monstrous rule, and would not believe that it existed. 201. Going still fm'lher, you never heard o /orftWi of so much given for cutting off' a man's hand ?— No, never ; nor would I beheve that such a rule had ever an existence. 202. You would not believe it if anybody came here and stated it ? — No ; I would believe it if I saw it in writing. 203. But supposing that the rule is not to be found in writing and yet that it practically exists ?— I would ask how it can be called a rule if it is not to be found in writing. 204. {Mr. Hughes.) Are there any rules properly speaking in those book.s of minutes ? — No. 205. They do not contain rules to provide for those special circumstances which have been mentioned ? — There is no rule to say what the executive council or any branch shall do in case a man takes the tools of another man and hides them. 206. I understand you to say distinctly that you have no rules binding on your society except what are contained in that printed book of rules ? — None what- ever. When the council gives a decision upon any question of the kind referred to, then it is inserted in the next report and put in the rules the next time they are revised. 207. {Mr. Harrison.) Have you in any place within your knowledge any understood custom of your trade the object of which is to limit the amount of work which a man is to do in a day ? — Not in the slightest. 208. {Chairman.) Is there any written rule forbid- ding a joiner working over hours or by the piece ; do you fine a man for that ? — No. 209. Is there any understood rule against working over horns or by the piece ? — No, there is nothing of that in our rules ; but when men in any particular locality like to make any such an-angement with their employers, and it is acceptable to the employers as well as the men, then of coui'se it is binding on both parties. 210. You say you have no rule against working by the piece ? — No. 211. (Mr. Roebuch.) How comes it then that I find Iiere " that no piecework is allowed in any class of " work" ? — That is in a code of working rules sub- mitted by the men of the branch to their employers, and not in the rules of our society, and if the employers accept it, it will be binding upon both. 212. {Bfr. Harrison.) Are those rules binding upon society and non-society men in the district ? — No, they are only binding upon those who are parties to the agreement. 213. Vfho would be parties to the agreement ? — The society of the men on the one hand, and the masters on the other ; but where masters and men in association make conditions, the non-society men comply with them. 214. {Mr. Roebuck.) But looking at this paper which you have put into our hands, it does not seem to me that the acceptance of these rules by the masters is wanted in order to make the rules binding, because I find here, " We, the carpenters and joiners of the " Potteries and Newcastle district consider," and so on ? — You will please understand that those ai-e purely suggestions from the men to the masters, and along with them is sent a circular. In the case of the Hull men they sent a circular, and in that circular are the following words : " In laying them before you, we " would state that up to the present time no par- " ticular rules have been adhered to, and disputes have " arisen which by better regulations would in all pro- " bability have been avoided, and we desire to prevent " any unpleasantness or dispute in the future. We " therefore hope and believe that in submitting them to " you on friendly terms they will be received in the " same spirit, and meet with your approbation. Should " there not be an unanimity of opinion on any matter " herein proposed, we should be glad to meet a depu- '■ tation of equal numbers, at any time and place you " may appoint, to discuss in a calm and careful " manner the merits or demerits of anything herein " contained, so that we may be able to an-ive at a " satisfactory result, alike agreeable to employers and " employed." They are purely suggestions. 215. Are these suggestions favored by your society ? —Undoubtedly ; but they are issued by the branches in that locality. 216. And amongst those suggestions of your society one is, " that no piecework be allowed in any class of " work ? " — True. 217. And "that no overtime be made except in TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 13 " cases of emergency ? " — Yes. At the same time the men in London and other places are prepared to lepu- diate that entirely, for the conditions which are found necessary in one locality ai'e considered unnecessary in another. 218. {Mr. Harrison). ITntil that code of regula- tions is agreed to and accepted by the masters tho executive of your society ■would not support the men in striking for them, I presume ? — Certainly not. 219. {Mr. Roebuck.) You state that advisedly, do you ? — Certainly ; we would not sanction a stiike to enforce those rules if they had not been agi'eed to by the employers. 220. {Mr. Harrison.) The society suggests that masters and men should agree to those rules, but until both sides have agreed to them you would not sanction a stiike for them ? — That is the case. 22 1 . {Mr. Booth.) How are you able to say that you would not sanction a strike ? — If the meu iu the Pot- teries district sent us word that the employers had refused to adopt, but that they meant to insist on tliis piecework regulation, we should tell them that we should not support them, because we have no binding law to say that piecework shaU be j)roMbited. 222. Are you speaking of your own individual opinion ? — No, I say that under the very highest authority. 223. What authority ? — The authority of the execu- tive council, who aJone have the power to decide that men shall have support or not. 224. Where is that authority expressed ? — You will find in rule 13 the powers of the executive council. It is notexpi'essly provided that m this, that, and the other case they shall have this, that, and the other power, but they have a general power given to them. 225. {Chairman.) Is that expressed or is that understood ? — It is not expressed. 226. I asked the question because I do not find any power under which the executive council could order men out. If they think there ought to be a strike, do they send down word ? — No, they are the last to send down word to order a strike. When they are appealed to they ask for good cause to be shown for the necessity, and when it is shown do they sanction the strike. 227. {Mr: Roebuck.) Supposing that there was a job going on and that there was a young man who had been five years a workman, and that he was a pretty good workman, and supposing that there was another man, rather an old man, who was also very clever, and the clever man were to say, " Well, now, I think my work " is worth a good deal more than this young man's ; " will you give me more for my work ? I do more than " he does and do it better," would it be contrary to the rules of your society that he should receive more ? — Certainly not. 228. And do such things ever occur as for a superior man to ask for higher wages ? — Certainly ; and we do not attempt to prevent it. 229. Supposing that in the same workshop there were two men of those different powers of workmanship which I have indicated, and that one of them received so many shiUings a week, and the other so many shillings more, would there be any offence taken at that circum- stance ? — None whatever ; we could not take offence at one man getting more than another ; we might feel aggrieved if one man was under-working the other, and getting less than he was really worth and so making it open to his employer to reduce the wages of the other. Then it would be a matter for the society to say whether that man should not receive higher wages. 230. Supposing that the really clever man says, " I will do my work for 24s. a week," and that then, the employer says, " Well, then, this man, who is very in- ferior to you, is only worth 23s., or 22s., or 21s.," should you take notice of that ? — If the man working for less wages was not worth so much as the other we could not "help ourselves, but I say that in each town we attempt to fix a minimum rate of wages, and we do not like men to work for a less sum. 231. Shotild you not say that you attempt to fix a maximum rate ? — No, we never fix that, 232. {Earl of Lichfield.) Have you any rule as to wages ? — Simply that a man to be a member of our society shall receive the average rate of wages. I will read a few words from one of ovu' rules which was quoted in the Bradford police court. It is there stated that a member " must receive the average rate of wages given in the town iu which he is employed." 234. {Mr. Roebitck.) Here is a man, suppose of superior power and intelligence, and he makes 24s. a week ; do you mean to say that his rate of wage is the average rate of wage ? — No, his would be above the average. 235. What is the average rate of wage ? — The rate which is generally paid in the district, that which is generally agreed upon by the employers and workmen to be the general rate of wages. That is a thing which can be soon ascertained. In any shop full of men you can soon find out how their wages generally run. 236. {Earl of Lichfield.) What is at this moment the minimum rate of wages which you aUow any of your members to receive in London ? — Hd. an hour. 237. If they work for less than 8J. an hour do they cease to be members of your society, that is to say, are they expelled ? — No. We have found that there are many young men who come up from the country to London who are not used to London work, but are good and useful men. Now some were of opinion that it would be better to set om- faces against every man who did not receive as high a rate of wages as we were receiving, but of late a more comprehensive policy has prevailed, and the men say, " No, it is better to take " them by the hand ; it is better to help them to earn " the higher rate of wages than blame them for getting " the lower." There are however many societies that do not accept members unless they are getting a certain rate, but we find it advantageous to take the men in, even if they get rather less at fir-st. 238. {Mr. Roebuck.) You rather set your faces against a man who takes under-wages, do not you ? — If a man knowingly takes less than the rate we do set our faces against that, because it tends to bring down the wages of all the men, except in such a case as I have just named. 239. {Earl of Lichfield.) In the case of trade being slack do you often insist upon that rule with your own members ? — We are very careful in accepting reductions of wages, as I think wo ought to be, but there have been cases during this severe depression of trade when we have counselled our men to work short time and thus take less wages, and in other cases they have done it without asking. 240. And they have not been expelled from your society for so doing ? — Certainly not. 241. {Mr. Hughes.) As I understand you you say that before a man is admitted to the society he must have been five years at the trade ? — Yes. 242. Does that include his apprenticeship ? — Yes. 243. And the term of apprenticeship in the trade is Mr. R. Apphgarth, 18 Mar. 1867. five years? — It varies, but five years is considered suificient to admit him into our society. 244. So thataman can join your society immediately when he .leaves his apprenticeship : — Yes, if he has served five years. 245. {Mr. Roebuck.) Supposing a man did not need that term of apprenticeship, but was a heaven-bom carpenter, would you adhere to your rule ? — If a man has been five yeais at his trade it is a guarantee that he has learned it, but in case before that a man had suffi- cient ability to earn the wage and could prove it, we shotdd have no hesitation in admitting him. 246. {Mr. Harrison.) In practice does the existence of your society in your opinion prevent efficient men from making the best of their skill ? — Certainly not ; there never was a greater absurdity than that notion. 247. {Mr. Booth.) Is there any nde in your society restricting the number of apprentices that may be em- ployed ?— None. 248. Is any such rule observed in practice ? — If there is any in practice it is not in the general rules, but in these working rides the men put whatever they like into B 3 14 TKADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Mr. B. them, and it rests between them and their employers as Appleyarth. to whether they are adopted. 249. Does yom- society aim at limiting the niunber 1 8 Mar. 186 7. ^^ apprentices ? — No, it aims at nothing of the kind, and I beheve that our trade could absorb a great deal of the surplus labora' which some other trades could do very well without, for om- trade is a veiy progressive one. 250. {Mr. Roebuck.) I suppose you know that there ai-e other trades which limit the number of apprentices ? — Yes. 251. {Chairman.) And other trades which limit the amount of work which may be done in a given time ? — I have never known that, although I have heard the thing said. 262. {Mr. Roebuck.) Have you ever heard of a rule amongst the bricklayers that a man shall change his trowel from his right hand to his left while he is laying down the bricks ? — I have heard of it, but I never saw that rule. 253. {Mr. Harrison.) Have you any similar rule in your trade ? — ^No. 254. {Mr. Roebuck.) Have you any doubt about the existence of the rule amongst the bricklayers which I have just mentioned ? — A considerable amount of doubt. 255. Are you prepared to state to this Commission that you do not believe that such a thing exists ? — I will not say that such a thing does not exist, but I have very great doubts about it. I have never seen it in print ; if anyone can show it me in print I will believe it. But I have heaid so many accusations made against trades unions which I know from my own experience to be utterly without foundation, that I do not attach much importance to rumour. 256. If it should appear that that has been and is in fact now enforced, that wiU show you so far that you are ignorant of some things that occur amongst the trades unions I presume ? — ^It is quite possible that I may be ignorant of many things, and I shall be glad to acknowledge my error when I know that I am in error. 257. {Mr. Harrison.) If a non-member of the society desires to work in a way which is contrary to some local rule or to some rule of this book, as for instance, if he wishes to work overtime, or on piecework, is he at liberty to do so ; I mean, does the union interfere with his hberty ? — Not in anyway whatever ; we have no provisions for any interference of the kind. 258. In effect does it directly or indirectly annoy or molest that man or those men in working on those conditions for any master who may employ them ? — I know no town where it has been the practice to annoy such men ; but I do know that in every town where the men of the union are strong they use every means in their power to induce non-society men to join the society. I know that at Manchester, in our society, the men make a practice of waiting at the shop doors and asking those that come out whether they are going to join our society or the other. 259. If a member of the union finding, for instance, that he could work a great many more hom's than was stated in the rules, that being a strong man and a very skilful man he could work piecework or overtime in the way not recognized by the rules, and if for that purpose he proposed to leave the union, could he do so without molestation ? — Yes, certainly; we say to every man, " When you are no longer willing to work under the " rules you must leave us." 260. {Mr. Roebuck.) Would there not in such a case be that milder form of rattening of which you have spoken already ? — I am not prepared to say that it would not be done in the workshop, but the society countenances nothing of the kind. 261. {Mr. Harrison.) Then the restriction upon free- dom of labour which your society imposes amounts to this, that the members of the society will voluntarily consent to work under certain conditions so long as they receive certain benefits ? — Certainly. 262. And if they choose to work under different conditions they must forego those benefits and leave the society ? — Yes. 263. ( Chairman.) If they have subscribed for a cer- tain number of years, and then wish to emancipate themselves from your rules, can they obtain from you any aliquot part of the funds of the society with which to withdraw ? — They are not allowed to withdraw any- thing, but the chances are that they may have had in benefits ten times what they have paid in contiibutions. 264. The individual member must look out for his own interests then ? — Yes. 265. {Mr. Booth.) You would not allow a workman, would you, to be a member on the terms of your society as they are stated in the printed book, at the same time reserving to himself the right to take work on conditions which he thought fit ? — He must comply with our rules, in which there are general conditions laid down and thought to be mutually advantageous. 266. {Sir E: W. Head.) And those conditions may include not only these printed rules contained in the code of the society but also rules adopted between the employers of labour and the working men in that locahty with the sanction of the general council ? — Quite so. 267. And a breach of the second rule so adopted and so sanctioned by the general council would be equaUy offensive, I presume, as a breach of the general rules ? —Yes. 268. With regard to the power of the council I see, on referring to the 13th rule, that the powers of the executive committee are extremely wide, because they may determine anything whereon the rules are silent ? — Yes. 269. Consequently, the less that is defined in the rules the more power the executive committee have ? — Yes ; but their decisions must be in keeping with the spirit of the rules, and are printed in the reports, and the members have the right to reverse them. 270. {Mr. Harrison.) Have you in your district rules any rules that relate to the health of the workmen as distinct from overtime ? — Yes. 271. WUl you give an instance ? — In some instances the men stipulate for protection against the inclemency of the weather, and I have heard that they have stipu- lated for ventilation and hght, and things of that kind, in some places, which would be conducive to health. 272. {Mr. Hughes?) I see that in your last monthly report there is a little about co-operation. Are your members favourable to the co-operative movement or unfavourable ? — They are very favourable to it, and are getting more so. 273. Have they made any attempt to start anything of the kind ? — Not as yet. 274. Do you think that the society as a society is favourable to it ? — Yes. We have a 16-page report monthly ; sometimes it is extended to 24 pages ; and it is used for the purpose of disseminating useful infor- mation among the members, and there are papers on co-operation and other things of that nature continually going the roimd of the society. 275. You have now I beheve hardly any pm-e master carpenters, that is masters who have none but cai'pentei-s to work for them ? — Almost all are buUders ; there are in the provincial towns more than in London men who confine themselves to caipentering and joinering alone. 276. {Earl of Lichfield.) Do you make any allow- ance to yom- men who are out owing to slackness of trade?— 10«. per week for 12 weeks, and 6s. per week for 12 weeks more. 277. {Mr. Harrison.) Speaking of your society, what do you consider to be the characteristic in which its excellence consists ?— It is partly in fact, that it is a general organization extending throughout the kingdom, and that it is an absolute impossibihty for any one bninch to become bankrupt, because at the end of the year we equaUze the funds, so that the fortunate may assist the less fortunate at the end of every year. No matter how heavy the expenditure of one branch and how light that of another may have been each one at the commencement of the year sets out on its new year's journey vnth. the same amount of funds per member. Another advantage is that it provides a man with lOs. a week when out of employment, and instead of keeping him on 10s. a week finds employ- TKADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION : — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 15 ment for him wliere he is really required and drafts him otF there, paying his fare. Again it provides a great number of benefits for which we require a pretty liberal subscription. The liberal payments cause an accumulation of fimds and cause the man to respect and value his society, while the advantage of blending the trade and benevolent objects together is that the one machinery performs the both duties in an admuable manner', and that makes the men value the society stiU more. 278. Is the amount of the subscription higher in yom- society than in most societies ? — Yes, the amount is Is. per week. In the engineers and many other societies they pay as much as we do, and the benefits are about the same, but many of the societies pay much less. 279. Are .there any in which the payment is higher? — Yes ; the Sheffield trades, as a rule, pay a very high rate of contribution ; they pay liberally to support their unemployed. They prefer to a reduction of wages to support their unemployed labom', and they increase their contributions as their unemployed labour increases, and sometimes the contribution is increased to three or four shillings a week. 280. Would a skilled workman in your society object to working on the same piece or to working along with less skilled men, or do your members as a practice object to men on the ground of their want of skill? — No ; sometimes it is very advantageous to have them, because there is a rough class of work that skUled workmen have an objection to, inasmuch as they feel that they are fit for something better, and at the same time the unskilled workman is learning something from his skilled partner. 281. {Mr. Hughes.) It has been said that in conse- quence of the action of trades unions, the present genera- tion of workmen are not such good workmen as their fathers were, that you cannot, for instance, get such good joiners' and carpenters'work done now as you could 20 years ago. Do yen think that that is true ? — I do not think so, and I think that those who make the statement would be very much put about to bring facts to prove it. 282. You as a joiner think the work as good as ever it was ? — -Yes, where a fair price is paid for it ; but now cheapness appears to be the order of the day, and cheap work begets bad work. 283. {Sir E. W. Head.) You spoke, did you not, of the foreign work imported to this country being worth- less in its character ? — No ; I said that the employers objected to buy it as far as I have been able to ascertain. 284. I think you presumed that it was bad because nobody would buy it ? — No, I did not presume that, but they do not appear to like it. 285. {Mr. Harrison) Why ?— That I cannot tell ; perhaps those can account for it who can account for the fact that some of the London employers do not use machinery of any kind, and they take contracts just in the same way as people who execute the work by machinery. 286. {Earl of Lichfield^ Have you any reason to think that that foreign work is inferior ? — No, I have no reason to think that. 287. {Chairman^ Do you know where the depot for the Swedish work is ? — In Poplar, I think. 288. {Sir E. W. Head.) I misunderstood you in sup- posing you to say that it was worthless ; is that so ? — Yes, you did misunderstand me. 289. {Mr. Harrison.) You said that it was cheaper, I think ?— No, I did not, but I have heard that some of it is offered at a ridiculously low price. 290. And yet you have no reason to think it is bad ? — No, there was some on board a water-logged ship which got damaged, which I suppose is that which is being sold at so low a price, 291. {Sir E. W. Head.) Has there been only one importation of the kind ? — I beheve several ; and I have heard that the pi ice of provisions has doubled (since that work has been imported) in the place from which it is imported. 292. Do you know where most of it was made ? — At Gottenburg, I think. 293. {Mr. Hughes.) Some has been made atBerhn_ has it not ? — I have not heai'd of that. 294. {Earl of Lichfield). If it is the case that the price of provisions has risen in Gottenburg, there has been a sale for it here, I suppose ? — It may be that large quantities have been manufactured on speculation, sent over- here, and yet remained unsold, and the apparent demand caused the increase in the price of provisions. 295. {Mr. Booth.) Have any of the unions, so far as you know, objected to the introduction of that kind of manufactured work ? — None that I am aware of. 296. {Mr. Harrison.) Or to the use of machinery? — Not that I am aware of. 297. {Earl of Lichfield). Your society being a benefit society as well as a trade society, you do not keep your funds separate, do you ? — No. 298. The payment of 1«. a week covers every- thing ? — Is. per week and 3rf. per quarter to the con- tingent and benevolent fund. 299. Do you think it desirable that the funds should be mixed together ? — Yes ; I see no reason why they should be separate, because we have returns from eveiy branch of the society. On those returns are entered the monies expended, and the different purposes for which they have been expended, and these are audited and read over to a full meeting of each branch. 300. Is it not the case that for a benefit society to be sound it is necessary that the contributions should be based upon some calculation, on certain data of the number of persons who are likely to be receiving sick pay, and if the fund which is provided for the purpose of obtaining payment in case of sickness, or super- annuation money after a certain age, is drawn upon to pay for persons who are out of employment, is it pos- sible that that as a benefit society can be considered sound ? — Yes, I think so ; it does not necessarily follow that because a man joins our society he shall have a claim for any one benefit more than another. There is no provision for setting apart a certain sum of money, nor are there any conditions in the rules which say that the men shall have sick benefit if he goes without his donation ; and I do not see how we could make things any better by appropriating, say a part of our funds for sick benefit, and a part for anything else. 301. Might not this occur, that a person had been subscribing to your society for the purpose of obtaining support whUe in sickness, or a superannuation allowance, but inasmuch as your society spends nearly the whole of its funds, perhaps the whole of its funds, in support- ing a strike to which he may be opposed, although he had been contributing to the society in the hope of these benefits for a great number of years, he might be unable to obtain them after all i*— If it ever came to that the society wordd be at an end. But we should never let the case occur, because the members have monthly, quarterly, and annual reports placed in their hands, and would see the change gradually taking place, and would certainly ta^e steps to prevent it. 302. {Mr. Harrison.) Might not the same result of insolvency ensue in the case of some severe epidemic which threw a gi-eat number of the members upon the sick fund ? — Yes. But the members having the state of affairs before their eyes continually would know what was coming, and they would make provision against it, and cheerfully too, for there is nothing sup- ported with more spirit and animation than these societies. Mr.R. Applegarth, 18 Mar. 1867. The witness withdrew. Adjourned to to-morrow at 12 o'clock. B 4 16 TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Tuesday, 19tli of March 1867. Present Mr. G. Potter. 19 Mar. 1867. The Eight Hon. The Earl of Lichfield. Lord Elcho, M.P. The Eight Hon. Sir Edmund Walkek Head, Bart., K.C.B. Sir Daniel Gooch, Bart., M.P. The Right Hon. SIE WILLIAM ERLE in the Chair Herman Merivale, Esq., C.B. James Booth, Esq., C.B. Thomas Hughes, Esq., M.P. Frederic Harrison, Esq. 303. {Chairmun.) YHiat is tlie association that you belong to ? — I belon;^ to the London Working Men's Association. 304. What is your office in that ?— I am President of the London Working Men's Association. 305. How long has it been founded ? — It has been founded about 15 months. 306. Probably you originated the association ? — I was one of the originators of it. 307. How many members does it consist of? — 600. 308. Plave you a printed copy of the rules that you can give us ? — Yes. I will hand in a prospectus con- taining the principles and rules of the association (handing in the same). 309. I perceive by what I read here that the asso- ciation is not devoted to auy one particular trade ? — No. 310. It is a union, I see, for general objects " to pro- cure the political enfranchisement and promote the social and general interests of the industrial classes " — that would be of course a very wide question. Have you anything to state or to suggest that you think would be relevant to our inquiry, wliich has respect to the organization and rules of trades unions and other associations, and their effect upon the employers and upon the trading interest of the country ? — I do not know what suggestions I could make. I should be very happy to give any information that you think would be serviceable to you, or that any of the mem- bers of the Commission desire to have. I belong myself to the Progressive Society of Carpenters and Joiners. I have been a member of that society for about 13 years. That is not an amalgamated society, but one of the local societies in London belonging to the joiners. There are about 16 or 18 local societies in addition to that which have not yet amalgamated as a body, but the principles and objects of each of the societies are about the same, that is to say, they pi'o- vide for burial so much at a member's death, and so much at a wife's death, and they protect their men when out of work. 311. Do they exist for the purposes of a benefit society ? — No, purely as trades societies, but the funeral and sick benefits that attach to them have been added to some of them since their formation. Tlieir real object is the protection of the members in their trade, providing for them when they are out of work, and when there may happen to bo any struggle between them and the employers, raising a sum of money for them during that interval. 312. Have you in that Carpenters and Joiners Association an income by weekly or other payments? — Yes, Sd. a week is the payment. 313. Have you an accumulated fund?— What is not required for the benefits guaranteed to the members is banked, but it does not genei'ally amount to a very great deal ; the weekly payments are small, and it is purely for the purppse of meeting the contingencies that may arise from time to time, Mr. George Potter examined. and for the payment of them when any dispute arises, and they allow 8/. at the death of a member, and 41. at the death of a member's wife. We have u,o particular rules in our societies but such as are very similar to those of other trade societies. 316. The Working Men's Association to wliich you belong is beyond the scope of our present inquiry ? — Yes, it partakes more of the character of a trades council with an executive which takes up the interests of trades generally whose members belong to it. 317. (Sir E. W. Head.) But it is the interests of all trades with a view to political objects particu- larly, is it not ? — The political object is a minor object, the industrial feature in it is a greater feature than the political. 318. (Chairman.) In regard to the rules of the Carpenters and Joiners Association, you say, as I understand you, that there is nothing particular in them. Have you rules which, if I may use the general ivord, go to restrain competition. Do you, for instance, limit the number of apprentices that a man may take? — No, we do not. In the joiners trade I believe that, as a rule, the lads apprenticed serve seven years, and it is as good a trade as any, I believe, for apprentices. I myself served seven years at the trade, and I believe that as a rule it is very generally acted upon, but less in London than in other to'wns, because a system prevails here whereby an employer will take a lad with his father, the lad getting nothing perhaps for the first yeai-, and as he gets more useful he gives in wages accordingly ; but that is purely an arrangement with the masters. There is nothing in our rules to restrain the number of apj)rentices that any master may take. 319. Is there anything to compel the members of your association not to work by piece or over hours ? — There is no special rule, but it is deprecated as a rule for reasons which I can mention. 320. I suppose they are the reasons which were stated here yesterday — that in the opinion of the unions it was desirable for the health and vigour of mind and body to limit the extent of labour to that which the human frame is ordinarily adapted for? — That is one of the points, and a very important one, but not the only point. I think that the main ob- jection which we entertain to it is this. Suppose I went to take a contract to make 100 pair of sashes at a certain price, and that I worked rather harder than I should generally work, or ought to work, in order to get a little more money, when I had finished that job, of course the master would see that according to day price T had earned more money than those men who had worked at the day's rate, and then he would think that he had given me too much money for the work, and the tendency is generally for the master to make a deduction in the next contract that IS made. In that way it would tend to a oradual dmiimshmg of the rate of wages, because a man who could work, perhaps, and felt inclined to work longer 314. Have you the rules of that union ? — I have hours and harder than others, would be thought by the not a copy with me. employer to be getting too much money, and he would 315. Is there anything peculiar according to your experience in the rules of that association. You have no doubt seen several that have been collected in publications. Do you consider that your rules are anything similar to them ? — They are very similart other rules. They provide first of all for the support of members out of work during a slackness of trade, make it a reason for reducing the contract next time and we find that if piece work were encouraged in that way, really the price for making the articles^vould become nommally of small amount, and that we should have to work hard and get very little money. That is another main reason why we object to piece work But if there could be a standing rule or a standing TRADES tTNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OV EVIDENCE. 17 contract ('that, for instance, no matter what money the men should get by making 100 pair of sashes, there should be no decUning of the value of them) I do not think that the men would look upon the thing as they do now. Besides that there is the fear that some of the most improvident men would take the job, and go drinking some days and then work longer other days, and so the best men try to establish a fixed number of hours work in the day, feeling that it is to the interest of our own class, and also for the interest of the employers as well. 321. Is it possible, in your judgment, that by giving an average rate for a medium day's work you may tend to depress the skill, and industry, and energy, and enterprise of those that are gifted with unusual powers ? — No ; because though we try to establish a minimum rate of wages, we are aware as practical workmen that there are various degrees of work. For instance, there is making panel doors, and there is laying floors, and there are other kinds of rough work. Now we find that a skilled artizan would not be so profitable to an employer in laying a floor or doing the rough work as he would be in making sashes or doors, and at the same time the man who could do the rough work with more advantage would not be so serviceable to the employer in making sashes, and while we apprehend and maintain that the man is worth any equivalent of wages in regard to his labour, it only devolves upon the foreman to select the men to do the kind of work which will be most serviceable to the employer, — and that is the reason why we try to maintain a minimum rate of wages, feeling sure that the employer gets out of every man a fair value for the money paid. 322. Is it the case in your trade that the gradations of excellence (if I may use such language) are recom- pensed by a higher scale of wages ; that, for instance, the man who lays the floor is paid at a less rate than a man who makes the sashes ? — Yes ; generally the employers like to do that, but I wish the Commis- sioners to understand that we never demand a minimum rate of wages to non-society men. Every society man is admitted to our society in the way which I will describe, and I think it is a very important item of information to gentlemen who may not perhaps have heard it. If a man wishes to be admitted into the Progressive Society of Carpenters, of which I am a member, he must be proposed by a member of that society who has worked with him, and seconded by a member of the society who has worked with him, and these two members must testify that the man is an average workman, and capable of doing any work within his trade that he may be put to with profit to the employer. He cannot be admitted unless that is done, and therefore when any member enters the society we have testimony to the effect that they are average workmen, and capable of doing any work which may be put upon them by the foreman in the job or shop where they may work. Then we appre- hend that the man is worth the standard rate of wages fixed by the trade. We do not ask a minimum rate of wages for any novices, and we do not control them in any way whatever. 323. Do you forbid the members from working under a given rate of wages ? — We do not forbid them, but it is a contract entered into when they join our society that wliether os. or 6s. be the standard rate they are deserving of it, and that they can earn it, and they limit themselves not to do work under that. We do not bind them, but of course if they do like to work under that standard they only cease to be members of the society. 324. If a member has agreed to your rules, and does not conform to them, what is the consequence ? — He has to leave ; we have no control over him ; we merely ask him to comply with the conditions upon which he entered, and if he says " No " he ceases to be a member. 325. If he has been a member twelve months, or even twelve years, if he ceases to comply his name is removed from the list of members ? — By his own 18425. wish. I do not think that there have been many cases Mr. G. Potter. in our society. 326. You have stated, I think, that there is nothing 19 Mar. 1867. peculiar in the Joiners Association ? — Nothing. 327. It is a trades union of the common form of trades unions ? — Yes. 328. (Earl of Lichfield.) What is the fixed mini- mum rate of wages at which you allow your men to work in your trade ? — That is generally fixed by the employers and the employed. 329. I understood it was fixed by your society ? — No. For instance, when I joined my society the average rate of wages was 5s., per day but since then it has advanced, and would be now, I suppose, about 6*. 3d. a day. 330. How is that rate fixed ? — It is fixed by the employers from time to time, according to the exigencies of the trade. A deputation has sometimes waited upon the employers to ask for an advance of wages, and when it is agi'eed upon by the master builders it is put down as a rule; then we take that as the standard rate of wages in the trade until it is altered. 331. Do you allow apprentices to work at less ? — Yes. I was mentioning just now that the apprentice system we do not object to ; but in London it is not generally acted upon. A lad has the privilege of going into a shop with his father, and works perhaps for twelve months without wages, and then he gets 4s. or 5s., according to what he can do, and he picks up his trade in that way. 332. What is the difference between your society and the society represented by Mr. Applegarth ? — That is an amalgamated society, comprising branches in the country ; mine is a local society, which has its members in one town. 333. It is confined to London, as I understand you ? — Yes ; there are about 18 or 20 local societies in London that have not been amalgamated with any society. The principles and objects are the same. But there are some additional benefits for the amalgamated carpenters, because they pay Is. a week, and we only 3c?. Ours is more purely a trade society, and less of a benefit society. 334. {Mr. Booth.) What is the number of the society to which you belong ? — 130. It is one of the oldest societies in London. 335. (Sir E. W. Head.) You said, I think, that it was open to a man to leave the society if he chose to work for lower wages ? — He could not remain a member of the society and work against the rules. 336. Would no other consequence follow than his ceasing to be a member of the society, would he be exposed to any interruption or annoyance from the members of the society, which the society would, I will not say sanction, but not discountenance ? — Not that I am aware of. Of course there are many charges of intimidation brought against societies, and we can- not be responsible for every individual member. There are some men perhaps who would twit a man for so leaving, but as a rule it is deprecated by the intelligent men of the trade. 337. If then it were done \>y any persons who were members of the society, it would not be sanctioned by the society, or approved of by them ? — Certainly not. ■ 338. You spoke of wages being fixed by agreement between the masters and the men ; is there an asso- ciation of the masters with whom the workmen would confer in such a case as that ? — There is what is called the Master Builders Association of London which meets monthly. During the time of the London lock-out in 1859, that formed a very powerful orga- nization. They have their monthly meetings and their subscriptions, and arrangements and rules like a trade society, and they bind themselves to abide by the decisions airived at at their meetings, so that we always consult the Master Bujldei-s Associations. 339. In fact they are organized on the one hand just as the workmen are on the other ? — They are organized to try to keep down wages, while we are organized to try. to keep them up. 18 TRADES ONIONS ETC., COMMISSION r-f-MINUTES OF. EVIDENCE. Mr. G. Potter^ 19 Mar. 1867. 340. Who are the ajitlioi-ities on {ha.t Master Builders Association ?— I think Sir Moreton Peto was a very prominent member of it, and Mr. Kelli, now M.P. for Harwich, Messrs. George Smith and Co., Messrs. Piper and Wheeler, Bishopsgate Street, and all the lai-ge builders. I think you could not name any large employers in the trade but what are very important members of that association. 341. {Mr. Merivale.) Did I rightly understand you to say that the working men's association to which you belong ought to be a kind of trades council ? — That it was a kind of trades council. 342. Ai'e the trades, a» trades, represented in that ? — Yes, a great many. 343. I do not mean to ask whether individuals belonging to each trade come to that coimcil, but whether the trades send representatives ? — Some do, not all. 344. What trades do send them ? — The joiners, turners, the watermen, glass makers, and others. They elect two delegates to come and attend the execu- tive nieetings. The members are generally important officers of trade societies, and the executive repre- senting the association receive, as it were, applications from trades generally to assist in any efforts which they are making to ameliorate their condition, shorten- ing their hours for example, and generally advancing their position. In all legitimate cases such an appli- cation is entertained. Of course we do not entertain any apphcation which we think unjust or unreason- able. 345. {Mr. Harrison.) The association of which you are the president — the Working Men's Association I think you said just now — does take into consideration general trade questions as they arise, and acts as a trades council. What is the mode in which it acts in that manner ; on what principle does it proceed ? — An appeal is made first to the executive, and then the executive convene generally a meeting of the whole of the members, at which the parties applying for assist- ance are invited to be present to explain their wishes and requests, then if the decision is favourable a sub- scription is generally opened for them, if it is pecu- niary assistance they want, or if it is merely moral support, steps are taken to embody that in circulars or addresses or whatever may be necessary. 346. Does the association having considered the case worthy of assistance, reconamend to other societies to support it ? — It does. 347. . Does it of its own accord in the first place suggest to any society, or to any body of men to make a fresh demand or to strike, or anything like that ? — It never advises men to strike. I do not. remember a case in my life where I individually, or the association collectively, have advised any body of men to strike. If an appeal is made to us before the strike has taken place, we generally recommend that an interview should be sought with the employers, and that mutual arrangements should be made. We have invariably requested that arbitxation should be resorted to. We always endeavour to suggest that every means of con- ciliation should be tried before any further steps are taken. That is our course, provided the strike has not taken place, but if it has taken place, sometimes we try to see if any arrangements can be made between the employers and the trades who are in dispute, such as arbitration, and modes of conciliation of any kind. 348. Can' you refer to any particular cases in which the association has so endeavoured to arbitrate, or to bring about a settlement of a dispute ? — I think that the most important one was that of the ironworkers in the north, in regard to the late proposal of a reduc- tion of wages. (The one which Mr. Kane is the presi- dent of — the northern ironworkers.) We made an offer through the association of arbitration, which offer was printed, and published very extensively in the " New- castle Chronicle " and other papers in the north, but it was refused by the masters. ■ 849. {Earl of Lichfield), Was that a strike which occurred this year ? — Last year at Gateshead, and Middlesboro', and thos,e; places.- -- 350 {Mr.Barrison.) Then the efforts of the asso-> elation were so far not successful ?— Not in regard to arbitration. The masters refused arbitration upon the matter. , , 351. (Earl of Lichfield.) Were the men supported in that case by your association ?— They were ; we raised them, I think, 700Z. during that time. 352. {Sir E. W. Head.) Did that come from the funds of the association ?— It came from subscriptions. 353. Do you mean that they were given by indi- viduals for that occasion ?_Yes, by individuals and members of the trade who like to collect. The amount was collected by subscriptions through the association, and came through the treasurer of the association. 354. {Mr. Harrison.) I think you have been con- nected with what was called, some time ago, the short time movement, or movement for the reduction of the hours of labour. What was the object which that movement proposed to itself, and what were the grounds on which the men proceeded ? — The first effort we made was in 1857. The building trades then, as a body, joined together ; that is to say, the bricklayers, and masons, and plasterers, and carpenters and painters, joined in a kind of conference to try and. effect a reduction in the hours of labour, in order that men might have more time to improve their minds, and for rest and recreation. The reason we gave was, that machinery had so advanced, and that work was done now so much quicker than it was previously, that there was not a necessity for them to labour so long as previously ; and we thought that arrangements could be made between the employers in the building trades and the operatives whereby we should work nine hours a day. We agitated very considerably for two years, from 1857 to 1859, in order to obtain the nine hours as the standing recognized hours of labour. But the masters thought differently, and after several interviews that we had with them, they could not see their way (so they told us) to institute a nine hours': day ; and there was a very large lock-out as the ulti- mate result throughout the building tra,des in 1859. 355. ( Chairman^ You did not take part in that as a member of your own trade, did you ? — As a member of the joiners' trade and the builders' trade generally. I worked at the bench during all the time of the agitation. 356. {Mr. Harrison.) The society of which you were a member took an active part in that movement, I believe ? — Yes, I was delegate for that society. 357. What were the ordinary hours of labour at that time ? — 10 hours a day, except on Saturday, and then we stopped at 4 o'clock. 358; How many hours a week was that ? — 58^ ; 10 hours for the first five days of the week, and 8-^ on the Saturday. 359. Previous to that dispute was the practice of overtime — that is to say, of working more than , those hours — co mm on, or was it very partial in your trade ? — Overtime was very much more general then ; but since then I think the employers have seen that it is not so profitable as they thought it was at one time, and they find that they can get a greater profit, and do theii- work to greater advantage, by having a larger number of men on than by having a smaller number of men working many hours. I think that they see that generally throughout the trade, and now they seem to be as desirous to prevent working overtime as the men ai-e, and unless on some extreme occasions it is very seldom resorted to ; unless, for instance, they have their shops full and cannot make arrangements for other men to go on the work. Under those cir- cumstances the men work for the employer till 8 o'clock at night perhaps, instead of leavmg off a,t half-past 5. 360. To what extent have you known the practice of overtime carried in your trade, taking a sufficient number of cases to enable you to make a fair state- ment ? — Speaking for myself, I have worked from 6 in the morning to 11 at night for months together. I did that when working at Baker's, in StangateS when they were fitting ujj the Prince of Wales's TRADES UNIONSi ETC. COMMISSION' : — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE;; 1^ chambers at Oxford, We used to-fee paid a day land a half for doing that. 361. Was that a single instance ?^ — It was not a single instance, for I have done that at Myers's nearly all the summer months. When there have been large contracts on hand, we have worked till 10 or II o*clock, and sometimes all night. 362. Have you found, speaking of what yon know of the men in your trade, that overtime has been injm-ious to them, and if so, in what way ? — It is injurious in vai-ious ways to the men. I believe that if a man works long hours he generally requires more stimulants and indulges in them, and I think that, as a rule (I am speaking now of the rule, there are exceptions of course), they do spend the money, or rather did spend the money, in extra indulgences on themselves. 363. Do you consider that the men who have worked overtime most commonly have been the least sober in their trade as a general rule ? — I believe, as a rule they have been the least sober, and they have had far inferior houses, and their families and them- selves have been kept in a very inferior social position to that of those men who have worked on an average daily, say 10 hours ; for men who work long hours are generally men of the character that I have described already ; they will work in long spells and then take a day's rest, and be off their work and often spend that day in drinking. The intelligent, sober, thinking, industrious men generally desire an average day, short hours ; they do not desire long hours or overtime, but deprecate it as much as possible, because it is of course physically exhaustive to them and very injurious in many other ways. Shops are very un- healthy as a rule ; they are better than they were, but when I worked in them, perhaps there were 60 or 70 men working in the same shop,; they were most unhealthy, making the men prematurely old, and putting many in an early grave, 364. Can you state positively, as a fact which has come within your knowledge, that the character of the men in the trade has been improved, that there has been more steadiness and less drunkenness, or in any other respect an improvement in the men in the trade, since the change which has been made by the short time movement, and that it is in any degree owing to that ?-^I believe that great improvements have taken place ow ing to that. When I myself first came to London w e worked till half-past 6 on Saturday night. Now the men in the building trade leave off at 1 o'clock and get paid immediately and go home to dinner and clean themselves, and go out with their wives and children on Saturday afternoon. Pre- viously they rarely got home till 8 or 9 o'clock, and had to wait about for their wages, and indulged more in going to public-houses. But I believe that great progress has been made in the temperance of that class of men and they have now more provident habits, and they seem to have a desire to spend more of their time at home, and they try to become mem- bers of building societies and other provident institu- tions. There has been a great step in advance in that direction, and I attribute it very mainly to the shorter hours which they are now required to labour. 365. (Chairman.) Will you explain the meaning of "building societies ? " — For instatice 300 or 400 men join together and pay 2s. a week, and when there is 300/. in hand they ballot for it, and the man who teceives it pays it back by quarterly repayments. 365a. (Mr. Harrison.) If you take the case of a man who is a sober man, an industrious man, one who, has a strong constitution and who can work, supposing that that man finds it his interest and the interest of his family to work longer and more than the majority of the trade are supposed to do, practically speaking what difficulties does that man find in selling his industry in any market he pleases. What difficulties in the first place does the society put in his way? — If he is a member of a trade society of course they deprecate his working longer . hours than the rest of the members. If he desired it, of course he could cease being a member. But he must be apiece work- man to do that and not a day workman, because in a large firm where men work by the day the- bell is rung, and all must leave at the same time, and one man would not be allowed by the employer to work any longer as a rule. But the society do not throw hindrances any more than is necessary in the wny ; they only ask a member to comply with the rules of the society to which he has been admitted, and the generality of the members do abide by them. Of course there are times when a man would work longer because it was necessary, and then the society do not interfere. ' 366. Supposing there is a class of such men, not being members of the union, and working piece-work for such hours as they choose to work, does the union as a body interfere with men working in such a way as they please ? — No, not that I am aware of. 367. Is such a man molested in his work ? — Not as a rule. 368. Is he intimidated in any way ? — ^Not as a rule : there may be some members of a trade, as I said before, who would feel vexed at men working a number of hours when they and others are walking the streets aid not able to obtain any employment, and they might express themselves when they met the man in a manner in which they ought not ; but as a rule the members of the trade society do not attempt to interfere with them, or coerce them. 369. Have you ever known an instance of the board or governing body, that is to say, the recog- nized officers of any society in your trade, counte- nancing or encouraging that species of molestation ? — ;-No, never. 370. ( Chairman.) Did you npt say that you dis- countenanced men working over hours ? — I did not say that we discountenanced it at all. I said we deprecated and discouraged it. 371. In what way is the deprecation shown ? — If I were to meet a number of such men myself I should very probably talk to them about the injuries that they were inflicting on their fellow-men, and point out at the same time, that they were not benefiting themselves by these long hours, while they were really injuring their fellow-workmen. 372. Ton would only do it then by persuasion ? — No, only by persuasion. 373. (Mr. Harrison.) Have you had practice ex- perience of the working of other societies in your own trade, and of societies in different parts of the kingdom, besides the experience you have had in your own trade ? — I have had during the last few years a very large connexion with various trades. 374. And with various societies in your own trade ? — Yes, not in such a way as to interfere with their trade operations, but merely to render assistance where there might be any social evils to be redressed, or wrong to be exposed. I have taken some part when solicited by the members of that trade in their meet- ings and operations, but chiefly of a moral character. 375. Is the experience which you have gained in that way favourable to the establishment of a code of working rules agreed upon between employers and men ? — I believe I might state that generally the trades are favourable to a code of rule of that descrip- tion revised every year, which is framed by the em- ployers and the employed, and acted upon by them ; certain notices to be given, say three months, as to when they might expire, previous to any alteration. I believe the men generally look upon these arrange- ments with very great favour, and very generally desire to see them carried out. 376. Have you known cases where the existence of such rules has been beneficial or otherwise ? — I believe they have been beneficial in the building trade. At JBirmingham they have a code of rules of that des- cription agreed upon by a committee of the workmen, and a committee of the employers, which are printed and circulated through the trade, and acted upon every year, and revised by notice at the eiid of the year. In Manchester, for'' instance, also there are some very C 2 Mr. G: Potter, 19 MaT. 1867. 20 TEADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Mr. G. Fatter, excellent arrangements made, called working rules, and at Nottingham also. 19 Mar. 1867. 377. (^Sir E. W. Head.) Do those working rales apply to ^^1 trades ? — Only to the trades which has signed them ; perhaps the building trade, or the lace trade, or they might apply to any other trade. But I wish to convey this distinctly to the Commissioner, that no members out of that trade could have any voice in the framing of these rules, nor could em- ployers out of that trade. 378. You gave evidence, I believe, before a Com- mittee of the House of Commons in the year 1860, upon the Masters and Operatives Bill, mainly with respect to the establishment of courts of arbitration. Has your opinion been varied by a further experience since that time, and do you desire to modify your views, or do you still adhere to the opinions which you than expressed about the establishment of courts of arbitration ? — I think that what I stated then I could endorse now. I stated then that I believed that in many cases they would be inoperative, and I believe that still. I think that in many cases they would be successful and useful. I stated then that I thought there would be great good done by the establishment of such com'ts, making them optional, not binding, but that I believe while they would effect good in many trades, they would in some trades be entirely inopera- tive, and I believe that they would at the present day he entirely inoperative in many trades. I think, however, that they would do much good, and I have always stated that I should desire to see them estab- lished upon the basis suggested by Lord St. Leonards, with a few alterations, which I stated then, I think. There is a growing feeling among the men in favour of having some kind of boards or courts, whereby disputes may be settled, because I can assure you that the men are not always so desirous to have disputes as persons may think, and it is not always the men's fault that the disputes are not settled before they come to such extreme measures as sometimes they do. 379. Do you know of the actual existence of any such board of arbitration ? — Not in England. The nearest I know are those at Birmingham and Manchester: They would be formed by mutual arrangements between the masters and the men. 380. Do you know nothing of a board of the kind at Nottingham ? — I have read of that. I have read that they have arranged disputes for the last 10 years with great satisfaction by means of a board similarly constituted to that which you have been referring to. 381. What subjects do you consider could be brought before such a board or what would be the matters over which it would have proper jurisdiction? — I suppose rates of wages and hours of labour principally. 382. You include rates of wages ? — Yes, and hours of labour. lu some instances both, I have no doubt, could be successfully settled and arranged by such a court, but in other instances not. 383. Have you ever known that the committees which have met on the side of the employers and the employed respectively, to draw up and agree upon a code of rules, have continued their existence so as to form a somewhat spontaneous Board of Arbitration in themselves — has that been found in practice ? — No, not generally. I do not know any one of that kind myself, except those I ha.ve mentioned. 384. {^Mr. Hughes.) To return to your own society; you have printed rules ? — ^Yes. 385. You could furnish us with a copy, I suppose ? — Yes. 386. Have you any secret rules besides those ? — None at all. 387. {Lord- Elcho) Neither written nor under- stood ? — None at all but what are printed. If a bye- law is made, say at a general meeting, the rules are generally revised, and it is added at the end of them, 388. ( Chairman.) Is there an understood authority for the executive committee to dispose at their discre- tion of all matters that the rules do not provide for, because that was stated to us yesterday as being some- times the practice ? — It is generally done at a general meeting. Ours is a committee not an executive. They bring up the business before a general meeting, but if there is any important question they do not decide it then. The committee could not pass a bye law, it must be done at a special general meeting, at which every man is summoned to attend. 389. There might be printed rules made public, and at the same time a general discretion vested in the governing body to do whatever they in their discretion thought right, but you say that there is no such under- standing. — No, not in our society. 390. {Mr. Hughes.) I think you said that yours was a pure trade society, that is to say with none of the benefits of a friendly society. — I mentioned that we have a burial fund, but we have no sick fund. 391. How long has your society been in existence ? — I think 28 years ; it is one of the oldest. 392. And the payment is only 3c?. a week ? — Only 3rf. 393. Do you find that sufficient to maintain a burial fund ? — Quite sufficient. 394. I think I understood you to say that you be- lieved there were 18 or 20 pure trade societies in your trade in Loudon ? — I believe that is the number of local societies. 395. I understood you to say (but I think if you did do so you might wish to correct the statement) that there are 18 or 20 pure trade societies in London? — Yes, pure trade societies, except as to the burial fund. There is no sick fund, as a rule. 396. With respect to piece work, do you know of any practice of the masters which the men believe makes piece work unfair towards them ? — Yes, I have previously stated that the practice they adopt is that they generally make subsequent contracts very much below the figure in which they made the first. 397. I have heard piece work objected to on many grounds of that kind, and I should like to know if you are aware of those objections. In the first place you say that the master takes advantage of piece work to make his contract lower. — That is one of the main objections we have. Suppose for instance I were taking a hundred sashes to make at so much a foot, and that I worked hard and got a considerable amount of money, more than a man who was working day work, when that contract is to be renewed gr another contract similar to it is made, the employer says, " Too much money has been paid on that work and we must make it so much a foot less," or something of that sort. It tends to that and that is one great objection I always had to the thing, that the employers do not act fairly towards the men. If they get a good clever man to do the work they generally try to make the price lower, so that the men get very little more money though they work harder. That is the general feeling in our trade, and in other trades as well against the adoption of piece work. 398. Do you know any reason why piece work is supposed by the men to have a tendency towards in- ducing the use of inferior material ? — Yes, I think that generally men on piece work make inferior articles, they generally skip, as we say, certain kinds of work which ought to be done well and sound. Where they can do it without being found out, they evidently do skip their work, and make it inferior to what it would be if they were on day work, and if more time was given them to manufacture the article. 399. That is one point, but I wish to ask whether it is in your experience the tendency of piece work to make the masters give inferior material ?— Yes, I believe so more extensively in their case than in that of the men. I believe that they take contracts some- times very low, and in order to rectify the low price which they have given in they cut down both material and labour. I have known it frequently, not from practice, because I never did work at piece work, but from parties who have been working piece work in the same shop and have been close benches to me, so that I have known what has been going on. 400. Do you believe that the tendency to rapidly cover up work, which is stated by the men to obtain TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION : — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 21 in piece work, is also likely to enable an unfair master to put in inferior work ? — I do. 401. You have a restraint, like all other societies. You fix, in fact, the minimum rate of wages P—Yes, we do. 402. Have you any restraint on a member getting higher wages ? — Not at all. If any one of our mem- bers is working in a shop or firm where he can do better work or mor6 work, there is no objection to the master giving him 12s. a day, although our wages may be only 6s. 403. With reference to overtime, has the general feeling amongst the men on that subject changed in the last few years, do you think ? — I think they still object to overtime as much now as they previously did. There are some trades that would perhaps look more favourably upon it provided they could get a fixed scale of prices, revised from year to year ; but I do not think in om- trade it is looked upon with any more favour. It has always been thought objec- tionable for the reasons I have mentioned. The shorter hours has made it more disliked, because piece work generally tends to long hours, and there is nothing that tends to degrade and lower a man in his social position more than long hours and piece work. 404. I have heard the objection constantly taken that the efiect of the abolition of piece work has been to make the jomneyman of this generation inferior to their fathers as workmen ; that you cannot, in fact, get the same class of joiners' work now as you could 29 years ago, do you believe that ? — I do not. I believe that there are some joiners now who are as good workmen as ever lived, and do as good work as ever was manufactured. I believe that, though, as I have already said, men are not apprenticed so much now, the men are more advanced in intelligence, and give more time to reading works upon their trade, and practice the science of drawing, and understand geometry and its principles more than they did formerly, and I think that aUhough many of the lads are not apprenticed they pick up a good knowledge of the trade, and become excellent workmen by being with their fathers in the shop. 405. Has the custom of taking apprentices been given up amongst joiners in London ? — This practice is adopted in London and other large towns — that a joiner may have a lad with him in the shop ; he gets the foreman to let him have his son with him. That lad goes with very little money perhaps for the first year till he becomes useful and the tools come into his hands ; he gradually acquires the trade without ever being regularly bound. I believe in London, above all cities, that is generally acted upon. Sometimes there are apprentices, but it is a rare exception now. 406. You do not allow any man to have more than one apprentice, do you ? — A master may have a hundred if he likes ; we have no rules to prevent him. 407. With respect to the payment at 1 o'clock on Saturdays, do you believe that the objection which is urged against that — that the men have more time to drink, and do drink more — holds good in your trade ? ■ — I believe that they drink less now than they formerly did. I believe that they are more provident and temperate than they formerly were. 408. Looking at the great difficulty with regard to courts of di-bitration, that they must be purely volun- tary, unless there were some arrangement by which their awards were enforceable against the societies, do you think that the societies, in order to gain the boon of absolute recognition — the same sort of recognition as joint-stock companies have — would be ready to meet such a gift or such an extension of the law by agreeing to have the awards made enforceable ? — I do not think they would. I would just add that of course the pro- tection of our funds is important, but the other point abiding by the decision arrived at is a serious question. Of course our defalcations are not very large, for, as a rule, the men are honest men. The other question opens up a very great difficulty where there is such a numerous body of men, and all members of trade societies are not so intelligent as some who belong to them, and sometimes we find a very great difficulty Mr. G. Potter. in even suggesting such things to them. MTTl^e: 409. You know that if you were acknowledged at J__J__ ' all you would get more than the mere protection of the funds ? — We are supposed to be legal societies now, and we are supposed to have the protection which the Act prescribes ; we say that up to the recent decision we have always been recognized as legal societies, and our defaulters have been prosecuted. 410. Always since 1855; never before that ? — Since 1855. 411. (Earl of LicJifield.) Are you prepared to de- fine what you consider to be a legal society ? — Any of our trade societies that now exist. I mean to say that if a society has no rules that are criminal and has its rules published and printed, and if there is nothing in them illegal according to the statute, then I think that it ought to be a legal society. 412. {Mr. Hughes.') Let me suggest this for your definition hereafter ; it seems to me that you can fairly say that all societies are legal which have been allowed to deposit their rules with Mr. Tidd Pratt under the 44th section of the Friendly Societies Act ? — ^Yes, I understand that, but Mr. Tidd Pratt will not certify the rules sometimes. 413. (Earl of Lichfield.) Are you not aware that the mere depositing of your rules under that 44th section in no way affects the legality or illegality of your society ? — Just so. Mr. Tidd Pratt will not sometimes certify them. 414. But the mere depositing of your rules under that 44th section in no way affects the legality or ille- gality of jouv society, does it ? — I understand that, but generally where the I'ules are deposited, as is^the case of some amalgamated societies, there is perhaps a particular word, say the word " strike " occurring in them ; they just substitute another word meaning the same thing, and then the society is certified. In fact, there are as many good rules not certified by Mr. Tidd Pratt as there are certified ; it depends upon the wording of them. 415. You know that rules, which by your own ad- mission might be illegal, still might be deposited with Mr. Tidd Pratt under that 44th section ? — Yes, but he would not certify them. 416. But you know that none of the trades societies are registered ? — No, but they are what is called certified. 417. {Mr. Hughes.) Do you know of foreign join- ers' work having come into the country in any large quantities lately ? — I am not personally aware of the fact. I have read paragraphs in the newspapers stating that doors and mouldings of various kinds have come in, but I believe there are none to any extent. 418. Have you known any workmen or joiners go abroad in order to carry on their work when they can get higher wages and better conditions ? — Some of the best of our workmen have gone abroad. 419. Do you mean to the Continent when you say " abroad ? " — America and New Zealand I was speaking of. 420. Have they also gone to the Continent of Europe ? — Yes, to the Continent of Europe. 421. {Sir D. Gooch.) What are the hours now reduced to from 58|- ? — Now they are 56|- that is ten hours for the first 5 days and 6^ on the Saturday, the men leaving ofi" at 1 o'clock and not having any dinner hour. 422. Is it not the fact that the result of piece work in the shops has been that the industrious and hard working man has had that remuneration paid to him which his industry entitled him to, over the indolent man, and is he not entitled to make much higher wages than the idle man, and does not the prohibition of piece work put all the men on a level ? — It is not objected to. 423., You do object to piece work do you not ? — When I say that we object to it, you must under- stand it means only a moral objection, we have not the power to prevent it, except with our own members. 424. My question is this : is it not the fact, that C 3 22 TBADiES UNIONS, JiTO. COMMISSION :— MINUTES t)F EVIDBNCEr Mr. G. Potter. 19 Mar. 1867, taking the industrious and able man (for skill of course has a great deal to do with the quantity of work a man can turn out) piece work does enable that man to be paid as a, carpenter or joiner for his additional skill over the unskilled man in the same way that it operates in any other walk of life ? — Undoubtedly it does in some cases. 425. Without piece work you lose that advantage, do not you ? — I do not think so. 426. How does the industrious and skilful man get the full benefit of his exeitions over the indolent and unskilled man without piece wdrk ?-^We suppose' that skilled workmen on day wages are paid on what is called an average scale. As I stated they cannot be admitted into the society unless they ai'e supposed to be able to earn the average rate of wages which the trade gives, or rather the minimum rate. If aa employer gives his men day work, and that skilful man is contented, that is of course his own affair. Sometimes a man objects to piece work although he would get more money : indeed it is often the case that clever skilled men decline to accept piece work. ,\ 427. There are a great many cases, are there not,' where clever skilled men do desire piece work, but where there is difficulty put in their way in, getting it ? — I think not. 428. You do not object to piece work on its own merits, do you ? — It is generally objected to by the men themselves, it is very seldom that the society interferes. 429. Has there not been interference lately with reference to piece work ? — I think not. 430. With regard to short hours and piece work, has it not been the case that most lai-ge shops have had printed regulations affixed to the doors ? — They are generally printed and put up on the doors. 431. There is nothing new in that ? — No. 432. You said that the men, alier having taken a piece work job, found that they made more money, but that the employer observed that, .and the next time a contract was entered into a reduction was made. Is: it not the fact that piece work men are allowed to make, considering their skiU, a day and three quarters during one day by their piece work, and is it not the case that the master would not consider that he was paying over much for piece work in that case, but that he would allow the men to make something like time; and a quarter or time and a third ; that the master in fact never attempts to put the piece work men down to the level of ordinary men ? — A man on piece work generally works as long as he likes, the employer does not restrict him at all. 433. I am speaking as to the amount the man earns ? — They generally let him earn as much as he can, but the employer takes care not' to pay much' in advance until the job is finished. 434. But you stated that when a piece-work man had made a good deal by his piece work, the effect of that was that the master would cut him down, and that the man in the next contract would not get the ' benefit of his skill in piece work. Now I want to know from you whether it is not an understanding in all shops generally that the master does allow on piece work, a man working for the ordinary number ' of hours a week, to make during that week sometimes time and a quarter and sometimes time and a third, and is content that the piece-work; man should be allowed for his additional labour at piece work more than the ordinary day's wages, and would not be dissatisfied even if the man received time and a third?' — Not as a rule, but whether the ttiau has earned the money in a less number of hours or worked harder for it, I do not think that that prevents the employer thinki]ig that there has been too much money given for the job. 435. That does not answer my question, which is this : do masters consider that men working on piece work are entitled to earn more money in the hour than other men ; that they are entitled to earn time and a quarter or time and a third ? — I do not think, that as a general rule- they earn more in ,the same number of houi's, but geilerkll|>r;th:e money is earned rather by longer hours of work what they caU longer spells, and then cessations from work for a loliger period. 436. {Mr . Harrison.) Have you known cases where a man has been working piece work and has earned time and a half in the day, and the employei- has refused to pay more than time and a quarter ?-r-I believe that the employer pays him at the end of the contract, and lets him draw at the rate of day wages, on account. If the man were to say that he had earned money which would pay. for a day and a half, I do not think that the master would let him draw to that amount, because they generally will not' let men draw up to the amount of their work. 437. {Sir E. W. Head.) Supposing that piece work has that tendency of which you speak, to lower wages by suggesting to the master that he has been paying too much for the day, may it not really be the test by which he finds out the truth ? — I do not think it could, because of course the desire on the part of the masters in giving out piece work is to get it done as cheap as they possibly can, by making, the men work harder. A man then, in order to get something like wages, does work harder, but he could not continu- ously make those physical efforts which he does-make then in order to get a little more money, and therefore he must ultimately come to a very low amount of wages. , 438. The master seeing what could be done when a workman exerted himself, although the workman might not be able to continue his efforts to the same extent for a long time, might it not be that the master would find out that he had been paying too much for the day, because he saw what could be done in the same time if the workman exerted himself? — ^Tn that way piece work would have a tendency to lower Wages simply because it was a test of the amount whi-ch fairly could be done in the day. It does not foUow, I presume, that a day workman would be expected to do exactly the same amount, but piece work may test the fact, may it not, that too much has been paid fiw. the retiu-n got ? — I may explain that when a ccmtract is taken for a house the employer knows pretty nearly what each article will cost. There is what we call' a scale, a fixed price for materials and for labour. They know how much work a man will do in an hour, and how long it will take a man to make a pair of sashes for instance, or a^ door ; they can calculate it to a fraction. Now the piece work is generally introduced and desired by employers who take contracts at a lower rate, and they think that getting the work done piece work will in some way compensate them for the low estimate which they put in, and the mea geuei-ally ai-e asked to do pieCe work, working hard and getting a little more money, in order that in the end the con- tracts may be equalized in the way I have mentioned. The good firms do not generally desire piece work, but it is encouraged by those masters who estimate at a low rate, and by not furnishing good material, or paying the men at a lower rate, compensate them- selves. 439. The objection which you have named as to the encouragement by piece work of the use of inferior material, is an objection which does not affect the workman, but only the public ?— It does not affect the wot-kmen, it is only the labour that affects them. 440. You said, did you hot, that the trades union assumed that the man waS' entitled to average wao-es, that all the men were on an equal footing, eveiV man being supposed to be able to do a day's work ?— Yes.' • ■ 441. But is it not the ftict that there is an infinite difference between the skill and strength of one man and the skill and strength of another in body, as in- mmd ; and that although the union may assume that an men are exactly equal in skill and power to work that is nbt' so in fact ?— That generally rests with the' decision of a foreman. - 442. It is a fact that all persons are not equal ? TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION : — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 23 Of course all are not equally strong or intelligent, but in a shop Where there are Afferent kinds of work, the foreman sees at once which job to give a particular man to do. That same man would not be able per- haps to do so profitably work of another kind. 443. That is to say, the workmen are classified? — Yes, and the strong workman might not be able to do •so much as the weak workman who, however, can do more artistic work perhaps, and we' think that both are deserving of the payment of wages which are supposed to be the average throughout the trade. 444. Although they may not be equally skilful ? — Not on the same kind of work. The selection of work is generally made by the foreman, and in a large shop it is done profitably to the employer by all hands. 445. Is not the work of a more skilled workman worth more than the work of a less skilled workman, or ought it not to be ? — No, because they cannot all have one job. If I was set to lay a floor when I could make sashes just as well, I should desire to make the sashes, and I should consider that I ought not to be always kept on the floor, because it would not be fair to keep one man on one thing and another on another. I could do (we will suppose) any kind of work that the builder had to do, then if they set me to do an inferior job, they ought not on that account to pay me less. 446. How is it in other occupations of life ? Are persons who do inferior work paid the same as those who do superior woi-k ? — There is no question as to that, but that is one of the advantages of our com- bination. ' 447. {Mr. Booth.) You deprecate making that diife- rence, as I understand you ? — ^We let employers pay an extra skilled workman as much as they like. 448. I understood you to say that they gave them all the average wage ? — A minimum rate. 449. And that the foreman arranged so that one should have the higher kind of Work and another the lower, but both receiving the same pay ? — ^Yes, both being capable of doing the Same kind of work. 450. {Mr. Hughes.') Are you aware whether Secre- taries of State are all paid the same salary ? — If so, perhaps they are not all so serviceable as others. 451. Are you aware whether they are as a fact ?— ^ I believe they are. 452. I suppose there is an infinite difference between the abilities of Secretaries of State ? — Yes, un- doubtedly. 453. {Lord Uicho.) You have no absolute rule pro- hibiting piece work as I understand you ? — We have not. 454. But you say you deprecate it ? — Yes. 455. ■ And remonstrate against it ? — We try as much as we can to prevent its being brought into operation, because of its evil efiects. 456. How do you endeavom- ip obviate those evil efiects, when you cannot prevent the thing itself. You reason, you say, with men who are inclined to work piece work and overtim,e, but supposing that your reasoning is not effective, what happens ? — They con- tinue on piece work. 457. They are not turned out of the society ? — No, we seldom turn a man out of the society. When a man does not conform to the rules of the society he ceases to be a member of it. I do not know a case of a man being turned out.. He has probably fallen in arrears, or in some other way has ceased to be a member of the society. 458., What percentage of the men are in the habit in your society of working overtime and piece work ? — I, think, that as a rule it is very seldom that any of them; work overtime now, except on a special job that requires to be finished. It has now become very rare "in the building trade ; it is only when the shop is full aiid ho more hatids can be taken on that the employer resorts to it, because I believe they have seen' the evil ^effects of it as much as the men.thenjse^ves. : ■4691 Is'it feceiitly that tljils cfiange has Come into opei^'Son?— ^Duriflg the last three or four years. 460. When, therefore, ybu'spfffeof the'cbmparative intemperance of men who work overtime,' you spoke Mr. G. Potter.- of a period anterior to the last three or four years? , ~ ' —Yes, when they were paid late; but when I ti9_^J^7. spoke of their intemperance, I do not mean that as a rule they are intemperate, but I mean that the kind of work Which they tave to do leads them more to that species of indulgence. Men who, per- haps, have formerly been steady men, and who come to work long hours and piece work get into the habit of drinking during their work, or going to a public- house after. 461. But whether they were long hours as the result of piecework and overtime, or long hours such as you describe in the case of men working a day and a quarter, , it would have the same result in that respect, would it not ? — ^Not in all cases. The money earned is often spent in indulgences which do not in the end do the family Or the man himself any benefit. I believe that overtime as a rule does not benefit the man pecuniarily or socially, that though he gets more money it is spent in things which he could do very well without. 462. That is to say if his inclinations are so as to spend it ? — Just so. . 463. I suppose you have known many instances of men who have- worked overtime, and who instead of injuring have benefited themselves and their families ? — There are exceptions, but we find that as a rule those men do not require overtime or long hours ; they generally oppose, as individuals, the long hour system of their own free wUl and discretion. 464. Is there nothing in the rules to prevent a man working a day and a half if he chose ? — Not at all, he has to receive his daily wages at the end of 10 hours, and we have a rule whereby if he works a quarter of a day more he shall be paid time and a quarter for it. 465. When you spoke of the overtime that you yourself worked, to what period did you allude ?^ About 1856, I was then paid five hours for four hours during the last half day. 466. Were there many men similarly situated to yourself ? — All in the shop. We were paid five hours wages for four hours work. 467. The result of that was, I suppose, that you found the thing beneficial in your own case ? — No, I did not. I would gladly have left off" at half-past 5 and gone home without the money gained by overtime. 468. There was no compulsion upon you was there ? — I might state that generally the masters are very arbitrary and tyrannical in f.his matter. If a shop was announced to work, say to-day from half-past 5 till 8, and the men were ordered on to work, and two of them felt inclined not to work, they would be dis- charged and their benches would be filled up by other men. 469. In this instance which you have mentioned, if the men had not been in danger of being discharged they would have declined to work in that way, is that so ? — Many of them would. I have frequently myself been obliged to Work till 8 or 9 at night rather than be discharged, when if I had had the opportunity of leaving off" at half-past 5 I should have gone home, and I believe it is generally the case in the trade that you must submit when you are ordered to work. 470. Are those terms understood where you en- gage with a master, that men are liable to that kind of pressure ? — No. I should have said just now that there is no notice fixed on the doors in regard to over- time, but only as to the time that the shops opened, and the hours of raeals, there are no other arrange- ments. 471. There is no unwritten understanding to the effect that if a man takes up an engagement there may be occasions when his master expects, and when he will be bound (as far' as he can be bound without specific rules) to work extra time ? — None at all. If we want a job we go to the employers, and they say, " Yes, you can, come," and we a^k what wages will be given. Then we abide by the regulations of the firm, such as have reference to the time for meals and the commencemeiit of work. C 4 24 TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OP EVIDENCE. Mr. G. Potter. 472. Do the members of your society take any oath on becoming members of your society ? — No. An 1 9 Mar. 18C 7. applicant is proposed by one member and seconded by another, and then he retires, and his abilities as a workman are discussed before the meeting, and the question is put from the chair, and if it is carried the man is admitted, and the chairman informs him that he is admitted a member of the society in accordance with the rules which previously he has read and assented to. 473. And does he take no oath afterwards ? — No. 474. In any society that you have been connected with is there no oath taken ? — I know of none. 475. You know of none personally ? — Never in my life have I known it. 476. You said that your society spends a certain sum of money (though it is not a benefit society ex- actly), in allowances for burials, does it spend money in maintaining men who are out of work from any cause ? — Yes, generally it contributes to the utmost of its means towards the support of any men who have a dispute with their employers, when they consider the conduct of the men justifiable. 477. Do you know the income of your society ? — We have about 130 members paying Saf. a week. That is not a very large sum, but sometimes we do not have any claims upon it for weeks together, and the way in which we render the most efficient aid in the case of these local societies is by a levy made upon the members — they may have to subscribe 1*. a week in addition to their subscription. 478. That is to say, your regular subscription goes to such a purpose as this burial fund ? — Yes, and sup- porting the men if they are slack in their work. 479. From whatever cause that may arise, whether from not finding employment, or from losing employ- ment, or from a strike ? — Yes. 480. In your own society you support the men of that society only on strike ? — Yes, that is all out of the funds. 481. You said something about a levy? — Yes; when any trade is in any necessity, and wants assistance pecuniarily, and we consider it is a cause worthy of the support of our members, there is a general meeting summoned, and they agree perhaps to levy Is. per member. 482. Of the total sum raised by these subscriptions in your society, what proportion do you suppose on the average has gone to this burial fund, and what proportion to maintaining men out of employment ? — I suppose about two-thirds to the burial fund ; the remainder would go to the other purpose. 483. With regard to these levies that you speak of that are made upon your society, is it one of the rules of the society to which a man subscribes that he is liable to such levies for other purposes than his own needs ? — No, not always. 484. Such levies are voluntaiy, are they ? — They are made at a general meeting, at which every one is summoned to attend ; but there is seldom any difficulty on that matter. 485. I am a member of your society, I will sup- pose, and a levy is made, must I contribute to it ? — If it was levied, it would be compulsory. 486. Suppose that I am summoned to such a meet- ing as you have spoken of, but I do not attend, and a levy is ordered, how is that levy enforced ?— It is of course enforced by the understanding at the meeting that every man bides by the decision of the majority ; if a man does not pay, he is in arrears till he does. 487. That is to say, he ceases to be a member of the society ?— While he is in arrears he is not entitled to his benefits. 488. Should I cease to be entitled to those benefits of the society for which I entered the society, accord- ing to the rules laid before me, merely because I would not contribute to that levy ?— It would depend entirely how it occurred. For instance, if you could not pay the levy, that would be laid before the meeting, and you might be excused. It would all depend upon the circumstances under which you refused it. 489. But supposing this was a levy for a strike in a trade with which I fancied I had nothing to do, and, supposing I declined to pay, though I was able to pay, should I, even although I had been subscribing- to your society for 10 or 20 years, in consequence of refusing' to pay this extra levy, be deprived of aU the benefits for which I had subscribed? — You would be sum- moned, and you would know that any business done at that meeting would be binding upon the members, and you would virtually be excluded, because you would have had an opportunity of being at the meeting and arguing against the levy. You would virtually cease to be a member if the rules provided that what was done at a special general meeting should be binding upon the members. 490. Have you known any such decisions taken by the general body and objected to by individuals ? — There have been cases. I have not known many in our society ; but there are cases, no doubt, where members refuse to pay the levy, and the matter is ar- ranged by the members or the executive. It depends entirely on the circumstances. 491. In the event of a strike, have you known any measures taken to watch men and prevent their taking work ? — The means which we adopt is, of course, placing what we call pickets on the job where the men have struck. We do not object to that, because we consider it to be a legitimate piece of business. The pickets are all instructed not to coerce or intimi- date any man. They are pickets selected from the work where the strike is to go and sit there, and inform any man applying for a job that the men have had a dispute with their employers and are now out, and to suggest to them the advisability of refraining. 492. That is to say your society which is on strike appoints men to keep guard as it were on the work ? —You will understand that it is not generally a society that is on strike, it is generally a firm or job, and it will only affect those on the job. Our society there- fore does not control the strike, but the strike is con- trolled and conducted by the men who have ceased to work forming themselves into a committee and carry- ing on the business. The society are all outside of that, and the society can only interfere in reference to that strike through its own individual members. If we had men that were working on that job where a dispute had occurred we should be obliged to support our workmen from our society, but we should have nothing to do with the other men ; they might belong to other societies over which we have no control. The men who strike form a committee, and appoint some of their fellow- men who have struck to stand by turns at the gate or dooi-way and just peaceably in- form members of the trade that there is a dispute, and that it is advisable for them to abstain from applying for work, but if they go and apply for work of course there is no prevention. 493. Supposing that a man or men belonging to societies of which the workmen that are on strike are not members, were to apply and went in to work, and these pickets saw that, would they report them to their society ?— Wc do not believe any members of a society would apply ; we could not assume that it would be done. 494. You fancy that the organization of societies is such that if the members belonging to one society will not work for a particular firm, none of the mem- bers belonging to another society would work for that firm ?— I do not believe so much in the society as in the moral sense of justice of the members. 495. You think that the men would stand by each other? — Yes. • 496 Believing those that are on strike to be in the right : — Yes. 497. With regard to that lock-out which you re- ferred to, the strike in 1859, you were engaged in that, were you not ?— I was secretary to the committee in that case. 498. Was that a joint committee ?— Yes, a joint conimittee of each of the building trades, seven of each formed the conference. TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MlNUTKS OP EVIDENCE. 25 499. What was the result of that ?— Of course it ■will be remembered that when we applied for a reduc- tion of the hours of labour the employers met us with a document that would be binding upon all who ap- plied for work after they were locked out, providing that they must cease to be members of any trade society, and the men could not I'esumo work without signing that. 500. How long did that last ?— The document re- mained in operation from the 6th of Afigust till the 3rd of February in the following yoar, and then it was entirely abandoned by the master buildeis. 501. Meantime had there been a lock-out ? — There had been a lock-out first of all for eight weeks, that is to say, the Master Builders Association, by resolution, compelled every employer to turn out his men and keep the gates locked ; there was no one admitted in that eight weeks whether he would sign the document or not, but there was an entire cessation of business. At the cud of the eight weeks they opened the shops to those who would go in under the document, and of course we opposed the document to our utmost, and we did so for 26 weeks, when we were sufficiently united to compel the abandonment of the document, and the men went in to work as they could obtain it. 502. Did they go into work at the terms for which they had struck ? — For many weeks scarcely any one went in, and then tlie masters resorted to a subterfuge in order to get men. When they had engaged a man they led him to understand that there was nothing special in the document, and did not show it, but it was merely intimated that he would be under it. 503. Did you consider that the results of that strike were satisfactory as regards the well-being of the men ? — ^We think they liave been so since. 504. At that time did you thiuk r-o ? --At the time we had no special advantage, but within a few months after it we got the 1 o'clock on Saturdays, and that was of course inaugurated by the "hour system," which at first was objectionable, but gradually dis- appeared. Since then we have obtained an advance of wages of 5s. a week, and a reduction of time. 505. You say that two months subsequently to the men having gone back to work there was an improved state of things in the trade, in better wages and diminished hours ? — Yes. 506. But previously to the end of these two months the strike had not been effective ? — No, not in regard to shortening the hours. 507. After 28 weeks ? — We only obtained the withdrawal of the document. We asked the masters to let us work nine hours a day. The masters, instead of accepting or refusing that, said they would lock us out, and they did lock us out, and introduced the document. The innovation of the document compelled us to drop our original demand, which we did early in the struggle, and concentrate our efforts upon com- pelling the masters to abandon the document, which aim we were successful in. 508. Successful as regards the document, but not as regards the original object of the strike ? — Not at all ; we had withdrawn that many months before the docu- ment was abandoned. We had intimated our readiness to meet them. Mr. Ayrton and other gentlemen made efforts to settle the dispute. We had to fight the docu- ment until it was abandoned by them at a public meeting. 509. Were your funds during that strike sufficient to maintain the men on strike ? — I may observe that we should not call it a strike, but a lock-out. 510. During that disagreement between the em- ployers and employed, as we will call it, were the funds of the society sufficient ? — No, of course not, so far as we should have liked, for there were numbers of men thrown upon our hands that we had no means of supporting, such as the labourers and others, who were locked out innocently, because they took no part in the matter. Some of our men in the building trade were able to live for a time on what they had themselves saved. We collected about 24,000/., I think, directly 18425. through the conference, which we expended upon Mr. G. Potter. those that were locked out. 511. It was a strike or disagreement confined to the ^' Mar. 186 7. building trade in its different branches ; it embraced all the branches of the building trade, did it not ? — Five branches of it. 512. Were the subscriptions with which, as far as you were able, you maintained men thrown out of employment, confined to trades implicated in the strike, or did they extend to other trades ?— Other trades gave us grants, just as they thought fit. 513. But notwithstanding that, the fund was in- sufficient ?— Yes, on account of the number of men locked out. I suppose 30,000 were locked out at that time. 514. How many other trades joined in supporting the building trades with pecuniary assistance •> — Very many trades in London, and all the large towns sent up subscriptions to the men during the lock-out. 515. How was that done ; was it by a general con- ference, or by your building societies communicating individually or separately with the other trades societies ?— It was generally done by circulars, an address being drawn up which stated the cause of dispute and the condition of the men. Sometimes delegates were sent down to large towns, such as Manchester and Birmingham, to meet the trades and make an appeal on behalf of the men that were out. 516. I have had placed in my hands a paper which purports to bo " An account of the strike and lock-out in the building trades of London in 1859-60 ; pre- pared for Ihe National Association for the promotion of Social Science, at the request of the Committee on Trades Societies, by G. Shaw Lefevre and Thomas E. Bennet." Are you aware of the existence of that paper ? — Yes, I gave the facts upon which I believe they reported. 517. Then you are responsible for those facts? — I am responsible for the material of them ; I supplied them to Mr. Bennet and Mr. Shaw Lefevre. 517a. I need hardly ask you whether, so many men being on strike and the funds either of their own societies or of those that aided them, having been as you say, insufficient for their support, very great suf- fering was entailed upon the men by this strike or lock out? — No doubt a very great deal of suffering was entailed upon the men during the lock out, on such men as the labourers for instance, wlio had no means of support, and on others who were innocently locked out, and there is no doubt that many of the artizans also suffered keenly during that strike, but they felt that they were justified in their conduct, and the conditions upon which they were to be allovred to resume work were such that they would rather starve than submit to them. 518. And I think you said that men wlio had ac- cumulated a little fund were obliged to live on that fund till it disappeared ?— They did, and that with the help that the society gave them kept them, not com- fortably, of course. 519. You have told us that support was sent by other societies not connected with the building trades, and that that was done through circulars. Since 1859 has the organizations of your different societies become more complete — have you got anything more nearly approaching a national society for these purposes ? I believe we have. At the time when we had that lock out we had to find out the societies which were then in existence, and of course much time was oc- cupied in that. We had never had any connexion since the Preston lock out, with the trades generally. 520. When was the Preston lock out? — In 1852 or 1854. Then again we had of course to get the ad- dresses of these societies, and the kinds of organization which were in existence at that time. But since that time society men have become more numerous, and societies have become more perfect and more united. Though not united in funds and members they have become, as it were, affiliated to each other on all great questions. For instance, I might point to the fact that the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters was brought D 26 TKADES UNIONS, ETO. COMMISSION :^-iMINUTES OP EVIDENCE. 19 Mar. 1867. Mr. G. Potter, ^^tp existance through that lock out* When we were delegated together we considered the best means fpr, preventing the joiners in future being so distressed, and we appointed a committee which ended in the for- mation of that amalgamated society. Since that time we have made efforts to get up a confederation of trades which has now been done by the Alliance Or- ganization of Trades, formed at Sheffield at the latter end pf last year. That is a kind of society which would render very efficient support to any body of men who were locked out. We labouiod under very great difficulties in 1859, from the circumstances which I have narrated. , 521. You have, have you not, had meetings (perhaps this Sheffield one is one of those to which I refer) where the different trades societies have met and have ?ig;peed to certain things, for instance, to obtain if pos- sible a change in the law of master and servant. And such meetings are the result of delegates being sent by a certain trade from different places ? — Yes, there is a committee which is trying to get the repeal of that Act, of which Mr. McDonald is a member at Glasgow, and they have been very much helped by the trades generally in their aim of getting a repeal of that Act. , , ^ §22. As yet you have had no thorough organization flr constitution for the pui-poses of supporting men out of employment ? — Not until the alliance organization of trades at ShefiBeld, which is now in operation or is being, formed now. The executive is at Sheffield. Mr. Dronfleld I believe is secretary. It was sug- gested through the association with which I am con- nected. The executive, as I have said, sits at Shefiield, and I believe that there are very many trades allied to it. 523. When was this alliance formed ? — It was formed last July I think ? — I am now speaking from memory, but you have before you a report of the proceedings of the first meeting, and they have had a meeting once at Manchester, where they have ,rather strengthened the association. They now are in work- ing order, and the rules are printed, and they have a committee (that can at any time call the delegates together of the trades connected with it, and they can enforce a levy of so much per member throughout the association by a delegate's meeting. 524. You say that they can enforce a levy, as I understand you, upon any trades union that connects itself with them ? — They can make it ; I do not know whether they can enforce it. I believe that every member represented there pays a .penny per head for twelve months, and that goes into one common fund for the support of the whole of the trades connected with the association. 525. That is to say, assuming that your associa- tion joins this, that will be done through the execu- tive sending in a report that they are ready to join, and the members of your society, as I understand you, having so joined, are to pay an extra penny? — ^Yes, our society pays to the executive of this alliance a penny per head for every member who belongs to it. 526. Will that come out of the ordinai-y subscrip- tions of your society, or has there to be an extra penny levied for the special pm-pose ? — I think it generally comes out of the funds of the society. 527. Have most of the societies of the Kingdom joined this alliance ? — A good many, and some very influential ones, but some of the large trades have not yet joined it. 528. You said, referring to the London strike, that although it did not succeed, so far as the object for which the men went out was concerned, and though they went into work again without having obtained that object, still within a certain time, two months, prices were raised, and the time of labour was less- ened. Do you believe that that rise in the price of wages, and that lessening in the hours of labour were in any way the result of that strike ? — I believe that the application which we had made for short hours was reasonable in itself, as is shown by the fact that the masters stated that they would have given us an ,ad;?ance of wages had we asked it, but that they. we're opposed to reducing the hours. The employers ad- mitted that we were worth 10 per cent, advance, and wanted to pay it to us in money. We -wanted it in time. The dispute was not as to the amount we were entitled to, the dispute was as to the way of receiving it ; we wished it in time, they in money, and when we resumed work, the relations between us were so satisfactory, that the masters introduced what is called the hour system. 529. Do you mean to imply that although you did not actually succeed at the time, yet subsequently you practically got what you wanted ? — We consider that a great step was got during the next year, 1860, and that since then we have veiy much improved our position. We believe that the struggle, as a whole, was instrumental in giving us these benefits and ad- vantages, which we pei'haps might not have had if we had not struggled as we did. 530 Do you think that the ordinary laws and regu- lations of trade would not have produced the same result ? — Possibly they might. 531. You cannot say that they could not have done so ? — No, I only say that we did not desire a struggle of that kind to take place. We did hope, and for some time we had reason to believe that we should arrive at some satisfactory arrangement without any dispute at all. We had several interviews with the employers, we had four meetings at Exeter Hall, and I think we should have succeeded in our object had not the press been against us. I think that the press at that time was the means of embittering feelings and strengthening animosities by untruthful statements and mis-state- ments. I think that the struggle was not anticipated, not by the employers nor even by the men, for I have heard employers say that had they anticipated their losses would have been so great they would have made arrangements whereby it need not have arisen. 532. You have spoken of the Saturday half-holiday; I presume you consider that to be a great advantage to the men ? — Yes, the stopping at 1 o'clock. 533. That half-hohday is becoming very general, is it not ? — I believe it is. 534. It is not confined to the artisan and mechanic class, but it is extending likewise, is it not, to clerks and shopmen ? — Yes to clerks and shopmen and men employed in large warehouses, it is becoming very general. 535. Do you believe that that is the result of the operations of the societies or unions as regards the artisans ? — I think that some of it is due to that cause, but that it has been very much helped by public opinion. 536. You think that the tendency of the times and public opinion has helped that movement irrespective of any action on the part of the trades unions ? — ^Yes, I believe that both have helped towards it by the issuing of pamphlets, and essays, and other kinds of addresses showing the desire for it and the necessity of it. Public opinion has taken it up and decided very favourably for the men, and by means of the two to- gether the result has been the establishment of a half-holiday. 537. (Mr. Hughes.) Do you know any instances in which men who were active in that 1859 strike have had difficulty in getting employment since ? — At first there were considerable difficulties in getting employ- ment as regard the leaders of the strike. Of course at this length of time those difficulties are, generally speaking, done away with. But there were great obstacles thrown in this way of men who had takeil a leading part immediately obtaining employment. 538. Did that effect you ? — I have never applied for work since. I was called out of a very good firm to help take the management of the affair, and after that when the strike was concluded we felt the desirable- ness of a newspaper to support our views, and advocate our wishes. I was the means of originating a news- paper, and I became manager of it, and I have since then occupied that position. ' 539. (Sir D. .Goock.)mh&t is the name of " th^ paper ?— The Beehive. j ', ^ -TRADES UNlONSy ETC. (3OMMISSI0N: — ^MINUTES ©It . EVtI5ElS''GE. ^ 540. {Mr. Hughes.) Have any of the other leaders referred to returned to the bench ? — I think most of them have gone back; some of them have become foremen since, some are dead, and some of them have left. London. ■. S41.i (Mr. Booth.) As to overtime and piecework, did I correctly understand you to be of opinion that it could not be left to the workman to judge whether it was for his own advantage to accept piece work or to woi'k overtime ? — No, it is left to him. 542. I thought I understood you to say that it could not safely be left to him, otherwise why do the trades - societies interfere ? — They do not interfere except with a member of the society, and then they just suggest to him that it is better for the common and general good that he should conform to the regulations of the society and the wishes of the members of the trade ; they cannot compel him to abstain. 543. I understood you to say that it was for his own good chiefly that he should abstain ? — We think that his good is wrapped up with the rest, not each for him- self and only for himself, but each for all and all for each, that is our aim and object. Sometimes when \ve find greedy and selfish men (of course there are some of that kind among workmen as there are in other classes) who would see others starve, we appeal to the reason of such men as those. . 544. But you do not like to leave it to the judgment of each to decide what is best for himself? — Of course it is really left to his judgment. 545. {Earl of Lichfield.) With reference to over- time you stated that you were yourself employed by a firm which obliged you to work very long overtime occasionally, and you said that the masters, if you had refused to work overtime, would have discharged you. You were, therefore, compelled ,to work over- time in that case ? — Yes. - 546. You consider that, I suppose, very unjust on the part of the masters ? — We do. 547. And you think that your society protects you against that injustice ? — If I had been discharged because I would not work overtime I should have received half the amount of the wages I was then earning till I got another job. 548. You consider that your society protects you fi-om that which you conceive to be an injustice on the part of the masters, when they say that you must work overtime or be discharged ? — Yes, they allow me half wages. 549. With reference to piece work you said that it led to the work being badly done, and I think I under- stood you to say that in taking a; contract for a house the masters were able to calculate to a nicety what each door and window frame and every article of joinery would cost. That is calculated according to what it could be done for by day work I presume. I ■vrant tcy know whether as a rule the masters give out the piece work at a lower price than the same work would cost by day work ? — I do not know that I can answer that except by stating again that there is of course so much time required to do the work estimated for, and of course so much the man is paid and so much profit remains for the master. Now, when that job is put in low figm-es the same employers think they can, by putting out piecework at a low rate, get some profit out of it to compensate or help com- pensate them for their losses. 550. As a general rule then piece work is let out to 1)6 done at a cheaper rate than that at which the same work would be calculated to be done by day work ? — Yes, that is very generally the case. "551. But as a rule it must be discreditable to the masters. to give out their work by piece work, that is your opinion ? — Yes ; I say that the best firms do not do it. '"652. (J/r. Merivale.) You Say, that in your opinion the joiners of the present day are as efficient and as .skilful, if not more' so, a.s those befbrfe.them. Piece work being disctftiraged, "what inducement has one man to become more efficient and skilful' than another? 19 Mar. 1867. — The same inducement that'he always has haii, that Mr. G. Potter. he should receive the highest^ amount of' wages he can for his skill. • - -, 553. Day wages, you mean ? — Yes. 554. {Mr. Hughes.) You, therefore, do not believe in the general accusation of idleness and dawdling over work on the part of workmen which prevails in London ? — I have no doubt some men dawdle, but men as a rule if they see a man not doing his work compel him to do it, because they generally work in pairs, and if your mate is slackening you keep him up to l^is work. There is no encouragement given by the society to that dawdling. 555. {Lord Elcho.) In any factory "to what extent is work classified ? — It entirely depends on the foreman, 556. Take sashes and floors, are the men who make sashes and the men who make floors all paid at the same rate ? — They are paid the same rate of wages. 557. But the sash requires a more skilled workman than the floor ? — Yes, but the floor requires a stronger man. 558. The two qualities are diiFerent, are they not ? — But it is very possible that they could taker each others place. The man who is laying down 'the, floor would be as profitable on the sashes, and the' man on the sashes as profitable in laying down the floor;. 559. And that is the way it is done, is it ? — Yes ; that is why we consider that every man is of the same value to the employer, because he yields the' same work for the money he receives, though it may be in a different direction, stiU it is as valuable. ■-".-.. 560. Is not that practically a levelling of tlie skilled and the rude labour ? — No, because it all rests with a foreman ; he picks out his men to do the work which he thinks most profitable to his employer, arid the foreman always knows which kind of man to give certain jobs to. 561. But you would find, would you not, more men who had got the physical qualities requisite for making a floor than you would find men who had got the higher qualities I'equisite for making a sash, taking human nature through ? — I do not think we should ; not among joiners. 562. But in all trades do not you think that the number of skilled, compared to the unskilled, is small ? — ^In the more advanced skill it may be so. 563. But in all trades the skilled are fewer than the unskilled, are they not, as a rule? — Yes, having regard to the superior kind of skill. I want to make a distinction between the average workman arid the man that is below the average. 564. We will take a man of the superior skill you speak of in any factory, or in any joiners' work or house building, is there any means for that superior skill to earn more ? — There is no means unless the employer likes to give him more. If the employer likes to give "him more, he may take as much as he likes. We only fix the minimum rate. 565. {Mr. Harrison.) Is not it a practice which obtains in your trade and in other trades, irrespec- tively of a union, that there should be an , average rate of wages ? — Yes, certainly ; and the employers, as a rule, like it better, because they are open to as much competition from other employers as we are from our fellow-men. They find that unless there is a standard rate of wages, there are employers who would go and do work much below them and outbid them in the market, and there is the same desire on their part, as a rule, to get a standard rate of wages as there is amongst the men. 566. Is it true that the practice of flx;ing an aver- age rate of wages is one which obtains commonly between employers and employed, whether there is a union or not, and whether they are non-society men or society men that are working for the employer ? — I believe it is a general rule. 567.|In point of fact this practice is a practice of the, trade which is riot directly connected with the the practice of unionism? — Yes. , , -368. {.Mr.BooW.) Practically, do you kno-\V that D 2 Mr. G. Potter. 19 Mar. 1867. 28 TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION :— MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. to be the case ? — I think that is the case generally. Of course the unions compel obedience to it more than those men can who are not in unions. 569. But you think the rule prevails equally in all cases ? — I think so. 570. {Mr. Harrison.) If there were a shop of 100 men, not one of whom was a member of the society, would it be in accordance with the ordinary practice that each of those men should be paid the .same rate, the average rate, provided they were all on the leva of ordinary skilled workmen ?— Yes, the non-society stick out as a rule for an average rate. 571. {Earl of Lichfield.) Is it usual for a master to give a man who is perhaps more efficient than other workmen Jiigher wages by the day ?— 1 seldom hear of such a case ; not even when they make him a fore- man or Jiive him extra work to do they very seldom desire to give him more money. The witness withdrew. Mr. W. Allan. Mr. William 572. {Chairinan.) You are secretary of the Amal- gamated Society of Engineers, are you not ? — Yes. 573. When did that society begin ? — It was estab- lished on the 1st of Januai-y 1851. But perhaps it might be as well for me to explain that it was established out of a number of societies that previously existed. 574. Out of several societies which you call branch societies ? — No, independent societies. 575. Independent societies joined this in 1851 ? — Yes. 576. How many members does it comprise at present?— 33,600. 577. And how many branches ? — 308 branches. 578. Is the number of members increasing? — It increases at the rate of between 2,000 and 3,000 per year. 579. Have you got the increase for 1865 and 1866 ; were 3,000 members added in 1865 and 3,300 in 1866 ? —Yes. 580. Are those individual members, or were they unions that came in ? — They were new members. 581. Have you established any new branches this year ? — ^Yes ; a few this year, and a number last yeai'. 582. And have you branches in Enp;land, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, the colonies, and the United States, and one in France ? — Yes. For the information of the Commissioners I should say that in England and Wales there are 238 branches, numbering 27,856 members ; in Scotland there are 33 branches, and 3,218 members ; in Ireland 11 branches, with 1,371 members. In the British colonies there are 14, that includes Australia, Canada, Malta, New Zealand, and Queensland, and those 14 branches contain 626 members. T)ie United States have 1 1 branches, with 498 members. In France we have only one branch, which is in Ci'oix, in the north of France, and numbers 30 members. Alto- gether there are 308 branches, with 33,599 members. 583. Have you rules for the amalgamated society ? — Yes. Here is a copy of the pi-esent rules, and here is a copy of our original rules when we started in 1851 {handing in the same). 584. Are there separate rules for the different branches ? — No ; one code of rules governs the whole of the members. 585. Is there anything peculiar in the constitution of the 1 1 branches in the United States ? — Nothing whatever ; they conform to our rules. 586. How are they governed ; are all governed in the same way ?■ — All alike. 587. A committee of delegates at the branch ? — Yes ; so many committee-men in proportion to the number of members in each branch. 588. Do you know whether there are any unions or amalgamated unions in America, and do they prevail to any extent there ? — I believe that in the iron trades there are some very extensive associalions thei'c. 589. Have they any of engineers ? — Yes. 590. What is the reason then of their becoming branches of a foreign union ? — So far as our members are concei-ned, I think all tb.e branches are principally composed of Englishmen ivho have left England and gone out to the United States and established branches in the different places to which they went ; they have not been established by what we would call Americans proper, but by our own countrymen. 591. They were members of a society here, as I understand you ? — Yes, of our association principally. 592. And they have continued members of the Allan exranined. London Society ; they have gone to America and have established branches in America, and are in a manner affiliated to their former society ? — Yes, exactly so. 593. Is it the same in the case of France ? — Just the same. 594. What cau.sed that one particular branch to establish itself in France ?— It is principally com- posed of Eugli.shmen; in fact, I may state that the wliole of the members there are Englishmen ; that is to say, they were employed in a large manu- factory there, and they made application for a branch, and we granted it. 595. How are they admitted in London to member- ship ? — A candidate is proposed by two of the mem- bers of the society, and then he stands over for a fortnight or a month, in order that we may ascertain his abilities as a workman and his moral character ; and at the end of the fortnight or month, as the case may be, he is admitted a member or rejected. 596. Is there the same process in admission to the branches which exists in the foreign countries ; in the United States for instance ? — Yes, throughout the society ; no one can be .-idmitted contraiy to the rules ; or if any are, they stand a very good chance of being excluded as soon as it is known. 597. How are your funds obtained ? — ^By a sub- scription of \s. per week from each member. 598. Will you state about what your fund is at present ? — In round numbers at the present time it is 140,000Z. 599. Is that in the funds ? — ^Not in the funds, — in different banks. That is to say, the accumulated fund is about 140,000Z. 600. And what is about your present annual income. 86,885/., is it not ?— Yes ; that would be for 1865. Our 1866 report is not out yet. 601. {Earl of Lichfield.) You say that the sub- scription is \s. a -iveek, and the number of members 33,000 ; Where does the rest of the money come from ? — From admissions. There is a certain amount that every candidate has to pay, not less than \5s. as an entrance fee, and, according to age, it may amount to Zl. 10s. You will see, therefore, that we derive a large amount of revenue in th.e way of admissions into the society, the entrance fees being, as I have said, according to age. 602. {Chairman.) What was your expenditure in 1865 ? — The expenditure in that year was 49,172Z. 603. What were the heads under which that 49,000/. was distributed ? — To members out of employment there was 14,076/. ; to sick members, 13,785/. 14s. 9e, consistent with your rules ? — No ; a member can use his own discretion in such a case as that. 1154. {Mr. Hughes.) What rate of. payment for overtime do you take, time and a half or time and a quarter or what ? — The usual rule is that two and a half hours counts during the day for a quarter, and for overtime two hours, that is to say, half an hour less in overtime. 1155. Is the supply of labour in your trade now good ? — Yes, there are good prospects ; we consider the trade favourable. 1156. The demand for labour is very good in your trade now, is not it ?• — It is rather slack now, but there is a prospect of its being better. 1157. It has been good in the last few vears ? — Yes. 1158. And it is to that demand that you attribute the great increase of your society, I presume ? — Yes. 1159. {Mr. Harrison.) In answer to a question which was put to you just now, whether you would interfere with an employer who was taking more boys on the work than you thought was the custom of the trade, or, I suppose, was breaking any other custom of the trade. You said, I think, that you would interfere with him ; do you mean that there would be any other interference with him than refusing to work for him ? —No. 1160. No molestation of any kind ?— ^No. F4 48 TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES 01* EVIDENCE. 3I>: B. Harnott. 1161. Would not the employer be interfering with the workmen if the workmen were not free to work on any conditions that they chose to announce ? — 26 Mar. 1867. Certainly he would. 1162. {Mr. Roebuc/i.) Can you state any case in which such an interference on the j)art of the master has ever occurred ? — I understand the question put to me to be this, whether, if the employer does not work according to the usual system or rules of the society, we would consider it an infringement of our rights, and would refuse to work for him ; and I say that we should. 1163. {Mr. Harrison.) My question is, whether you would otherwise molest him than by simply refusing to work for him ? — No, not at all. 1 164. Let me ask you a few questions with reference to one or two particular strikes in which your society has been recently engaged, and Avhich may briug out some facts of importance. There has recently been a strike of stonemasons at Newcastle, I believe ? — Yes. 1165. Are you acquainted with the facts of that strike ? — Yes. 1166. There is a long notice of that, I believe. In the Ncivcastle Daily Chronicle of February 22nd of this year, giving an account of the meeting and of the close of the strike ? — There is. 1167. May that statement be taken as generally correct ? — ^Yes, the termination was by ballot. 1 168. How long had the strike existed, and what did it arise in — It arose in this way : the men applied to the employers about the 1st of last May for a re- duction of the hours of labour (it is commonly called working nine hours per day) at the same rate of wages, they were receiving 4s. &d. a day at that time. 1169. {Mr. Mathews.) How many hours were they working previously ? — 55^, and they wished a reduction to 50-j hours per week. 1170. That is to say they wished a reduction to the extent of 1-1 1th of the hours of labour with the same rate of wages ? — Yes. 1171. {Mr. Harrison.) Is it not the case that at the end of a several months strike, and previous to the meeting at which the strike was closed, the em- ployers came forward and offered a rise of wages ? — They did. 1172. From what amount to what amount ? — From 27«. up to 30*. a week, that is to say from 4«. Qd. to 5s. per day, provided the men would vv^ork the same number of hours. 1173. That is to say they offered a rise of 3*. in the week ? — Yes. 1174. Was that equivalent to the difference in hours ? — Scarcely, I think, the wage would come to about 6d. an hour. 1175. If the men work at 61:?. an hour and there is a reduction of an hour a day for six days that makes a reduction in the week of 3«., does it not 'i — ^Yes. 1176. Then the 3«. is the exact equivalent in wages of the hour ever}' day which was demanded to be taken off ? — That would be so if it were six hours re- duction in the week, but it was five hours that the men wanted. 1177. Then in that case the advance in wages offered is not " scarcely " an equivalent, but it is rather more than an equivalent for the proposed ra- duction in hours, the men demanded five hours shorter time, which at Qd. an hour would make 2s. 6d. dif- ference a week, and the masters offered them an advance not of 2s. Qd. a week but of 3*. a week ? — Yes. 1178. Is this a correct account of the circum- stances, that the men determined in the spring of last year upon a I'eduction of hours to the extent of five hours a week, and that a strike took place which lasted during the whole of last year ? — About nine months. 1179. And that at the beginning of this year the masters came forward and offered a rise of v,fages, which was more than equivalent to the difference of time ? — Yes, they did ; I think it was last autumn that they offered the rise, at the time while the strike was going on. 1180. It is stated in this paper (and I wish to ask you whether it is correct) that a meeting was held at Newcastle, at which all the masons in the town, both society and non-society men, were present that a deputation from the masters attended, that three speakers were chosen from both sides ; the masters urging the advantage of the men taking 3s. a week in advanced wages, and the men urging the advantage of taking a reduction of the hours of labour ; that there was then a ballot taken under the eyes of the chairman of the meeting, at which all masons then present voted ? — Yes. 1181. And I see that it is further stated in this paper that the chairman said that 422 had voted, out of which number 401 had voted for the nine hours and 21 for tlie 30*. a week ; that the result was received with loud and prolonged cheering, and that the strike was brought to an end by that means ? — Yes, and they are now going on harmoniously to- gether. 1182. Not at 30,5. a week, which was offfered to them, but at 21s. a week with a reduction of the hours of labour ? — Yes. 1183. {Mr. Mathews.) They are going on now with the shorter hours, the nine hours ? — Yes. 1184. {Mr. Harrison.) Has the society succeeded in reducing the hours of labour to nine hours in other towns besides Newcastle ? — Yes ; there are many- other towns where the men are novv working nine hours, and I hate no doubt that it is partly attribu- table to the operation of this society. 1185. The society aims at that I presume ? — Yes ; some towns would not exactly take the nine hours, but they would take what we call the Saturday half- holiday. 1186. {BIr. Roebuck^ What is the advantage which you expect from a reduced number of hours of work, rather than from increased wages ? — It is considered that it causes more men to be employed ; there is work for an increased number of hands. 1187. {Mr. Hughes.) Have you any educational object in advocating the leduction of hours rather than the increase of wages ; any other object besides merely increasing the number of men who shall be employed ? — No other object, except where the men embrace the opportunity of the leisure hours in attend- ing mechanics institutions and other places of that kind. 1188. {Mr. Matheios.) You think, as I understand you, that the effect of shortening the hours of labour would be to throw more work generally upon the trade, and that, coupled with a restriction as to apprenticeship, would increase the advantage which tlie men have over their employers ? — Yes. 1189. {Mr. Harriso7i.) What were the circum- stances relating to a strike which occurred at Ply- mouth in the course of last year, I believe ? — It was in 1865, I think, when that strike occurred ; it was for an advance of wages originally, as well as to establish a code of local working rules suitable to the trade of the locality. 1190. Was it successful ?- In the end it was. 1191. (ilfr. Roebuck.) Was there an increased de- mand for work at that time ; was the work brisk ? Just about the usual run, I believe, in that quarter. 1192. Why did they ask for an increase of wages ? —They thought that through the advance in the price of provisions, cottage rent, and so on. to which they had been liable, they were entitled to it ; that was the reason of the strike. 1193. Then the increase of wages was asked for on that occasion, because of the increase in the price of provisions ? — Yes. 1194. {Mr. Harrison.) Does the union insist upon all members of the society at the same place receiving exactly the same rate of wages ?— No, the society do not cultivate that at all, unless men are competent workmen. In various parts where there are members of our society, they do not all receive alil-.e. I allude to what are called journeymen. 1 195. I see that there is one of the rules at page 32 TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION :— MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 49 " That members through old age or infirmity, who " are not able to earu the current wages, it shall be " decided by the lodge of which they are members the " amount of wages they are to be remunerated with ; " the decision to be binding on such members." Does that mean that where members arc not capable of eai-ning the usual rate of wages no difficulty will be made in the way of their taldug a low scale of wages? —That is the meaning. 1196. But a perfectly skilled and able Avorkman is expected not to work below the minimum ? — Yes. 1197. Does the society fix a maximum beyond which no man shall receive ; docs it interfere with that at all ? — No. 1198. Are there cases in practice in the trade of masons in the same town, for instance, or in the same works, receiving different rates of wages according to their skill ? — There are many members of the society that do receive more than the current rate of wages. 1199. Is there nothing either in the practice or in the rules of the society which would prevent a very efficient and exceptionally skilful man from making the best of his labour ? — Nothing at all. 1200. {Mr. Roebuck.) Can you give us any idea of what the difference is that exists between an unskilled and a skilled labourer in masonry. Have you any notion of it yourself ? — The efficiency of the skilled man will soon show itself over the unskilled. 1201. Then how can you fix the wages ? — By the average amount of work performed. 1202. That I will assume ; but I want to ascertain if you knoNv the difference between A B. and C D ? — No, I do not know that we do. 1203. Then how can you fix the wages ? — By the amount of labour done. 1204. That brings me back to my question, have you any idea of the work done by one man as com- pared with another ? — It is soon observed by men acquainted with the trade. 1205. Are you not acquainted with the trade ? — TTes, I am acquainted with the trade. 1206; WiU you tell me any difference that you see between a highly skilled workman and an unskilled workman, both being what you would call competent workmen ? — I should see a difference. 1207. What is the difference ? — In the labour that they perform. 1208. I want to know whether you know any dis- tinct money difference between two such men ? — No, I do not. 1209. Let me put the question to you in this way, supposing that a highly skilled labourer comes to a particular master and wishes to engage with him, and that another man comes who is a \isrj mediocre man, what you might call a middle-class man, in the way of work, what would the first man ask ? — We would expect that he would ask the current rate going. 1210. So that the highly skilled labourer would never seek to have any more than the current rate ? — He would not ask it in the capacity of a workman, if the employer chose to give him more it would be another thing. 1211. Did you ever hear of an employer offering more than was asked ? — Yes. 1212. {Mr. Harrison.) Supposing the case of a skilled and strong workman who is decidedly above the average of men, that is to say, can do moi'c work without in the slightest degree making himself ineffi- cient as a workman, without injuring his strength or health, does the society turn such a man out of the shop or job ? — No, it will not turn him out ; he is generally remonstrated with. 1213. And tliis eleventh rule which speaks of mem- bers " chasing " their fellow- workmen means that ? — Yes, by over exertion. 1214. Supposing the case of a man who is stronger than most men, who is also more skilful than most men, and who can with perfect ease to himself produce more stonework and better stonework, say in a day, than most men can, and can do so without intentionally 18425. momentarily exerting himself, does rule 1 1 prevent a man Ixom so working or not ? — Certainly it does. 1215. {Mr. Roebuck.) I want to know whether you consider yom-self a better judge of the man's capacity for work than the man himself? — We consider that we know what he ought to do. 1216. What do you mean by that ? — A fair average day's work. 1217. That is what he ought to do with reference to his fellow-workmen ? — Yes. 1218. Not with reference to himself ? — No. 1219. His own interest is to be sunk in the general interest then ? — He is expected to adhere to the average of a fair day's work. 1220. So he is to be a wonderfully patriotic mason and sink his own advantage for the sake of the ad- vantage of the general class of masons ? — You may look at it in that way. 1221. Therefore you take away from the man the advantage which God has given him ? — I do not know about that. 1222. {Mr. Harrison.) Is not the effect of rule 1 1 to prevent a very efficient man from developing his skill and rising above the average ; is it so intended ? — It is not exactly so intended ; it does not apply in cases of that sort. Men v/iU sometimes go in and do over the average amount of labour in a rough kind of way and not do it in a workmanlike manner. If they were to do it in a workmanlike manner they would get over less work than if they did it in a rough manner. 1223. {Mr. Roebuck.) But does not the master see that ? — He may see it, of course. 1224. If he sees it, why does not he take notice of it ? — If clerks of works will allow it to pass it causes very inefficient work. 1225. {Mr. Merivale.) Supposing that an employer says " I should be glad to take John on at 5«. a day, " which is rather above the contract, he being a very " good workman, and I should be glad to take Thomas " on but not give him more than As., which is rather '■ below tlie contract, he being a bad employer," can he do that, supposing both of them to be Union men ? — So far as the society is concerned, it does not in- terfere with a superior man receiving what he can get, nor does it interfere with an inferior man who is not up to the average. 1226. But woidd they leave the employer to decide that, or would the lodge decide it ftir him ? — The lodge, by the evidence of the men working in the sam.e shop. 1227. {Mr. Harrison.) With regard to this 11th rule, do you not find in practice that the 11th rule interpreted as you have just interpreted it prevents men from becoming, or being known as eminently skilled workmen. Is not the effect of that rule to check efficiency of work ? — No, its effect is to perform effi- cient work. 1228. How does it operate otherwise ? — It is to check inefficiency of work, because if a jnan is above the average in the vrork that he does he generally does his work in a slovenly sort of manner, and of course gets over more work in that way. 1229. I say, supposing the case of a man who does more work than other men, and at the same time does it better, and yet without even temporarily distressino- himself, that is to say, supposing he can do it day by day the year round, that he is in fact both a better workman and a faster workman than other loeople is that 11th rule directed against that man? Yes- of course he would come under it. 1230. Then I ask whether if that 11th rule beinc practically acted upon must not necessarily prevent the advance of such a highly skUled man as I have described ? — I think it cultivates efficiency. 1231. Is rule 11 carried out in practice throughout the society ? — It has been in two or three cases perhaps. I may say that that rule has only been in the rule-book about 2^ years. The rules are revised once in three years, and that rule was introduced on the last revision, and it is yery probable that on the next revision which takes place that rule may be expunged altogether. G Mr.R. Hamott. 23 Mar. 1867. 50 TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION; — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Mr.R. Harriott. 1232. This book, of rules now in my hand is the set of rules" of 1862, the rule in question is not in that as I understand you ? — No it is not there. 26 Mar. 1867. ^233. (^Mr. Booth) The present rule book is an improved edition, in fact ? — Yes, a later edition. 1234. {Mr. Harrison.) Ai'e men struck out or got rid off under this 11th rule, or if not that have such men in practice been put in the black list ? — If the fine is not paid they vfould be. 1235. Do you know men, for instance, whose names were in the list who have been put there under such circumstances, that is to say, in consequence of not paying the fine under rule 1 1 ? — I do not know one of that class. 1236. {Mr. Roebuck.) Supposing that this wonder- fully efiicient workman to whom reference has been made, did more work and did it well, and that he was a good .and virtuous man too, would you exclude him for a violation of rule 11 ? — No, there are not many men who can perfoi-m such an extraordinary amount of work over another efiRcient workman. 1237. But you would punish him? — We should fine him. 1238. You would fine the good man and the better workman because he was a good man and a better workman ? — According to that rule. 1239. {Mr. Mathews.) What if he did not pay the fine ? — He would still have the opportunity of work- ing; the society could not say that he should not work anywhere else. 1240. {Chairman.) He might get work if he could, but nothing from the society ?• — Yes. 1241. {Mr. Mathews.) Supposing he were fined for an infraction of this 11th rule and refused to pay the fine, he would be excluded from your society, I suppose ? — Where there was a majority of society men. 1242. Supposing the employer were to say, " This " is a very valuable and good workman, therefore I " will employ him notwithstanding that he has been " excluded from the union," would the union men in that case strike till that man was discharged by his employer ? — Yes, as far as that man was concerned they would do so. 1243. {Mr. Harrison.) With regard to trade customs a code of rules I mean, agreed upon between the em- ployers and the employed, there are a great many instances of that in your trade are there not ? — Yes, we have a great many local rules that are agreed between employers and employed. 1244. Have you found in practice that the establish- ment of such a code of rules works well ? — They work very well ; it promotes a mutual understanding I etween employers and employed. 1245. Have you found in practice that it has put an end to the frequency of disputes in the trade ? — Yes, constantly. 1246. {Mr. Roebuck.) What do you mean .by " working well " ?■ — I mean working harmoniously together, so as to prevent strikes. 1247. That the men get what they want and there- fore, getting what they want they do not strike ; that is what you mean by " working well " ? — They work harmoniously together, employers and employed. 8248. {Mr. Harrison.) You mean that the rules are adopted and carried out and no dispute arises upon them 'i — Yes. 1249. Could you mention any towns where that has been found practically to be the case ? — In most cases where it has been adopted, we have a proviso with regard to the rules, that in the event of either the employers or the employed wishing to make any alterations in those rules which have been mutually agreed to, notice must be given a certain length of time before, either three or six months ; it generally runs six months. 1 250. {Mr. Roebuck.) Did you ever know a case of such a notice being given ? — Yes, ft-equently. 1251. Did you ever know it given by the masters and agreed to by the men ? — I have known isolated cases, one, for instance, at Bath last year. 1252. Do you know any case in which the masters have given notice that they wanted a particular altera- tion and that alteration has been agreed to by the workmen ? ^No, I do not, but there are several notices for alterations now pending from employers, that is to say, notices for alterations to come into operation on the 1st of May. 1253. What do you mean by pending ? — A notice as been given by the employers. 1254. But have any been agreed to ? — The notice has not expired in the cases I have before alluded to. 1255. {Mr. Harrison.) You have no case to men- tion of that character ?— We have had none until now. 1256. {Mr. Roebuck.) You have only a notice now in which the masters have announced their wish ? — Yes. 1257. But you have no case to mention in which the workmen have acceded to the request of the masters ? — Yes, one case at Bath. 1258. {Mr. Hughes.) Have the masters ever tried any case ? — Not before last year. 1259. {Mr. Merivale.) What did you mean when you spoke of the notice not having come into opera- tion yet ? — There is a six months' interval which stands between the employers and the employed, and this is a notice given by the employers to the em- ployed. 1260. {3Ir. Mathews.) As to piece work, does your society recognize piece work ? — No. 1261. So that if an employer of labour wanted to erect a stone building, and he were to say to one of these intelligent workmen, " Will you undertake this by contract and pay your own men," the society would discourage it ? — If he would find his own materials the society would not discourage it. 1262. Then he would be an employer, but if he remained a workman and wished to take it by contract in that way the society would discourage it ? — Yes. 1263. And if the employer were to persevere in giving the work to the men in that manner then the members of the society would strike ? — Yes. 1264. {Mr. Harrison.) I see that in the " Beehive " for the 18th August 1866 there are a few lines with reference to a strike at Chatham Dock "A strike of " the masons employed on these works by Mr. Foord, " the contractor, has taken place consequent upon the " contractor introducing a labourer on the works as a " mason. The contractor was waited upon by a depu- " tation from the men, and asked to remove the man " who had not been taught the trade. This request " was refused, and the whole of the skilled workmen, " 21 in number, at once left the works. Mr. Foord " has advertised in the London and local papers for " 50 masons, but he has not yet obtained any. Two " men came down, attracted by the advertisement, " but on hearing how matters stood they at once left " the town like men. Our object is to prevent men " coming down here until the question is settled. " Nathaniel Willing, Lodge Secretary; E. Bakee, " Strike Secretary." Do you remember the circum- stances of that afiair ? — ^Yes. 1265. Does that paragraph correctly explain the state of things ?— Yes, it is quite right." 1266. Will you explain to us what was the ground really of that refusal to work with the labourer — ^how was the labourer proposed ? — He was put to work at some portion of the trade ; he was taken from the labouring department and put to work on stone. 1267. {Mr. Roebuck.) Could he do the work that the master wanted him to do ? — I do not know. 1268. Do not you think that the master was a good judge of that ?— I do not know about that. 1269. The master determined to take his work ?— Yes. 1270. Then I want to know if the master deter- mined to take his work, and considered him good enough for his purpose, what the masons had to do with it ?— Of course he had not served his time at the trade at all. 1271. Because he had not served his time at the trade, although he was able to do the work, you (I TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION :—i-MINDTES OF i EVIDENCE. 51 do not mean you individually but you as a trade) ob- jected to him ? — Well, it appears very unlikely that a labouring man can take all the work of a trade like another man who has served his apprenticeship to it. 1272. Do not you think that the master was as good a judge as any one of what the man could do, and if he determined to receive his labour and pay for it why should you intefere with that ? — It would be a great question to my mind whether he would pay him a mason's wages. 1273. But supposing that he paid him less what is that to you ? — It would be contrary to. the rules of the trade. 1274. {Mr. Harrison.) Would the man in that case be working along with other men who were com- petent workmen, would they in fact be assisting him to get through work for which he was not competent ? — No, I do not suppose they would. 1275. That was not the objection raised ? — No, I do not think it was. 1276. {Sir D. Gooch.) Will you explain the heading '• A summary of illegal items," which I find in your annual audit ? — That means money paid away in cases of strikes to parties who were not entitled to it. 1277. Are these moneys ia regard to which a society has refused to audit the accounts of the various lodges ? — It is not in accordance with the society's rules, that is to say those who have received that money have not been entitled to it. 1278. How do you deal with the case ? — That money has been paid ; it is a dead loss to the society. 1279. You do not make the individual officers re- sponsible for illegal payments ? — No, we cannot. 1280. {Mr. Hughes.') If the branch society pays up you strike it out, I suppose ? — ^Yes ; sometimes the men make local levies among themselves in such a case. 1281. {Sir D. Gooch.) You mentioned doctors as one of the items of your expenditure ? — Yes. 1282. How do you pay doctors ? — At the rate of so much per member according to the respective lodges. 1283. {Mr. Roebuck.) I think you mentioned that sometimes your trade society was also a benefit society, and that one of the advantages that a man got was payment on the death of his children ? — Yes. 1284. What is that payment for ? — Funeral money, 21. by contributing Id. per week towards the general fund. 1285. {Sir D. Gooch.) You do not allow a brick- layer to lay stone at all, do you ? — No. 1286. {Mr. Roebuck.) Even though he can do it ? — I do not know about his being able to do it. 1287. But supposing a bricklayer can lay stone, would you prevent his laying it ? — Yes, if he professed to be a bricklayer. 1288. {Mr. Mathews.) So that if a bricklayer were to lay stonework and there were other work to be done on that particular job by stonemasons, they would make him undo that work before they would go to their work ; that would be consistent with your regulations, would it not? — Yes. But on the other hand I may remark that our men do not interfere with brickwork. 1289. {Sir D. Gooch.) With reference to skilled labour, you said that a man should not be free to over exert himself ? — ^Yes. 1290. I presume that skill means something more than better execution of work ; it means more rapid execution of work. A skilled man can produce work with less exertion than another. Skill implies speed therefore as well as quahty ? — ^Not exactly so. There are some skilled men in all trades that are used to ornamental work ; carving for instance. 1291. But I ask whether the term " skilled work- man " does not mean that a man can turn out more work with less exertion than an unskilled workman ? — I do not say that. 1292. That is so in practice, is it not?— To some extent it may be so. . ; 1293. But to a great extent, is it not ? — Not exactly. There dre certainly members of the stonemasons' trade who would be considei'ed skilled workmen, but are not so efficient at the trade as some of those first-rate men. 1294. What are they skilled in if they are not efficient ? — Certainly a man must be considered to be a skilled workman if he knows how to get over his work at all in a fair way. 1295. I want to separate between the ordinary man and the skilled man. I want to see whether the skilled man may not be able to do the work with greater ease to himself, that is to say with less of exertion to himself, so that he may do a greater amount of work than the unskilled man can, from the facility he has acquired of doing his work ? — The rule wov)ld apply to such a man as that, I will admit. 1296. {Chairman.) Have not you known men who were employed to build both the stonework and the brickwork ; for instance, a stone wall to a house with brick quoins, or a brick wall to a house with stone quoins ? — It is not generally done. I think each trade keeps itself to itself as a rule. 1297. Has not your experience led you to know that, in every country place in England you will find the same men building a stone wall with brick quoins or a brick wall with stone quoins ? — I do not think it would be so except in some small country places. 1298. {Mr. Harrison.) Are you able to say whether physicians are in the habit of meeting apothecaries in consultation ? — I believe they are very much opposed to each other. 1299. On page 45 of your rules I find this : " Should " any member without a wife, nominee, or next of " kin, meet such death, the society shall see him in- " terred ;" all that is very good, but then it goes on " the surplus to be added to the funds "? — Yes. 1300. Does that mean that the society declares itself next of kin to every member who dies without other relation, or what is the meaning of it ? — The meaning of that rule is that when any member dies and has no relatives near him (as is the case some- times) and none can be found, then the officers of that lodge see to the decent interment of that member, and if there is any surplus money over and above the funeral expenses, it is returned to the society. 1301. Surplus money in the hands of the society you mean ? — ^Yes. 1302. {Mr. Booth.) I understand that there has been for some time a strike in the masons' trade at Carlisle, do you know anything about that ? — Yes. 1303. How long did it last? — It lasted about nine months. 1304. What was the origin of that strike ? — A demand for an advance of wages, indeed I think it was a little of both, advance of wages, and shortening of hours of labour. ',- 1305. But that was not acceded to by the employers was it ? — The employers in the end advanced 2s. per week on the rate of wages. 1306. And thereupon the strike ceased ? — Yes. 1307. Does the strike then exist no longer now ? — It terminated about the middle of February last. 1308. {Lord Elcho.) On page 201 of your annual audit there is an item of 9/. 7*. Zd. put opposite " Black lists," what is that ? — That is for black lists sold. 1309. Is that the expense of printing the black lists ? — No, it is under the head of income. It is for lists sold to members. 1310. Do you mean lists of men who had been ex- pelled from the society ? — Men who had worked in opposition, as we term it. 1311. Have you any such lists with you? — Yes {producing one). 1312. {Mr. Harrison.) Have you any black lists of masters' associations ? — No, I have not. 1313. Do you know of the existence of such ? — I know if a strike takes place in any firm belonging to the Masters Association, the names of the men on strike are sent round, and they are not employed by those firms. - 1314. Yqu have not seen such a list yom-seif? — ^Yes, G 2 Mr.R. Harnolt. 26 Mar. 1867. 52 TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION :— MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Mr.B. Harriott, 26 Mar. 1S67. and I know there is a rule; for instance, in the mas- ters' association in the West Ridmg of Yorkshire that if a strike takes place in any firm of their association, a list is sent round of the men's names that are on strike, in order that they may not be employed by any of those firms. 1315. It is like that list of your own 1 suppose, without the picture ?— Yes, something like it. 1316. {Mj: Hughes.) Do you consider that the young masons are as good workmen as the old ones ? 1317. You think that you get as good work done now as you could 20 years ago ? — Yes. The witness 1318. (Lord Elcho.) That good workmen, of whom we have heard so much, who might for " chasing " have been turned out of your society under rule 11, might have been a subscriber, I suppose, for any num- ber of years to your society for its benefit as well as its trade purposes, and if you turned him out he would lose the benefit of that subscription entirely ? — Yes, if he did not pay the fine stated in the rule. 1319. And he would be turned out in that case for being an unusually active workman ? — Yes. 1320. {Mr. Hughes.) But he would have enjoyed the benefit of the society up to that time ? — Yes, cer- tainly. withdrew. Adjourned to Tuesday next at 11 o'clock. 1, Park Prospect, Westminster, Tuesday, 2d April 1867. Present : Mr. T. Connolly. 2 April 1867. The Eight. Hon. Sir William Erle. The Right Hon. the Earl of Lichfield. Lord Elcho, M.P. The Eight Hon. Sir Edmund Walkee Head, Bart., K.C.B. Sir Daniel Gooch, Bart., M.P. Herman Merivale, Esq., C.B. James Booth, Esq., C.B. John Arthur Roebuck, Esq., M.P. Thomas Hughes, Esq., M.P. Frederic Harrison, Esq. William Mathews, Esq. The Eight Hon. SIR vVILLIAM ERLE in the Chair. Mr. Thomas Con 1321. {Chairman.) I believe you Avish to make some statement to the Commission; will you first inform us what is your trade ? — I am a stonemason, and I am a member of the Stonemasons' Society. I first joined it in Deceraber 1854. 1322. I believe you were present at the examination of Mr. Hiirnott ?— Yes. 1323. You were attending then as one of the Trades Delegates Conference, were you not? — ^Yes. 1324. You heard the evidence given by Mr. Harnott ? — Yes. 1325. And I understand that you wish to make a statement in explanation of some part of his evidence ? ISTot so much that as to continue his evidence by giving a further explanation of our objects, because I think that, as far as he went, he treated the question satisfactorily. I think that his evidence might be extended so as to show still more the usefulness of our society in preventing disputes between employers and employed. With reference to the explanation which was given of one of the rules, namely, the mle with respect to " chasing," I think that that will bear a still further interpretation. I have worked at the trade and as a member of the society for many years, and I have worked in most of the principal shops in London, and I unhesitatingly declare that I could never see that any o]ie of our rules restrained us from doing a fair day's work, although, perhaps, as that particular portion of the rule in question is worded, it appears as if it were in restraint of trade. 1326. What is it that you now wish to show ? — The object of the introduction of that rule. Our rules are made by the men themselves ; they are not made for them. Whatever rules are embodied in that book of rules before the Commissioners are there as the result of the votes of the majority of our men through the whole society. Whatever rules there are the men make them themselves, that is to say, they are not made for the society by a committee, or anything of that kind, but by the men themselves for the society. 1327. I think it was explained to us that the rules are proposed first by a branch committee, then sent up to the general committee, and then sent back again and passed by a majority of the votes of the whole of the society, and that if an amendment is proposed that is voted upon first, in that way the vote of every member of the society being taken before any law is made or altered. Is that so ? — Yes, and that rule to NOLLY examined. which I have just referred has only existed since the last revision, which took place not quite three years ago. The reason of introducing that rule at all into the book was this, heretofore, more than at present, there was a practice amongst the employers of this kind ; if one of them met a strong and skilful man (it is very exceptional in the trade to get those two qualities combined, in other words it is not often that you can find men v>'ho are both strong and skilful), desiring to knock as much labour out of his man as he could for his money, he would give him Qd. a day more, and that man would always keep at the top of his speed and drive the other men on, while they were en- deavouring to do as much work as they could, because nobody likes to be left behind. That was the practice to a larger extent heretofore than at present, but I must say that that is practised very little in London. 1328. {Mr. Roebuck.) Is there any harm in that practice ? — This harm, that it creates great incon- venience for the Avorkmen to go on at the top of their speed, it impairs their health and hastens their death. 1329. But is it not so throughout life wherever competition exists ? — No ; there is not blood money in other cases — ^I mean one man is not paid for actually driving his fellow-men on and killing them. 1330. Is it not so with a lawyer for instance. The lawyer receives a larger fee than his junior, and so drives his junior on, and that is what you call blood money ? — ^But it is one thing to drive a man's intellect on, and another thing to drive his bones. 1331. I suppose the driving of the intellect is the more painful thing of the two ? — I do not know that, it is' one thing to do manual work ten hours a day, and another thing to work at the bar. The rule, of which we are now talldug, was never put in to prevent a man doing a iiiir and proper day's A^ork, and I may add that it never has prevented that. I once was appointed to wait upon one of the most eminent and respectable master builders in England, that is Mr. George Smith, who is the contractor for the new Government offices here, and he told me that masons did the fairest day's work of any class of men con- nected with the building trade, and that there was more profit from their labour than from that of any other class of workmen connected with the trade. 1332. {Chairman.) With reference then to that rule which prohibits " chasing," you say that it was introduced because if an employer met with a man TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 53 who combined great muscular strength with skill and gave him 6d. a day extra wage, that man got ahead of his fellow workmen and induced them to over exert themselves, therefore he was directed not to exert his extraordinary power ? — Exactly so. 1333. That is what we understood from Mr. Harnott, that if a man had that extraordinary combination of strength and skill, he was not to exert himself to the utmost, but to bring himself down to an average day's work, to bring himself down to the level of other men, in fact ? — It never was intended to put men on a level, but we know that men exert themselves beyond their natm'al strength, we know that men in every walk of life accelerate their own death, and ai'e often not the best judges of their own actions. 1334. Do you wish to add anything in explanation to what the last witness said? — I might say, with reference to piece work, that there are a great number of members of om* society who work on piece work dovsm about Plymouth and in Cornwall and that way, but the society do all they can to discountenance piece work, because they know fuU well that piece work has an inevitable tendency to reduce the wages of the men as a whole, and to deteriorate the health of the men ; and no greater evidence can be aflbrded of that than the fact that the great bulk of our sick members, men who find it necessary to provide for themselves in sick- ness, are down in that district. 1335. {Mr. Harrison.) Can you explain, what I do not thoroughly understand, the meaning of the phrase " the first portion of each description of work," which occurs in that rule on chasing, in this connexion, " Not " to take less time than that taken by an average " mason in the execution of the first portion of each " description of work is the practice that should be " adopted among us as much as possible " ? — Suppose the case of a building where there were a number of window-jambs, in that case it would be the first window-jambs which would decide it, that is to say, the length of time taken up on them would govern the length of time which should be taken up on others. 1336. (Sir E. W. Head.) It makes a sort of standard in fact, which regulates the time taken afterwards ? — Precisely. 1337. So that the time taken to execute the first portion is the measure of what is the fair time for the subsequent portions in the same kind of work? — Precisely. 1338. {Mr. Harrison^ What is the history of this rule, when did it first come in or how was it adopted ? — As was before explained, sometimes when two men happened to have a dispute, a pubHc-house quarrel or something of that kind, they came into their shop, and one of them if he could not revenge himself in any other way with his feUow workman endeavoured to do more work than he did, and, of course, no man likes to be behind another ; therefore, seeing that the practice was leading to such inconvenience in workshops, dragging one man who worked regularly eveiy day all the year round (and those are after ;svork at Kensington Museum? — 2 April 1867, N.Q-; • iSSO. Ho you know anything of Government work under the Qrdnance Department ? — No. I may men- tion the fact that I was S/t work for the Government at Enfield, and while I was there, in consequence of thq -strictness of the clerk of the wQrks, the work was done in a superior manner to what it is generally on public, buildipgs.^ , 1,591. Was there any engineer or ordnance offici;r in icharge of that work? — I think Mr. Cheeny, a mason, was the head one there. 1:592»- It was not done then under military super- vision, but the clerk of the works was a civilian ? — Just so. ' 1593. In your trade is there such a system as what ydu edll piequeting ?.,— Yes. 1594.1 Under your rules how is that carried out ? — When an employer infringed our customs and refuses to'>56ihply with the conditions of the working rules there set forth, or with the demands of the men for an .advance of wages, we report to the society the names of the men who are working on that job, and we appoint a man to watch there, and as far as possible tolhse all the influence he can to get the men away from the job. 1.595. That is to say, to use his influence with ncm- sooiety men? — With non-society men or with any other men that might be on the work. 1596. What influence has he over non-society men ? — No other influence than this : the first opportunity he has he will speak to the man and point out the injury that we consider he is forcing upon our societ}'. as well as the injury to himself, and he will endeavour td get him to leave the job. 1597. (^Mr. Roebuck.) But in regard to this non- society man, supposing that he had no other employ- ment, and that this was a job which he had got, how vrould it be an injury to him to go on to that job ? — He would be doing an injury to our men by taking their place. 1598. But he would be doing no injury to himself, surely ? — No, perhaps not. , 1599. Or to non-society men ? — Or to non-society men. 1600. And supposing he took that view of it, that it was not an injury to himself or to non-society men, and supposing he did not care for the rules of the society, what would be the next step ? — The next step would be that our men would report him to our Strike Committee. 1601. And what then ? — His name would be cir- culated anongst'the members, who would be informed what he had done. 1602. So that the result would be tliat he, being a non-society man, his name would be reported to the members, and they would not work with that man on further jobs; that is the next step, I imagine? — ;Our rules give no authority to men to cease work against any non-society man, let him have.conimitted himself against any of ovn members. 1603. Then what is the object of reporting him, if no result is to follow from that reporting ? — The society takes no action, it rests entirely with the men. 1604. What action do the men take? — They shun him generally ; send him to Coventry. 1605. They wiU not work on a building where he is, you mean ? — Yes, they will work on the building, but !-eud him to Coventry. 1606. They do not speak to him ? — Just so. 1607. {Mr. Mathews.) There is no physical obstacle, but a moral obstacle is put in the man's, way ?^ — ^Yes,; .1608. (iorrf.£^ZcA«)») Have, you a black hst? — No,, 1609. You have stated that you have 5,700 member's in your society ? — 'YeS, :';r','i' i' , v, - i 16ip. Ypui'S.js not tbeonl/. society ? — No, there' is another at Sheffield. 1611. You have a branch society in Scotland, have you not ? — ^Yes, at Edinbm-gh and Motherwell. 1612. Do you know the extent of that other so- ciety at Sheffield ? — I believe it numbers 6,000 to 7,000 members. , 1613. Are the Scotch societies that belong to youi-s. included in the figure 5,700 ? — ^Yes. 1614. What is the total number of bricklayer.s in the Upited Kingdom ? — I do not know. 1615. Have you any idea ? — I have heard that it is from 20,000 to 30,000. 1616. {Mr. Roebuck.) Do you know any particular insttoce of picqueting here in London .'' — No, we have not had a picquet on a job in London since 1861, except at the Metropolitan District Railway in 1866. 1617. Do you recollect what occurred in 1861 ? — Yes. 1618. Was there any violence used during that picqueting ? — No violence was used at all. 1619. Was there no accusation of violence ? — No accusation of violence. 1620. {Mr. Harrison.) Is that Sheffield society the same one that used to be at Manchester ; is it the northern association ? — Yes. 1621. (^Sir E. TV. Head.) Supposing such a case an you were describing just now, in which a non-society man had taken the place of a society man, did yoii ever know of society men going to work there not, professing to be society men ?— No. 1622. You never knew a case in which, though pro- fessing not to belong to the society but to be inde- pendent workmen, they went to work with a master whom the society men had left ? — No, I do not know of a case like that. 1623. You would be surprised if such a case were produced ? — I should not be surprised, because some of our members go out of limits every quarter, and it might be that some of those men would say that they were not fairly connected with the society. 1624. Is it the case that it is no part of the practice of your society to send their members under false pre- tence, as it were, to endeavour to induce other men to leave the work ? — Not to my knowledge, since I have been a member of it, has such a thing been done. 1625. {Mr. Booth.) Have you any return of the, number of your society who are out of work from time to time ? — No. ,1626. Have you no means of knowing the number? — We could know the number, but we have not received an official return of that. 1627. {Mr. Hughes.) You have had several h-ade disputes in the neighbourhood of Loudon within the last few yeai-s. Have any of the men who have taken an active part in them become marked men and been unable to obtain work in consequence, do you know ? — The leaders that are connected with those dispul."s have always found difficulty in getting employment. I may state, for instance, that in 1861, while the rail- way was going on at Victoria station, some of the cotnmittee-were there, and they were made marked nien by the foreman in charge of those works, and were discharged. 1628. Was the reason given for their discharge that, they had taken part in those trade disputes ?— They assigned no reason. If a man said, " What is the reason of my discharge," the foreman said, " Well, I do not require your services." That would be the' general result. I may mention the name of Henry Noble, who was connected with the strike in 1859. He was a marked man by the builders of London, and for months and months he could not get a job. When he applied for work on a job, the foreman would say, '■ Oh.! Harry, I am sorry to see you like this, but I' am not allowed to give you a job."" . ' The witness withdrew. TBADES UNIONS, ETC. GOMMISSION :^-^MINUTES OF EVIDEN'CE. 63 1629. {Chairman.) You are a bricldayer, I believe? — Yes. 1630. And have been in the trade for severaLyears ? —Yes. 1631. About how many years ? — About 18 years. I began at it vrhen very young. 1632. When did you become a member of the Bricklayers Operative Society ? — In 1859. 1633. Was that before the strike ?— Before the strike. 1634. Have the wages risen since you became a member ? — Very much. 1635. And have the hours been shortened ? — Yes. 1636.- In your judgment has that rise of wages and that shortening of hours been in consequence of the establishment of the unions ? — Entirely. 1637. I understood that you were concerned in the strike of 1859 ?— I was. 1638. Has any calculation been made of the money losrf occasioned by that strike ? — I think not. 1639. Since that, have there been several strikes ? — There have. 1640. Were any of them at all comparable to the one in 1859 in length of duration and in the distress that was occasioned ? — I think not. 1641. What is the one of longest duration you have known since that ? — I think some have lasted as long as 18 or 20 weeks. 1642. Have you been aware of any .objection on the part of bricklayers to working with labourers ; that is to say, persons not qvialified as bricklayers ? — Certainly. 1643. Have you ever objected yourself? — Decidedly. 1644. Has the attempt been made on many occa- sions of putting forward labourers to do the work of regular bricldayers ? — Yes, continually. 1645. Have the regular bricklayers always, as far as they could, opposed and hindered it ? — Yes. 1 646. In what way have you ever opposed it ; have you ever done anything beyond sending to Coventry a man who did it ? — Yes ; we have left work. 1647. You have left the work yourself, that is your own action, but have you done nothing against the man offending ? — Nothing more. 1648. Have you ever been party to any measures that would occasion distress to a man that did that beyond refusing to speak to him ? — That is the only course we have taken. 1649. {Mr. Roebuck.) Has no accusation been brought against you of doing anything else, or men of your trade of having used violence ? — None whatever. 1650. {Mr. Hughes.') Accusations enough have been brought against you severely ? — I should apprehend the question would rather apply to any accusation that could be supported. 1651. {Mr. Roebuck.) 1^0 ; I want to know whether there have been any charges brought against your trade ? — There have been such accusations. 1652. {Earl of Lichfield.) Are you a member of the same society as Mr. Coulson ? — I am. 1653. {Mr. Booth.) When you say that you have left work because an irregular workman was put on, do you mean that the men of your society struck on that occasion ? — They have left work. 1654. {Mr. Harrison.) You have had, you told us, 18 years experience as a practical bricklayer ? — In- cluding all the time from my boyhood, when I was first put to it. 1655. How long during that time have you con- sidered yourself a first-class workman or been able to earn first-class wages ? — I got first-class wages as soon as I came to London, and before that of course I had the wages of the town in which I had lived. That has been some twelve years. 1656. I refer to fii-st-class wages in the district in which you were at work? — That I obtained when I was 19, that is to say, some 13 years ago. 1657. Then you have always been during these Mr. George Howell examined. , ; , ' , ,,;, ; recent years a woi^kman of the first skill ; you lid,re always commanded the best wages ? — Yes. 1658. Have you been employed much upon special work which received an extra rate of pay, such work as arches, and things of that kind ? — ^No, I have taken that work, that is to say, I have done it when it has come in my turn, as it were. I have not had any special experience in that way. 1659. You said that you were not a member of the society until the year 1859, but you were previously a skilled workman commanding first-kjlass W£tges> In the year preceding 1859, before you became a member of the society, did you find that the society stood iii ihe way of your making the best of your ability or earning the highest wages which your efforts could command ? — Not in the least. '. - 1660. Did you join the society because you Con- sidered it to your benefit to do so, or because yoil were under some pressure to join it ? — No pressure what- ever. I wiU state the motive which actuated me'rnbi'e particularly to join. I had no objection to the society at any time, but that which induced me to join was that a praetical' qiieStion was coming on upon the reduction of the hours of labour, in which question I felt great interest, and I decided to cast inriiy'lot with the society at once. 1661. You have mentioned the movement of ■I'859, what was the object of that immediately ? — The reduction of the hours of labour from 10 to 9 hours jter day. _ _ ' i: 1662. With respect to the practice which has been mentioned in Mr. Coulson's evidence, the practice as to laying bricks with two hands, do you know of any rule or custom either in the union or in the trade respecting that ? — None whatever. 1663. You never heard of such a thing ? — I have heard it, and have always thought it one 6fthe sUliest things imaginable, and could ilever understand that which gave rise to such an accusation. I look upon it as equally silly to expect a man to' lay bricks with both hands, except under veiy exceptional ciHuiii- stances, as it would be to ask a clerk to write with both hands. 1664. But as a skilled workman, where the work necessitates both hands, you would not scruple to use both hands ? — No. Mr. G. Howell- 2 April 1867. 1665. You have done so, I presmne ?— Very fi'e- quently. 1666. And have never known it objected to ? — No. 1667. Do you know of any custom in the trkde W union which imposes a limit upon the amount of w'M'k which a man may do in a day or a given time ? — 'None whatever. 1668. Have you known men who have' been struck against by workmen on a job, or by a branch of theii- society, and who have been expelled in any way for being more skilful and doing more work than others ?; — Certainly not. 1 669. Or for earning moi-e wages ? — Not a single instance of it. 1670. Have you known men who have earned more wages for. extra skill ? — ^Yes. 1671. Have you done so yourself? — Yes, and paid it to other men. I have been foreman, and still con- tinued as a member of the society. 1672. You have had experience then as a foreman and as a member of the society. When you have seen a man that did more work than others in the course of the day, or who as you consideired deserved more T^ages, have you ever found any difficulty in employing such a man, even at an increased rate of wage^ ? — None what- ever ; but as a rule a foreman cannot do that, simply because he is very much restricted by the employer. 1673. In what way ? — Employers will scarcely ever give an extra rate of wages ; what we fix is the mini- mum, and we can scarcely ever induce them to give more. If more is given by a foreman it wo,uJd gene- rally be given on -those jobs that require a little speciality, so to speak. '-^ •' ■ ' H 4 64 TRADES ONIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OP EVIDENCE. Mr G Howell 1674. If you saw a man who was known to be and ' _J ■ -whom you felt to be a superior man, that is to say, really 2 April 1867. earning more wages, doing more work, what would your practice as a foreman be with respect to paying him ? — Our practice was mentioned by Mr. Coulson, that of giving him extra hours, but I always preferred myself making an extra demand for the man. I feel that it is not so honourable a thmg, and not so advantageous to the trade to pay a man an extra houi', because then you give him no premium, except in an underhand way. 1675. What is the advantage to the employer that induces him to give an extra rate of wages in certain cases ? — Generally speaking, in tliose instances the foremen places a man in a position where his skill will be most available. More particularly in our trade, but in fact in all building operations, there ai-e par- ticular portions of the budding where a skilled man would be most required. He must be employed for quoins, and for setting arches (which would be done on the scaffold), and in fact in various ways a skilled man would have a position where his skill would be most available. 1676. In your experience as a foreman, when you have employed a sldlled man at an advanced rate of wages, you have never found opposition to that from the men with whom he was working, but if opposition there was, it came from the employer who was to pay him ? — ^Yes. 1677. ( Chairman.) Did his fellow workmen know that he was receiving more ? — Yes. 1678. (Mr. Roebuck.) Is there any objection on the part of his fellow workmen to a man worlving by jjiece ? — It depends on how that is. There was one question j)ut to Mr. Coulson just now, upon which I may remark that it would be iinposisible in the oi'di- nary run of work to place a man on the scaffold tif piece work by the side of anotlier man who was doing- day work. There are natural impossibilities in it which render it impossible to be done, and it never was done that I am aware of. So that when piece- work takes place it takes place on a job which is independent of other men. There could be no objec- tion to such a thing as has been alluded to, because it could not happen in fact. 1679. Supposing that half a dozen men desired to work by piece work, could they not be put together in such a way as to enable them to do it ? — I suppose they could. But in that instance they would get the job ; two or three men would go together, and go shares ; they would take the job between them and share the profits. 1680. In your trade is there any objection generally to piece work? — The objections were correctly given by Mr. Coulson. We feel that it is not so advantageous to the trade as a whole. 1681. You mean by " the trade," the working journeymen ? — Yes. 1682. You do not mean the masters ? — We look upon it as an injury to the trade, both to the employers and to the men. 1683. WiU you explain how ? — Not looking at the particular case, but looking at the trade as a whole, the ultimate result of piece work is disastrous. 1684. How ? — The scamping of work and the un- due amount of competition which it engenders ulti- mately tend to break down wages. 1685. And breaking down wages you consider dis- astrous to the trade ? — Yes. 1686. (Mr. Harrison.) Do you consider that, prac- tically, speaking from your own experience as a fore- man, where the men are at work upon piece work they do the work in a less efficient manner than they do where working by the day ?— Naturally so, unless very carefully watched. 1687. As a rule, what is the relative character of piece work and day vrork ?— I could not give any specific relative values, but naturally the one who ha'd piece work would try and get over as much of it as possible. There would be some instances in which a man would feel a great pride in his work, and would desire to do it well and efficiently, under almost all cir- cumstances; but in the majority of instances the man who takes piece work scamps his work. 1688. (Mr. Roebuck.) The pocketing system de- scribed by Mr. Coulson was done under day work, not under piece work '^ — True ; but there is this to be said with reference to that. It is one of those cases that unions do not consider to come within their pro- vince or cognizance. Tliey do not consider that they have a right to take cognizance of it ; it is the duty of the clerks of the works to look after the efHciency of the work. The men do grumble about it. I have known it complained about many times. 1689. Would the union think it their province to interfere if they saw a man -working as they thought beyond his strength ? — ^No, I never heard of such a case. 1690. Then why is that mentioned as one of the causes of the mischief of piece work, because that has been constantly stated as one of the evils of piece work, and you yourself have said that it leads to undue competition ? — Scarcely in that instance. You find a man working beyond his strength sometimes under day work the same as under piece work, but that altogether involves another question, namely, the question of what is tei'med " chasing." 1691. Have you any of that in your trade ? — ^Yes. 1692. And you object to chasing, do you ? De- cidedly. 1693. Will you be kind enough to explain what you mean by chasing ? — The man who does it was termed by Mr. Coulson, who was last examined, a bell-horse. The man obtain 6d. or Is. a day more (I do not know how it ranges exactly, it ranges differently in sonic instances), for the purpose of pulling on the other workmen in a job. The otlier workmen natu- rally feel that if they are pulled on, and do the same amount of work as this man who is leading them, they should have the same amount of money. They do the work as well and generally better, because, gene- rally speaking, the bell-horse will not be careful about his work, he will select his own place, and not un- frequently that is the most easy place. The tendency would be to make a man do a larger quantity of work, and yet he does not receive the 6d. or Is. a day extra. 1694. Will you explain to me how it is that a man working in that way pulls on another man ? — If two men are working at the quoins they get their quoins up a certain distance so as to keep on putting the line up. The result is, that the bell-horse has his eye along the line watcliing to see the first man out, and as soon as ho sees that man out he pulls the line, and sometimes they will even remove it, and leave a man with some bricks unfinished on the first line. That is the way in which a man has been induced, for profits sake, to do it in the first instance. 1695. (3/r. Harrison.) Do you consider that the ob- jection which is made to chasing only applies where some artifice is adopted by a manager of works or a foreman to get work done in a quicker way than it would otherwise be ? — That is our only objection. Our objection of course is entirely against chasing ; it does not apply, neither do those arguments apply, against a man who from natural abilities or otherwise would do a larger amount of work ; it does not affect a man who can easily do more work than another man. 1696. (3Ir. Roebuck.) But supposing that the more adroit workman takes a piece of work and gets higher wages by his skill, would you have any objection to that ? — None whatever. 1697. Supposing he got lower wages by it, would you have aaiy objection to it ?— Certainly. 1698. So that when he, thinking that he can get so much Avages by his superior ability, therefore takes a less rate of wage, you object to that ?— May I ask whelher you mean a lower rate than we think him entitled to from his skill, or a lower wage than the minimum rate. 1699. Supposing that there are two men, A and B, that they are men of different skill, getting the same wages, and one of those men says, " I can get the same " wage as that man at a lower rate provided I work 'TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OP EVIDENCE. 65 " more," -would you object to that ? — If he took work below what is termed the average or book prices, or that which we looked upon as the average prices, we should decidedly object, the same as if he worked under price per day. 1700. {Mr. Mathews.) I think you stated that in the case of a man who w&s a superior workman in point of ability, you would give him not so much more a day, but an extra hour ? — I admitted that that Avas very frequently done as an equi^-alent. 1701. The rate of wages is uniform Qs. 8d. for men of all abilities, is it not ? — No, we do not ilx a uniform rate. 1702. You fix a minimum rate of wages ? — Yes. 1703. In the ease of a clumsy, slow, and inefficient workman, who is not able to do anything like the work of a quick and adroit workman, you do not make him work longer hours or at a lower rate of wages ? — No. 1704. The maximum is paid to the superior man, not by an additional rate of wages, but by allowing him an hour's work, which he does not in fact do ? — That is frequently done, but I admit that in many instances more money is paid. 1705. In point of fact, then, there is no encourage- ment for men of ability and skill to work more ? — I very much regret to say that tb.at is true. 1706. You think it prejudicial not only to the general interests of your particular trade, but to society ?— Yes. 1707. (Mr. Sooth.) If you pay more to the abler workman, you are obliged to disguise that in fact ? — As a rule ; that is not the fault of the union, but of the m.asters. 1708. (Mr. Hughes.) Will you explain how it is the fault of the masters ? — ^Simply because in fixing this minimum rate of wages we fix such a rate that we think a man's skill as a bricklayer should not be valued below that point ; the master is endeavouring continually to drag us down below that, to make that the maximum in fact, while we are always endeavour- ing to fix that minimum and to get the employers to give something more as a maximum for skilled labour — that they generally refuse to do. 1709. You would be very glad if, that minimum being fixed, men were paid according to their talents ? — Certainly. 1710. {Mr. Harrison.) Taking the five years pre- ceding 1859, when you were not a member of the union, and the five years after 1869 when you were a member of the union, I mean taking the same num- ber of weeks worked in the year, did you find that your wages as a whole over the year were greater in the first period or the second ? — In the second. 1711. You found that having joined the union you were enabled to earn higher wages ? — We have been enabled to get the wages up somewhat during that period. 1712. I mean, taking that fact out of consideration, can you compare those periods ? — I do not think there would be any difference. 1713. My question is this, whether in your expe- rience as a bricklayer, when not a member of the union, you found that you earned more wages then than after you were a member of the union ? — I think ■ it makes little difference whether a man be- longs to the union or not ; a man not belonging to the union obtains the same rate of wages as is obtained by union men, although it is obtained for him. 1714. I suppose, as you have been made a foreman, you were considered to liaA'e somewhat more than the average skill as a workman ? — That is not always the inference. 1715. {Sir D. Gooch.) Do I rightly understand that you are a foreman now ? — Not at present. 1716. (Mr. Harrison.) Have you ever found that you have, by one means or another, been enabled to earn more than what was the average rate, or that you were dragged down to the minimum rate of wages, or that you earned something in excess of that ? — Mine has been the average rate. 18425. 2 April 1867. 1717. Do you think that you might have earned Mr. G. Howell, more had the union not reduced the more highly skillerl man to the level of the less skilled ? — No, I think not. I think that the advantage has been on the othei- side. 1718. {Mr. Merivale.) What do you understand by tlie minimum i-ate of wages which you fix, does it not mean merely this, as much as you can get for the trade considered as an average ? — Yes. 1719. Your complaint of the masters, as I under- stand you, is that after being compelled by the union to give as much to all men as the trade can get, they will not pay something more for skilled workmen ? — Yes. 1720. {Mr. Harrison.) Does the minimtun rate mean the lowest rate which a skilled workman is paid ? — Yes, which we think he should take under any circumstances. 1721. {Mr. Hughes.) In fact you say that a skilled bricklayer shall not work below a certain rate ? — Just so. We say to him, " You are entitled to that amount, and as much more as you can get by your skill." 1722. {Mr. Harrison.) The minimum has nothing to do yni\\ partially unskilled labour ; it means the minimum for a competent workman ? — A competent workman. 1723. {Mr. Booth.) That meant a member of your union ? — ^Any competent workman, whether a member of the union or not. 1724. {Mr. Hughes.) You said that you joined this union before the strike, and threw in your lot with the society in consequence of hearing that a great question was coming on in the trade. Did any other men of your acquaintance do that, who had previously not been union men ; do you happen to know whether there were any ? — No, I do not know. It is not genei'al for an explanation to -be given as to the reasons for a man's joining. 1725. Was your joining purely voluntary ? — Purely so. I was a foreman at the time. 1726. Were you during that strike, or just about that time, an officer of the society ? — I was in the early part of 1860; I became a member of the executive then. 1727. And you have since been a foreman? — Yes. 1728. And therefore you have seen the society from three different points of view, from outside the union, as an officer, and as a foreman. Now what do you consider the effect of the union to have been generally upon the men who belong to it ? — I believe it to be advantageous in every respect. 1729. {Mr. Roebuck.) In your experience, has there been less drunkenness than when you began life as a bricklayer ? — It is very decidedly diminished. 173C. Do you attribute that at all to the union ? — • I believe that the union has had a very great deal to do with it. 1731. {Mr. Harrison.) In what way? — Owing to the kind of moral restraint that is effected in the lodges themselves ; and I may say that with regard to our own trade during the past six years, dating from the struggle which took place in 1859 up to the present time, you will see a most important difference in the lodges belonging to the bricklayers throughout the metropolitan district. The discipline of the lodge itself has a tendency to decrease drunkenness. Neither drunkenness nor swearing is allowed in the lodge room, and there is a moral self-restraint necessaiy to be exercised in the room, and the exercise of that has a most beneficial effect on the members. 1732. {Mr. Hughes.) Is there any fine for drunken- ness ? — I almost forget whether there is for drunken- ness, but there is for that which is tantamount to it, bad conduct as a result of that. 1733. {Mr. Harrison.) I see that members intoxi- cated are to be fined for refusing to leave the room. Is that what you mean? — Yes. Then again their general meeting night is Saturday night, the night when men have most money, and the discipline of the lodge has a most beneficial influence over the men in restraining them from getting intoxicated then. 66 TRADES UNIONS, EtC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OJ' EVIDENCE. Mr. G. Howell. 3 April 1867. .1734. {Mr. Hughes.) You remained in the society after you were a foreman ? — Yes. 1735. Is that usual? are there many foremen belonging to it? — -Yes, a great number ; it is quite optional. 1736. {Sir D. Gooch.) How long have you been a foreman ? — I was a foreman on some three diiFerent occasions for 12 or 15 months altogether, and on the last occasion for two years. 1737. And you went back to bricklaying ? — No, some other employment oiFered itself to me. , 1738. I am not asking an improper question, perhaps, in asking what your employment is now ? — I am the secretary to the Reform League. 1739. {Chairman.) You say, I think, a man not in the union gets wages for himself according to his own estimate of his skill, and if he is in the union, he gets the average wages that the union settle for him ? — No, the man outside of the union, by the influence of the union, obtains the average rate of wages, the same as, the man does who is in the union. 1740. The usual rate pervading the trade ? — Per- vading the trade in districts, that, of course, applies to particular districts. 1741. In the union are you entitled to wages during the time that you are out of employment by reason of slackness of trade ? — Not in the Bricklayers Society, we have no provision for out of work. 1742. {Mr. Mathews.) Have not you a provision in case of being out of employment by strikes ; have you. not ?^Yes. 1743. {Mr. Booth.) Does your society insist that a non-union man shall receive the minimum wages ? — No, it does not insist, but that is the natural result. 1744. Do you mean that they would not refuse to work with a non-union man who was receiving a lower rate than the minimum rate of . wages ?— Yes, they would. 1745. {Mr. Mathews.) They would refuse to work with a non-union man accepting a lower rate of wages than that defined by the society ? — Yes. 1746. {Chairman.) Have you known times when there was a scarcity of work, so that many men were out of work ? — Yes. 1747. At such a time a man not in the union would be more likely to get employed if he offered to take a less wage than the average settled by the union, would he not ? — I do not know of such a case occurring. It is not at all usual in our trade, though it might be in trades where piece work is more frequent, for a man to offer himself for less wages. If he did, as a rule, the foreman would refuse to employ him, because it would be taken as an evidence of less capacity. 1748. {Mr. Roebuck.) Supposing that a man were sick and enfeebled by bad health, but still a very good workman, he could not do perhaps so much as other men. Supposing he were to ask for work and to take less wage, would you object to that ? — Yes; but in such a case, this is what the men would do. In the first place the foreman, if he were a foreman of any judgment whatever, would put him where his skill would be made available without any great injury to his health. In the next place, there are but few men whp would not feel pleasure in adding a brick each to enable that man to do the ordinary amount of work. Supposing five workmen were working on what is called a line, those five men would divide the whole length of the building into five spaces, and if one man was known to be ill or feeble, the other four would, as a rule, leave him the smallest portion of that work. They would do that naturally and without any hesitation. The witness withdrew. Mr. C. Williams. Mr. Charles Williams examined. 1749. {Chairman.) You are a member of the Plasterers Society, I believe ? — I am the general secretary. 1750. Is that a national institution ? — It is a national institution. 1751. The principal station is at Liverpool, I believe ? — Yes, at 35, Daulby Street. 1752. Is there an executive committee there ? — Yes. 1753. And are there branch committees for places where branches are established ?■ — Yes. 1754. Do you call them lodges ? — Yes. 1 755. How many branches have you ? — I think about 128. 1756. Is that in the United Kingdom or only Great Britain ? — We extend as far in Wales as we can, and likewise in Scotland. 1757. When was the society established ? — It was established in 1 859. 1758. How many members had you the last time that your accounts were made up ? — I should say about 8,000 the last time our accounts were made up ; that would be in August 1866; that is speaking within the number. 1759. Can you state your income ? — The income would then average about 1,200/. per annum. 1760. What is jour subscription ? — There is a difficulty in stating that positively. In some of our districts we pay a great amount of money, in others we do not pay so large an amount ; for example, in London we only pay M. and 4rf. per week, while down in Liverpool, where I come from, we pay Gd. per week. 1761. Do you equalize the funds in the different branches ?— No, we do not. There is 2d. per week contributions clear to be sent down to the executive council to form a general fund ; and all other monies are for working expenses, including any incidental expenses that may accrue in the different localities. 1762. {Mr. Hughes.) You say that the income of the society is only 1,200/.; 2d. a week from the num- ber you have mentioned would be more than 1,200/., would it not ? — But it must be borne in mind that this last 12 months we have multiplied cent, per cent. 1763. {Chairman.) In the course of the last year the number of your members has nearly doubled ? — Very nearly, I think. 1764. {Mr. Mathews.) What is your fund now ?— The general fund will be about 2,000/., unless I include the 1,100/. that is in Barned's bank. 1765. Was that placed by you there as depositors or shareholders ? — As depositors. 1766. {Mr. Hughes.) Do you deposit in Post Office Savings Banks ? — We do. 1767. Then you have your rules deposited with Mr. Tidd Pratt, I suppose ?— We have not. We for- warded the rules to the Comptrollers of the Post Office Savings Bank. 1768. {Chairman.) What are the objects of your society ? — The protection of trade, the burying of our dead, and relief in case of accident. 1769. That is, you insure men against bodily injuries ? — Yes. 1770. Do you insure against loss of tools or do you give a benefit to a man if he has lost his tools ? — No. 1771. {Mr. Matheios.) The tools of a plasterer are not very expensive, are they ? — It depends entirely what kind of a kit the man has. 1772. They are not so expensive as the tools of a carpenter ? — No. 1773. {Mr. Hughes.) Surely if you have a burial and relief fund, you must have some special subscrip- tion for them ; your M. a week does not cover those contingencies, does it ? — It does. 1774. {Mr. Roebuck.) What do you mean by " protection of trade " ?— I mean protecting it in the very same way as I would protect property. 1775. That does not explain to me what you mean. What do you mean by " protection of trade " ?— The protection of trade I can only understand as being similar to protecting my property, that is to say, to make the best of it I can by using aU legal means. TRACES tlNIONS; ETC. 0€>MMISSlON : --MINUTES OF EVIPEN;C15. 67 1776. Still I come back to the question that I wish to put to you, what do you mean by:" protection of trade" ? — The meaning of protection of trade, as far as I understand it, is simply this, to see that there are no undue encroachments made upon it. 1777. What do you mean by '' undue encroach- ments upon trade"? — The same 'sort of thing as I mean when I speak of a man taking something away from you that he has no right to. 1778. I Object to illustration ; I want to know the fact ; what do you mean by " encroachments of trade " ? Do not give me any illustration, but tell me the fact ? — I will explain it in this way ; I learned a trade, I served my time to a trade, that trade is my capital, and I consider that I have a right to protect it. 1779. {Chairman.) That is to say you have got the average rate of wages, and if they offer you less than that, the branch society complains, and sends up the matter to the executive, and if the executive autho- rizes, it you strike ? — Yes. 1780. {Mr. Roebuck^ What do you mean by "pro- tection of trade " ? — I served my time to a trade, I learned that trade, and I have always attempted to the best of my ability to protect the trade in every sphere, both as an operative, as a foreman, and as an employer ; and the consequence was, that when I could not get a proper equivalent for my capital, I withdrew that capital out of the market; that is, I believe, to be the protection of trade. 1781. You mean to say that if you could not get the wages you wanted, you did not work ? — I did not work. 1782. StiU I come back to my question; what do you mean by " protection of trade" ? — That is protec- tion of trade ; the trade is my capital, take " trade " out and put " capital " in. 1783. But there is no capital in labour? — Is not there ? It is my capital. 1784. {Mr. Mathews.) Instead of the protection of trade, you mean the protection of the value of labour, I suppose ? — That is not it in its entirety ; I mean pro- tection for the conserving of proper regulations in connexion with our trade, so as to produce eificient work. 1785. Your object is to protect the value of your occupation, to protect the rate of wages, in fact ? — That is partly it. 1786. {Mr. Harrison.) Do you mean by protecting trade, maintaining the old advantages, and endeavour- ing to acquire new advantages for the operative plas-^ terers ? — Yes, as near as that is possible. 1787. {Mr. Roebuck.) That means simply raising wages ? — No, I do not think so ; our object is to im- prove the position of our trade, both in the shortening of the hours, in the raising of wages, and in the elevating of our class. 1788. {Chairman.) I presume you think that the shortening of hours and the increase of wages will produce the other object naturally? — I hope that that will be the sequel. 1789. {Mr. Mathews.) Do you draw any distinction jetween the shortening of hours and the raising of wages ; if you shorten the hours you do not reduce wages to any extent equivalent to the shortening of hours, I suppose ? — It depends entirely upon the position of the market. We have a case now (I am alluding to Carlisle) where the shortening of the hours is wanted by the men, and the employer wants to give an advance of wages instead of the shortening of the hours. I have advised the men, under the special circumstances of the case, to take the em- ployers' terms. 1790. In point of fact if the men could shorten the hours and StiU remain at the old rate of wages, that would be the same as raising the wages ? — ^Yes ; but the shortening of the hours would be more elevating. 1791. {Mr. Hughes.) Do you prefer it yourself? — Yes. 1792. -{Mr. Roebuck.) Will you tell me why ?— I believe that eight hours is long enough for any man to work, but wOuld not feel at present justified in Mr. C. advocating it. . Williams. 1793. {Mr. Booth.) You would prefer six hours perhaps to eight ?— No, I would not. I think eight 2 Apnll86 7, is reasonable. '""" " 1794. {Mr. Merivale.) In your trade is there much diiference of skill between the labourers ? — Yes. 1795. Is there much difference in the classes of work that the different labourers do ? — In our trade if a man can do one thing he can do anything in plain plastering as a rule. 1 796. {Mr. Hughes.) But there are some men who, for instance, could do cornices such as we see in this room, while others would not be able to do that work, well ? — Just so. 1797. {Mr. 3Ierivale.) How long has your union been in operation ? — About seven years. 1798. Do you recollect what the average rate of wages in your trade was at tlie beginning of that time ? — 26s. throughout the country or nearly so. 1799. What is it now ?— About 30«. 1800. Do you include in the objects of the union the establishment where they do not exist, and the maintenance where they do exist, of trade customs and codes of rules ? — Wherever any of our men go, they work according to the customs of the town that they are sent from ; but if the town they are sent to be in advance, then they work under that town's custom. 1801. {Mr. Mathews.) Not according to the cus- toms of the town to which they go ? — No ; without the privileges are higher than their own town. 1802. {Mr. Harrison.) Are there any districts or towns in which you work under a code of rules which has been agreed to and signed on the part both of the employers and of the society ? — Yes, various districts ; in fact I may say we have a great number of employers belonging to our association. 1803. {Mr. Hughes.) You are an employer your- self, are you not ? — I am not, but I have been one. 1804. {Mr. Harrison.) Can you tell us something about the circumstances of the recent strike of the plasterers at Bradford, of which we have seen some account in the newspapers, what was the origin of the strike? — The Bradford affair is this: Mr. Howroyd, of Bradford, has some four or five sons at the trade. Mr. Howroyd and his sons work at the trade, and there was a suggestion made in the Bradford lodge that these sons ought, of necessity, as reaping the advantages that are gained in Bradford, to contribute or belong to the society. The lodge decided that such should be the case, and notified Mr. Howroyd to that effect. Mr. Howroyd received the notice, and on the Friday he told the men that they could leave, that he had no more work for them. They left on the Friday, and on the Monday the Masters' Association of Bradford, the Yorkshire Association (I have their rules here), deputed a deputation to my house, and they came down. Tliis deputation consisted of two employers. They said that they wanted to bring this to a conclusion. The result was, that seven employers, without any notice whatever, with the exception of 30 minutes I believe, locked the whole of our men out. The employers stated to me when I met them that the notice had been sent early in the afternoon 1805. Where, in Bradford alone ? — In Bradford. These gentlemen came down to my house, and I told them I was very sorry for it, and thafi would come up into Yorkshire as soon as possible. They wanted to make it appear that these men should not be supported from our association, although they had locked them out. Now, in om- rules we do not allow either a man or any number of men to cease work "unless we have in- vestigated the affair thoroughly. We do not allow any advantage to be taken by any employer or by any number of men. If we found that our men were taking • advantage of employers, we would supplant those men by sending other men to serve those employers in the event they still persisted ; I can produce now evidence of that. We went there, and we wanted to arrange the In a tery ungentlemanly way, two or three of I 2 68 TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EYIDENCE. Mr. C. Williams. 2 April 1867 the principal employers, said, " We will serve you out." Well, they served us out to the time of about five weeks. 1806. Locked you out, do you mean ? — Yes, locked us out for about five weeks ; they then came into com- pliance in a letter that I have now, which the em- ployers signed ; and only last Thursday I had a deputa- tion down nt my house, when it was stated one em- ployer would not comply with what he had arranged at the conclusion of our lock-out. Since then I am glad to state he has complied. In certain papers, such as the " Pall Mall Gazette " and otlierH, they liad a para- graph headed " How not to do Plastering," but the veiy fact which they want to attach to the operatives belongs to the employers, for I can positively affifm that the employers of Yorkshire were the veiy men that re- quired our men not to run mouldings on two-coat plastering. 1807. It was stated in the papers to which you allude that there was a rule or custom of the society not to have a cornice where there was a two-coat plaster ; that rule does exist, I believe, in the district ? — It does. 1808. What was the origin of that rule ? — It originated with the employers themselves. 1809. How did the employers make that a rule of the union ? — I was informed there was a fearful amount of competition there, and what we call " scamping " work ; instead of giving what is called three-coat cut work, which is the jM-oper measure, they floated the walls up, ran the mouldings, and called it three-coat work. When the architects started that, the em- ployers found that they could not work under that system, because where they ought to have had a fair price for their work, it was running at a reduction of 25 per cent., and so forth. 1810. You mean this, do you not, that the ordinary practice in plastering is to put three coats where there is a cornice ? — Only in those parts of Yorkshire where they work what they call rubble work they do not. There is not much brick- work done there. On all large jobs as a rule three coats is tlie custom. 1811. That being considered proper work by the ai'chitects to put three-coat plaster where there is a cornice, a certain number or employers induced the society to frame a rule that they Avould only work three-coat plaster, and that was done as a protection against others who did work in a rougher way. That rule was made and agreed to by both employers and employed in that district ; is not that so ? — It was sent to om- lodge from the Employers' Association, and our lodge adopted it. 1812. Now, it is objected to you that that rule still exists, that I understand ig the question as put by the " Pall .Mall Gazette " ? — But the lodge does not object ; our men do not object to any such work. 1813. It had once been suggested by a body of the employers that you should make such a rule of your union ; it was for the time recognized, and it is not recognized now ? — Just so. The Bradford men state it was to oblige the employers. 1814. Is the rule one which benefits the journeymen plasterers, or the conO'ary, or is it perfectly indifferent to them ? — I do not think that it would affect them to the extent of 15 per cent, in time, and this would only apply to plain work. 1815. You mean that it is not an object to the men at all, but it is a simple question between the employer and the architect and the person who pays for the building ? — Yes. 1816. Do the members of your society decline to work with non-members ? — In some localities. 1817. Is Bradford one of the localities? — Yes. 1818. Are all the plasterers at Bradford members of the union ? — I think they are, or nearly all. 1819. Then the history of the Bradford strike, if I imderstand you, is this, an employer who worked himself employed four of his sons and a number of union men, the sons not being members of the union, and the union men represented to him that his sons ought to join and be bound by the same rules as they were ; on the employer decdining to do this, the union men left his employ ? — No, that is not quite it. 1820. {Chairman.) They remonstrated, but that meant that they would leave his work if he did not attend to their remonstrances ? — They got discharged. 1821. (Mr. Harrison.) Then upon that there was a general lock-out of all the plasterers in the town ? — Yes ; with seven employei's only. 1822. Is that settled now ? — Yes. 1823. How is it settled? — It is settled by the em- ployers coming in with us ; in fact I may say that I Vi^as there myself, and a letter was forwarded to the men and seven of the employers' signatures are attached to it, in which it is stated that the men are wanted to resume work on their own conditions, Mr. Howroyd's name being the only one not attached to the letter. 1824. (Mr. Roebuck.) Are the sons now members of the union ? — I cannot speak positively, because so short a time has elapsed, and I only get the returns monthly. 1825. (Sir D. Gooch.) It was not a condition then that they should join it ? — -Yes, it was a condition. I may say that the Bradford society offered the em- ployer to have one foreman outside of the society, or one of his sons, whichever he might think most judicious. 1826. (Mr. Roebuck.) Why were you anxious that his sons should become members of the society? — Because we believe that no one has a right to reap where he does not sow. 1827. That is a sort of figurative language which I in my blindness do not understand. Will you explain what you mean by that? — That men con- tribute tlieir money, their time, and their talent to improve their position, and then these outsiders come in to reap at the harvest that which they have not sowu. 1828. Tell me how these sons of Mr. Howroyd wanted to reap what they had not sown, for I confess that I cannot understand your figurative language ? — It is a natural consequence; it is just the same as if I go into a man's house and ask him for something that I have not worked for. 1829. You see you always come to me with an illustration. I wished you to state to me the reason why it was that you objected to work with these four persons who were not members of your society ? — I would ask whether we had not a right to object ? 1830. I do not ask that. 1 want to know why you object ? — Simply because they are not co-operating with us. They are not paying their money, a.nd they are not using their time or their talent to improve their position, but they are very glad to receive all the benefits accruing from it. 1831. (Sir D. Gooch.) In what respect are they not using their time and their talents ; they are working, are they not, in learning their business ?— It takes both time and talent .to originate trade societies so that they shall be beneficial both for employers and for operatives. 1832. That is for the secretaires to do, I apprehend ? — No, it is for the men. If they were to leave it all to the secretaries it would be a bad job I should consider. 1833. If these four sons are learning the trade under their father, surely they are as much exercising their talent and skill and using their time in acquiring a position for themselves in life as they would be if they Avere exercising the same talent under the trade union; as far as that goes it does not alter their position in acquiring a knowledge of the trade I pre- sume, for the trades union would teach them nothing, would it ?— No, not in that particular. I was taught my trade under precisely the same circumstances. 1834. If a young man were learning his trade under his father, assuming that his father was a skilled man and able to teach him, he would become as good a workman under his father in the course of the years that he worked under him, would he not, as he would if he were a member of the trades union ?— We have nothing to do with him till he is a plasterer. But these TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES Or EVIDENCE. 69 sons to whom I have been referring are men, not boys. 1835. {Mr. Mathews.) Do you mean to say that a man cannot learn the trade properly without entering the union ? — No, far from that. There are plenty of towns where there is no union whatever, and if I said what you put to me, it would follow that there could be no skilled artizans in tliose towns. 1836. {Mr. Roebuck.) I wish to know upon what ground you venture to interfere with a man doing what he likes ? — We are not interfering with him. All we say is, that if we feel indisppsed to take our commodity to that particular place for sale we have a right to restrict it. 1 837. You again make use of an illustration which I am sorry for. I want you to explain on what ground it is that you interfere with those four per- sons, for instance, to whom j'ou have been referring who are working under their father ? — We do not interfere. 1838. Then what did you say to Mr. Howroyd? — We took him on his own merits. 1839. What did you say to Mr., Howroyd about his sons? — We simply said to his sons, "Will you join our association ? " 1840. To that question they say, "No"?— They do not say " No," but the father discharges the men in his employ, and consequently the men cease all work for him. The father and one son, in an interview with the deputation, distinctly stated the sons would not join. This was after the lock-out took place. 1841. Do you mean to say that simply upon your asking the sons to join your association the father discharged you? — ^The father discharged the men in his employ. This the men asserted ? 1842. Because you asked his sons to join the society ? — ^Because the men asked them to join the society. 1843. You clearly understand my question, that Mr. Howroyd discharged the men in his employ be- cause they aslied his sons to join tlie union ; that is the case, is it ? — That is the case. The qualification would be thus, that if Mr. Howroyd had not dis- charged the men, the men would Iiave left. 1844. {Mr. Harrison.) Did not you say just now that you notified to Mr. Howroyd that his sons should become members ? — Yes, I was so informed. 1845. {Mr. Mathews.) Is it not the fact that if Mr. Howroyd refused to let his sons come into the union the men in the union would refuse to work with Mr. HowToyd's sons ? — Decidedly. But this particular action on the part of the men had not been sanctioned by the executive, nor would they have been supported fi'om the general fund, so far as Mr. Howroyd. 1846. {Mr. Roebuck.) I want to know upon what foundation you ground that declaration of yours that you would not work with a man that was not of your association ? — The only reply that I can give is this : if I felt any annoyance with any man I would not work with him. I may say that Mr. Howroyd has played a very conspicuous part amongst our trade, and I have here a motion that he proposed at Leeds at the Master Plasterers Association (which is a national one) about having the names of all men on strike immediately forwarded to the masters. 1847. Was the real reason of the dispute that the young men did not join your society on your making that appeal to Mr. Howroyd, or was it the former conduct of Mr. Howroyd ? — It was that the young men would not join. 1848. Then why do you mention the former conduct of Mr. Howroyd as an element in the case ? — It might be an incentive. 1849. Then it was one of the causes ? — Perhaps joined amongst the others. I do not speak from any authority. 1850. The mere fact of the sons not joining your union would not have been sufficient in itself to pro- duce that result unless it had been combined with the conduct of the father before ? — No, that is not so. 1851. Then how am I to understand your answer when you said that it was an incentive, what does Mr. C. that mean ?— I think I answered that before, did I not ? Williams. 1852. No, I think not. Will you please answer it . ., .„„. now ? — What I term the incentive was Mr. Howroyd's ' previous conduct in trying to subject the men to posi- tions that they ought not to occupy. Perhaps that has been an impetus. 1853. {Mr. Harrison.) On this occasion did the plasterers in Mr. Howroyd's employment interfere with him or with his sons in any other way than by notifying to him that they should leave his employ- ment ? — In no other way whatever that I know of. 1854. Was there any intention of proceeding to take any other step than that ? — None whatever. 1855. {Earl of Lichfield.) I understood you to say that it was merely a remonstrance to Mr. Howroyd, is that so ? — No, they notified the father. 1856. {Mr. Harrison.) You have spoken about an association of master plasterers in the northern district, I believe this which I hold in my hand is a copy of the rules of that association ? — Yes. 1857. Can you furnish the Commission with a copy of those rules ? — Yes. 1858. I see that the third rule of that association says, — " That this society shall, by all legal and fair " means, endeavour to bring to a speedy termination " the unjust influence and mischievous action of the " National Association of Operative Plasterers." In what way have you ever known that rule put in opera- tion? — I never myself knew it put into operation since I have been connected with the trade ; all that I can say is that in my own town of Liverpool, which is a town of some importance, there is not a respectable employer there but what we have a proper under- standing with. That is to give six months notice on either side for any alteration in the trade custom. 1859. Still this is a rule of the Master Plasterers Association of Yorkshh-e ? — Yes. 1860. Has this rule, to your knowledge, ever been enforced, and if so, in what vs-ay or on what occasion has it been put into operation ? — In the event of our men leaving one shop for another because of any dis- pute having occurred their names have been sent round, and as soon as ever they have been found out they have been discharged. 1861. I see that the fourth rule describes the ope- ration of the society, — " 1st. By the encouragement and employment of non-society men." Do the members of this masters association as a practice refuse to employ society men ? — If they can avoid it. 1 862. The second clause of that rule is, — " By having " the names of all men on strike immediately for- " warded to the masters in the society." Is that so far as you are aware carried out ? — Yes. 1863. Have you no men dismissed in consequence of having been on strike ? — Yes, I have known such to be the case. 1864. The third clause is, — " By mutual help in " case of strike ; not employing each other's men on " strike after notice, under penalty." Have you ever known men who have been thrown out of employment on a strike refused work on that ground by members of that association ? — Yes, no longer ago than in the Bradford aifair, and now I have an order from a con- tractor, Mr. Neill, for 12 men to be sent down to him at Scai'borough. Mr. Neill's men were not locked out. 1865. {Mr. Mathews.) That means that Mr. NeiU writes to you to know if you can supply him with 12 men ? — Yes ; and yet he would discharge the men during that turmoil in Bradford. 1866. {Mr. Harrisoji.) When you say that the members of the union declared that they declined to work for Mr. Howroyd unless his sons joined the union, was their motive for doing so that they con- sidered it was contrary to their own interests to work with men who were not members of the union ? — Yes, that was their idea. 1867. Was there any other object than that? — There was not to my knowledge. ., 1868. Was there on this occasion any intimidation I 3 70 TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION : — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Mr. C. or -violence practised ? — None whatever to my know- Williams. ledffe. ~: — „ 1869. {Mr. Mathews.) Was there any intimation April 186/. ^^ ^j^^ p^j,^ p£ ^j^g jjjgj^ jjj ^jjg union that they would ' refuse to have any intercourse with those young men if they did not come into the union, that they would send them to Coventry ? — We never do anything of that kind. 1870. You do not send men to Coventry ? — No, we allow them to go their own way. 1871. Tou cold shoulder them I suppose ? — We allow them to go their own way. 1872. You have stated that one of the employers sent to you an order for 12 men ? — ^Yes. 1873. We may infer from that I presume that that employer oould not get plasterers except through the union ? — No, the case I refer to is that of the Grand Junction Hotel in Scarborough, and the job wants to be completed, the employer being imder a penalty to complete it by a given time. While the Bradford strike was on he would not employ any of our men because he was a member of the masters' association, but now since the lock-out has been concluded he has applied to me for men to be sent to him. If he would have employed them before we should have been glad to furnish him with men. 1874. The fact of his sending to you to furnish him with 12 men would seem to imply that he could not get men unconnected with the union, or else I presume he would not have sent to you ; in point of fact the union is master of the situation in that case, is it not ? — I daresay it is. 1875. (Mr. Roebuck.) Could it not be put in this way that the arrangement having been come to, the masters acted loyally in the matter and applied to you as an indiiferent person ? — Yes, they applied in that way. I wish they always would act loyally. 1876. {Mr. Hughes.) Do you take steps to find out whether there is a demand for work in the trade. You have a return of that I suppose ? — Yes, we have a return. 1877. And you endeavour to furnish workmen where there is a demand ? — Yes, wherever the em- ployers request it, or where there is a job which needs to be pushed on. 1878. {Mr. Merivale.) Do you print your monthly returns as some other trades do ? — ^Yes. 1879. {Earl of Lichfield.) Do the members of your society always refuse to work with men who are not members of your society ? — No. 1880. Then the fact of these four young men not being members of your society was not Ihe only reason for declining to work with them ? — I believe it was. 1881. {Mr. Harrison.) You said, I think, that in that town that was the rule ? — Yes, in Bradford it is so. 1882. {Mr. Roebuck.) You say that one of the incentives was Mr. Howroyd's former conduct? — I say that that may have been a cause, but I do not speak from any authority. 1883. {Mr. Hughes.) That was the reason, you mean, for enforcing the rule ? — Yes. 1884. {Earl of Lichfield.) With reference to that particular town, is it a rule with your society men in that town that they will not work with men not mem- bers of the society ? — They allow them six days, I ' think. Any man going into the town belonging to our trade is supposed to satisfy the officers of the society that he is a member. If he does not satisfy the officers of the society of that, he is supposed to join, or to make an aclaiowledgment of himself, as it were, within a week. 1885. And if he does not become a member of the society within a week they refuse to work with him ; is that what you mean ?— I think it is about 14 days, but that is only an isolated case. 1886. Do you mean that in Bradford if they refuse to become members of the society within 14 days the society men refuse to work with them ? I believe they do. 1887. {Mr. Mathews.) Let me call your attention to Mr. Neill. You stated that he sent to you for some men ? — Yes. 1888. Did he take any steps to procure the men before he applied to you ? — Yes. 1889. What steps ? — He advertised in all the papers. 1890. Did he succeed in getting men ? — I am not aware that he did. 1891. When he advertised for men, did the Plas- terers Union take any measures to counteract that advertisement ? — None whatever, with the exception of the one monthly report which was issued during the lock-out. 1892. Upon the appearance of his advertisement, did the union take any steps to answer the advertise- ment, and warn men not to apply ? — No. 1893. You say that there was no advertisement on the part of the union to counteract his advertisement? — Not at the time. 1894. At any time was there ? — It was only once, I believe, that was during the lock-out, and that ap- peared in the monthly report. 1895. Then they did, in point of fact, notify to the public that Mr. Neill had advertised for plasterers, and that the Plasterers Union recommended them not to apply to him ? — ^No, that was not the fact. I was not at that time aware of the merits of the case. 1 896. Please tell me what the fact was ? — It was stated that there had been advertisements for plasterers for Scarborough, and that all plasterers were to corres- pond with the secretary or to see the secretary before engaging. 1897. That is to say, before answering Mr. NeOl's ad- vertisement they were to apply to the secretary of the union ? — Yes. 1898. So that the secretary of the union intimated to the public that the union were to be the means of communication between the pubhc and Mr. NeUl ? — ■ No. The fact was just simply this, that this Grand Hotel was on hand, and there were men employed there, we wiU say to-day and discharged to-morrow, a con- tinuation of them. This was previous to our dispute in Bradford, and the secretary at Scarborough wrote to say that there were more men in Scarborough than could get employment. Consequently that brought forward the notice in the monthly report, but nothing more. 1899. That is rather beside the question which I asked you. What I wanted to know was this, whether it is not the fact that Mr. NeiH having advertised for plasterers was answered by an intimation on the part of the union, that men should not apply to Mr. Neill, but apply to the seci-etary of the union ? — Nothing more than what appeared in the monthly report that I am aware of. 1900. Did that intimation appear to the public? — It could only be to our members. 1901. In point of fact you intimated to your mem- bers not to apply to Mr. Neill ? — We did not speak about Mr. Neill. 1902. Then the intimation was that men were not to apply for work in that town except through the secretary of the union, a,nd then Mr. NeUl applied to you to supply him with workmen, is that so ? — That is a month ago, I should think. 1903. I want to ascertain the fact? — That is the fact. 1904. {Chairtnan.) Is there any rule in yom' society that the members of the society who are out of employ must give notice to the secretary ? — No. 1905. Is it usual with your society that those who want plasterers apply to the secretary ? — Yes, in some instances it is done. 1906. Pm-ther, is it provided that the secretary shall, on such application send in those who have been longest out of employ ? — No. 1907. Is there no such rule as that ? — No such rule as that. 1908. Supposing that a dozen men are wanted at Scarborough, and you have, say, 20 out of employ, how TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION:- -MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. n do you decide on those who shall go ? — We invariably take them on their merits, if they are known. 1909. {Mr. Mathews.) Who is the judge of the merits ? — The officers. 1910. You, for instance? — ^No. 1911. You, as one of the officers ? — I may be a 100 miles off. 1912. The executive is the judge, you mean ? — In the branch offices. 1913. {Mr. Hughes.) You say that your society take steps for finding out where there is a demand for work and endeavour to supply that demand ? — Yes, we do. 1914. But you have no allowance provided for sending about men ; you do not pay their expenses, do you ? — A great many of the local lodges have pri- vate funds, it must remembered. 1915. You seem to have a great many benefits, and almost no subsci'iption ? — In the lodge I belong to I pay Is. Sd. a week, on an average ; but our benefits ai-e large ; each member's wife at his death will receive 28Z. on an average, and 16s. per week accident pay. 1916. {Sir D. Gooch.) Are there, in addition to the 2d. a week, difierent subscriptions varying in the different districts ? — Yes. 1917. {Mr. Roebuck.) Is there much difference be- tween one plasterer and another in point of ability ? — Some difference. 1918. So that one plasterer would be very much more advantageous for an employer than another ? — Yes, more particularly in a class of work, as like this ceiling, for instance. 1919. Could you give us an idea what is the dif- ference in value between a man of first class talent and a man of the lowest, in your trade ? — If you were to bring some of our lowest men, and some of our first-class men on a job similar to this ceiling, it would run 50 per cent. 1920. Do you allow the first-class man to take ad- vantage of that ability of his ? — The lowest class seldom do anything like this ; they nearly always classify the men, and they are set apart to do different kinds of work. 1921. So that a man of higL-class work gets a higher rate of wages ? — Yes, as rule. 1922. There is no rule in your society that keeps him down ? — No. 1923. {Mr. Harrison.) Has there not been a re- cent dispute of some kind at Aberystwith ? — Yes. 1924. What were the circumstances of that ? — Our men wanted to take an undue advantage of one of the employers. 1925. What was the undue advantage ? — The ad- vantage of half an hour each day, I think it was, and Is. in the week. 1926. The men at Aberystwith, you mean, asked of the employers an advance of wages and a reduction of time ?— Yes. 1927. What action did the society take ? — We sup- plied the employer with other men after the case had been fully investigated. 1928. You stopped the strike, in fact ? — Yes, we stopped the strike and sent other men from Liverpool. 1929. In that case, then, you not only refused to support the men on strike, but you put a stop to the strike by supplying their places ? — Yes. 1930. On what ground did you do that ? — Because we considered the demand was unjust and unreasonable. 1931. {Mr. Mathews.) Was that in the case of work being done at the two large hotels at Aberyst- with ? — Yes. 1932. These two new hotels happened to be going on at the same time, but you did not think that a suf- ficient reason why the wages of the plasterers should be raised permanently ? — Just so. 1933. {Sir D. Gooch.) How many plasterers are there altogether in the trade ? Does your society form a large proportion of the whole ? — I should say not more than 50 per cent. ; indeed, I do not think that we are 50 per cent, of the whole. 1934. {Mr. Hughes.) Are there any other societies Mr. C. but yours ? — Yes, there are three societies in Ireland. Williams. 1935. {Lord Elcho.) Does your society embrace g A~^ ri Scotland ? — Yes, as far as Inverness. ^" ' 1936. {Earl of Lichfield.) Were these men at Aberystwith members of your society ? — Yes. 1937. {Chairman.) Did they send up by their branch committee to say what they had claimed ? — Yes. 1938. And did your executive disapprove of it ? — Yes. 1939. Did the men persevere in their demand after the executive had disapproved of it ? — Yes. 1940. {Mr. Harrison.) I believe you have a letter from the employer which perhaps you will read ? — 4, Moor Street, Aberystwith, March 1st, 1857. — To the Executive Committee of the National Association of Operative Plasterers. — I may explain that this was in answer to a letter which appeared in the trades circulars condemning my conduct. 1941. Some members of the society had objected to the action that the executive had taken in putting a stop to the strike ? — ^Yes. 1942. And this is a letter from the employer in " that case ? — Yes. " In answer to your application " of the 28th ultimo, I have great pleasure in bearing " testimony to the impartial and prompt action you " took to bring about an early investigation of the " cause of the late strike in this town. Upon the " executive council making the necessary inquiry " into the cause of the dispute they found that the " men had struck without any cause, and also " without the consent of the executive council, which " is contrary to the general laws of the society. " Without further delay the executive committee " gave their opinion that the strike was not legal, and '• advised the men to resume work peaceably, as no " support would be given in aid of the strike, and " that the masters were justified in opposing the claim " made by the men until they complied with the rules " of the society. Being a large employer of labom* " in this town, I must here bear testimony to the " kindness and courtesy I received at the hands oi " the executive council during the inquiry into the " dispute, and I am glad to say that through the " advice and wisdom exercised by the executive " council, they brought the strike to a satisfactory " close. In conclusion, let me add that I think the " services of the executive council are indispensable " to the good government of the trade, and the cause " of so much abuse in public papers chiefly arises " from the ignorance of the vsriters of the impartial " spirit which governs the action of the executive " council, and of the valuable services of the general " secretary of the association, Mr. C. Williams. " Apologising for the length of my letter, I remain, " gentlemen, yours respectfully, J. J. Griffiths." That is the gentleman who was the contractor for those hotels at Aberystwith. 1943. {Mr. Hughes.) Upon that let me ask you, is your executive generally more opposed to strike than the members are ? — ^Yes. 1944. From your experience, do you believe that to be the case with most trades ? — I believe it is ; the executive or the governing bodies are more opposed to strikes than members are. 1945. {Lord Elcho.) Did I rightly understand you to say that you had sent other plasterers to this job? —Yes. 1946. Where did they come from ? — From Liver- pool, and some from elsewhere. 1947. Were they men whom you took from other employment ? — Yes. 1948. How did you fill up their places ? — By supplying other men. 1949. There was then a want of employment in the trade at the time, I suppose ? — Not very much ; the trade was pretty good at the tiine, but we prevailed on these men to oblige us, because we thought that the employer was really suffering injustice. 1950. You had no difficulty at the time in getting other plasterers ? — No. I 4 72 TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION :— MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Mr. C. Williams. 2 April 1867. 1951. {Mr. Mathews.) You brought the influence of the union to bear on the people who would listen to your recommendation ? — Yes. 1952. {Earl of Lichfield.) You say that the men were taken from Liverpool V — ^Yes. 1953. Were they taken at tlie same wages in Aberystwith as they had been receiving in Liverpool ? —Yes. 1954. {3fr. Mathews.) Previously to your sending these men down was the rate of wages the same at Aberystwith as at Liverpool ? — If my memory is cor- rect it was, but there was one man that received a per-centage, because wo calculaled that he was a pretty clever one ; in fact, one or two. 1955. {Mr. Harrison.') One workman who had superior skill was paid extra you mean ? — Yes, one or two. 1956. That was done with the concurrence of the society ; -Yes 1957. {Mr. Merivale.) How do you meet the ex- pense of sending the men in a particular case like that, because it costs something to send men from Liverpool to Aberystwith ? — Sometimes we send Ihem ourselves, sometimes the employers do it. 1958. {3Ir. Hughes.) When the master wants them he sometimes pays their expenses? — Yes, if the employer wants them rather urgently then lie pays their expenses. 1959. {Earl of Lichfield.) To what branch did the men who were employed at Aberystwith belong, because I suppose that they came from a distance ? — Some from Chester, some from Shrewsbury, and some from places down in the west, if I remember correctly. 1960. They have been collected to do that particular work, in fact ? — Yes, to do the Castle Hotel and the Queen's Hotel there. 1961. Can you tell us the rate of wages they were paid at that time at Aberystwith ? — I think about 30.S. 1962. And what did they ask for ? — It was \s. in the week, and half an hour each day, I believe, stopping at half-past five. 1963. {Lord Elcho.) What percentage would that combination of the \s. and the half hour make on the wages ? — It would be worth 10 per cent. The witness 1964. {Mr. Hughes.) Has the conduct of the execu- tive in that matter been much canvassed in the society ? — No, not as a rule. 1965. Has it done you any harm ? — No, I think it has done us a great deal of good. 1966. You think that the members have accepted it as a right thing to do ? — Yes, it has put a cheek upon a great many. 1967. {Earl of Lichfield.) Have any of the men wlio were not supported in that case left your society on that account ? — No, not that I can remember of. 1968. {Chairmav.) What was the date of that strike at Aberystwith ? — It would be, I think, March 1866. 1969. {Earl of LAchfield.) Those men, I suj)pose, were obliged to go back to the different places they came from at their own expense ? — Yes, unless they could get work nearer. 1970. But I suppose there was no work to be got at Aberystwith except on thai particular job ? — As a I'ule, there was no work there but that. 1971. Supposing that those men who went to Aberystwith could afford to work at the same wao-es there that they would be working for at their own homes in Liverpool, what was the inducement to them to go there ? — There are several inducements when they go out into the country ; some like it, and then there is overtime. 1972. {Mr. Harrison.) Were they working on over- time much in that case ? — I do not know that they vi'ere doing so. 1973. They were receiving higher rates of wages for the overtime, if the}- did work overtime ? — Yes. 1974. {Earl of Lichfield.) But as a fact they went to Aberystwith for the same wages that they were receiving at Liverpool ? — Yes, I believe such to be the fact, except in one or two instances. 1975. {Mr. Booth.) They consider it a privilege to be allowed to work overtime ; is that so ? — Only in some instances. We discountenance overtime as much as we can. 1976. {Earl of Lichfield.) Was that work at the hotels being done by day work or by piece work ? — By day work. withdrew. Adjourned to Tuesday next at 11 o'clock. Mr. G. Houslcy. 9 April 1867. James Booth, Esq., C.B. John Aethuk Roebuck, Esq., M.P. Thomas Hughes, Esq., M.P. Fkederic Harrison, Esq. William Mathews, Esq. No. 1, Park Prospect, Westminster, Tuesday, 9th April 1867, Present ; The Right Hon. Sir William Erle. Lord Elcho, M.P. The Right Hon. Sir Edmund Walker Head, Bart., K.C.B. Sir Daniel Gooch, Bart., M.P. Herman Merivale, Esq., C.B. The Right Hon. SIR WILLIAM ERLE in the Chair. Mr. George Housley examined. 1977. {Chairman.) Are you a member of the 1983. When was the society established ? Operative Bricklayers Society of Sheffield ?— I am. registered at Manchester in 1844. 1978. Do you hold any office in that society ? — I am the general secretary of it. 1979. Do you produce a copy of the rules of the society ? — Yes {producing the same). 1980. Do the rules show the constitution of the society, for instance, how the members are chosen ? — They do. 1981. And how the affairs of the society are ma- naged^ by branch committees, and the executive committee ? — Yes. 1982. Is the mode of election for the society that which is usual, that the name of the ]3roposed member is brought before a meeting, and then brought before a second meeting, at which he is either rejected or -It was admitted according to the votes ? — That is the mode 1984. {Mr. Roebuck.) As a benefit society ?— As a benefit society. 1985. {Chairman.) You call it the Friendly So- ciety of Operative Bricklayers ?— Yes. 1986. Is it partly for the purposes of a friendly society and partly for trades purposes ?— Partly for trade purposes and partly for accidents and deaths. 1987. Was it originally established as a friendly society only, or was it established in the beginning as a friendly society and for trade purposes also .?— I am not able to answer that question. 1988. As to your funds ; have you a reserve fund ? — Yes. 1989. What was the amount of the reserve fund TRADES UNIONS, titC. COMMISSION : — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 73 the last time the account was made up ? — The last report as issued stated it as 3,649^. 15s. 8d. 1990. Will you tell us what your income was the last time the yearly account of your income was made up? — The yearly income for 1866 was 5,964/. 5s. 2ifZ. 1991. Have you the last annual account, showing how your disbursements were applied ? — I have not that very correctly. I can simply state that we paid for deaths, l,S62l. 9s. 6d. ; and for accidents, 1,448/. 18*. 2rf. 1992. Under the head of accidents do you include sickness ? — No. 1993. Have you any expenditure for sickness — We have not. 1994. Does your friendly society not extend to sickness ? — ^Not at all. 1995. That being the expenditure for deaths and accidents, what is the amount of the other disburse- ments ? — Our yearly expenditure is about 4,500/. altogether. 1996. {Mr. Hughes.) Does the whole balance of about 1,600/. go for trade purposes ? — No. 1997. {Chairman.) How is that disposed of ? — The balance for trade goes for trade, and the balance for accidents to its own account. 1998. {Sir. Hughes.) Your income being 5,964/., and you having accounted by the expenditure on the death and accident fund for 2,800/., you see there remains a balance of very nearly 2,000/.? — I might add that last year we had a delegate meeting to revise our laws and make them better, which cost 1,088?. 1999. {Mr. Mathews.) How should a delegate meeting cost 1,088/.? — The delegates were paid 1 Is. 6d. per day and their lodgings and railway fares, and 6d. per day for refreshments ; and that meeting occupied a fortnight. 2000. {Chairman.) Have you any allowance for members who are out of work ? — We have an allow- ance to tramps or members seeking work. 2001. Have you had any expenditm-e during the last year in respect of strikes or trade disputes ? — Yes, our strike pay for last year was 45/. 17s. 2002. Have you branches ? — Yes. 2003. In what provinces have you those br.nnches ; are they in Great Britain and Ireland ? — Not in Ireland, but in Great Britain. 2004. How many branches have you ? — 96. 2005. And the total number of your members is what ? — 5,254, according to the last report. 2006. What are the principal objects of your society as regards trade, your objects as a friendly society being obvious enough ? — Our trade objects are not so much for strikes as to give our members the advantage of receiving daily payment should they be on tramp or seeking work. 2007. Is one purpose of the society to keep up the rate of wages ; to raise wages and to lessen the number of hours of laboui' ? — That is it. 2008. Is it also a distinct object to secure the mem- bers of the union aU the employment in the trade, or as much employment as they can get ? — We have no distinct rule on that subject. 2009. Do you limit the number of apprentices ? — We do not limit the number of apprentices ; there are a few lodges wliich do state in our seliedules that they limit the number of apprentices, but those cases ai-e not the rule. 2010. Do the members of the union make any diffi- culty about working with nien who are not members of the union ? — We try to persuade them to join us if we can by moral persuasion. 2011. Besides the moral persuasion, do you put difficulties m their way, making it unpleasant to them to work together with members of the union ; do you send them to Coventry, as you term it ?— We do not. 2012. It is not known to those who are at the head of the union that anything of the kind is done ? — We do not know of it. 2013. There is no avowed object, as I understand 18425, you, to secure to the members of the union all the employment in your trade that can be had ? — No. 2014. {Sir E. W. Head.) This book I hold in my hand is the book of your rules, is it not ? — Yes. I should state that both the books of rules were made at Manchester, and that I have only been secretary since the 15th of August 1866. 2015. The rules for the benefit society are entirely separate from those for trade purposes, are they not ? — Yes. 2016. The rules of the beneiit society are certified by Mr. Tidd Pratf ?— Yes. 2017. And the other book, the small book printed at Manchester, represents the rules for the trade portion, does it not ? — Yes. 2018. {3tr. Booth.) I think yon have not stated how much you have paid in support of tramps in the last year ?— 306/. 2019. Is that about the average every year ? — That is about the average. 2020. Do you take any steps to ascertain where workmen are required in different parts of the country ? — No. 2021. These tramps then were persons seeking work at their own instance ? — Yes. 2022. Have you in your society a minimum of wages, that is to say, a rate of wn.ges below which members of the society are not considered to be. allowed to work ? — No. 2023. Have you ever in your society a strike for wages ? — Yes, I believe we have had that, but not in my time, not while I have been secretary. 2024. Was the strike which you refer to one for a rise in wages ? — That is not paid from the general fund, it has been paid from the branch fund. 2025. The object of the strike was to obtain a higher rate of wages I suppose ? — It may have been, but I cannot answer that positively. 2026. {Mr. Merivale) Each lodge, I see, is a diffe- rent branch of the society. Do the lodges in different places form the executive ? — Yes. 2027. How is it settled which lodge forms the executive council for the time being ? — That is voted by the different lodges themselves, 2028. Thev settle which lodge shall act as execu- tive council for the year following ? — -Yes ; it is not supposed that any lodge with less than 150 members shall become the executive council. 2029. Let me call your attention to rule 50 and 51. Rule 50 says, " that any lodge striking or turning out " in support of or in protection of the rights, rules, " customs, or privileges as contained in their sche- " dule, shall immediately communicate the same to the " executive council by whom they shall be furnished " with the means of carrying on such strike or turn " out, so long as a majority of members shall be " agreeable thereto," and then the following rules regulate that privilege. What is the schedule there referred to ? — Our schedule does not contsiin the hour system, ourmen do not work by the hour. 2030. Each lodge has its own schedule as I under- stand ? — There is one copy of schedules through the entire of the lodges, with the exception of a few cases where they have been made since the schedules were printed. They are applied to all the lodges. 2031. One schedule applies to all the lodges you mean ? — Yes. 2032. Have you that with you here ? — I have not. 2033. {Mr. Roebicck.) How many members have you in your society at Sheffield ? — I believe I am cor- rect in saying that our last month's return was 332 members. 2034. Is this a Sheffield society, or are you a branch of another society ? — The Sheffield lodge is now the executive lodge. 2035. But are you connected witli any other society in Manchester for example, because you say that Manchester made these rules ? — Manchester is now one of our br3,nch lodges. 2036. Do you know hdyf msiny branches you h&ve ? Mr. G. Hoiisley. 9 April 1867. 74 TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OP EVIDENCE. Mr. G. 2037. Do you know the number of towns in which Housley. those branches are established ? — I do not know that. "■; — 2038. Does Sheffield as executive, as far as the execu- 9 April 1867. ^j^g jj^g power, govern the rest of the lodges, does it govern all the lodges round about ? — Yes. 2039. You are the main governing body in fact ? — Yes. 2040. During your time you say that there has been no strike, no turn out ? — Not for an advance of wages. 2041. What has there been a strike for ? — There has been a turn out against the hour .system at York. 2042. Have you had no dispute with any of the firms in Sheffield ? — Not in my time. 2043. Do you know whether there had been any before your time ? — I was secretary, I may say, to the Sheffield lodge previous to being the general .secretary, and I was one of the parties that went to the masters association and with them arranged without a strike. We agreed to take their offers. They advanced from their original price, and we reduced from our statement, we met them in fact. 2044. So that in fact you regulated the Sheffield prices ? — -Yes, 204.5. Since that time has that schedule been ad- hered to by your society and by the masters ? — At Sheffield. 2046. So that in fact you have gone in amicably together ? — We have. 2047. And there is no complaint made by either party ?< — No. 2048. {Mr. Harrison.') Have you one set of work- ing rules throughout the different lodges in your society, or are there diffei'ent sets of working rules ? — One set from the executive, namely, that which you have before you. 2049. But in each lodge there are what are called local byelaws or working rules, which in some cases, at any rate, are agreed to between the employers and the workmen, are there not ? — Yes, but which the executive has nothing at all to do with. ' 2050. Can you supply us with copies of those ? — Yes {producing the same). 2051. I suppose these local byelaws are deposited with the central executive, are they not ? — Not at all ; I simply got them promiscuously. 2052. But the general society supports a strike, for instance, to maintaiii those byelaws, does it not ? — No. 2053. Then if a breach of the byelaws, say at Manchester, were committed, or were supposed to be committed, on the pnrt of the employers, and the mem- bers of the society in Manchester struck work, they would have to continue that strike upon their own resources and not upon those of the union ? — I do not wish to be misunderstood on this point. We will sup- pose that code before you to be the code of Manchester rules ; that code of byelaws having been gained and maintained in Manchester say two or three years. It is then sent to the executive for their insertion in their reports, with a view to finding out whether the branch lodges will support them at that advanced schedule, they having maintained it for a certain period. If that byelaw becomes a rule, and is inserted in that copy of schedules, the strike is then supported from the general fund. 2054. How many of the byelaws have been so dealt with, that is to say, has'e been recognized by the central executive ? — Do you mean since I have been in office ? 2055. I mean how many are now recognized ? — I should say that since the delegate meeting in April the rules have been altogether revised, and that the lodges are now getting their amended schedules passed by our societj' through the country, and that already some 30 lodges have got them passed. 2056. But at present, as I gather, these byelaws which 1 have in my hand are the only ones that have been recognized ? — I am not confident that even those have been recognized ; but I might answer the question by just referring to the Oldham lodge, which asked for their amended schedule {producing it). 2057. Are these local rules which afe so recogfiized by the executive, that is to say, by the general body, rules which have been agreed to on the part of em- ployers and signed by them, or sometimes one and sometimes the other ? — I could not say positively in every case, but in most cases they are signed by the masters. 2058. Do you find by experience that the existence of a code of rules so signed on behalf of both parties tends to prevent trade disputes, and tends to the general peace and well being of the trade ? — They are for-the good of every party concerned, both employers and men, if they will sign them. 2059. That is your experience, you have found that to be the case ? — Yes. 2060. {Mr. Roebuck.) Will you explain in what manner the code of rules produces the beneficial effect you speak of? — I will give an instance which is hap- pening at this present time. At Bolton, last year, the employers gave the men an advance of wages, I believe lam correct in saying towards the latter end of the summer. The wages in summer and winter are a little different, being lower in winter than in sumtner^ but they gave them an advance of wages through the winter and when the time of the rsie of wages should have commenced this spring, because they had no bricks, or but very few to go on with, it suited their purpose (it had been agreed, but not in writing, by both masters and men to give or take three months notice befor^ any alteration), to turn round on the men and to therh say "We give you a fortnight's notice that we shall .not " allow you the advance of wages." In consequence of that the men struck work. They were not sup- ported from the general fund, but the general fund has granted them loans which they will repay. Now had those rules been signed by the employers as weH. as by the men (which they were anxious for), that ruptm'e might have been avoided. 2061. {Mr. Mathews.) You say that the masters were short of bricks, that is to say, they could not get the bricks to keep the building going on ? — No doubt of it. ■ ■' 2062. And they made that a reason for a breach of the agreement, you say ? — Yes. 2063 . ( Mr. Harrison.) Is it the case that in some of the lodges of your society, union men refuse to work with non-union men ? — We have never done that to my knowledge. 2064. Is not that the case at Manchester ? — Not within the range of my knowledjje. 2065. You thiak that, supposing a strike were caused by non-union men being brought on to the job (there being no other question whatever), the society would not support such a strike ? — They would not give one copper towards it. 2066. Do you remember the circumstances of a protracted strike during the building of the Manchester law courts ? — I remember there was one, but nothing more. 2067. Were you not a member of the society then ? — I was not at that time, or if I was I was a new member. I have been a member of the union scai'cely four years. 2068. You are not able to say anything with respect to that strike ? — I could not answer any question with respect to that. 2069. In some of the lodges of the union I think there are agreements or understandings between the bricklayers' societies and the brickmakers' societies ; is there any such understanding, for instance, in the Sheffield lodge with which you are acquainted ? — Not that I am aware of. There certainly is no such understanding with any agreement or any considera- tion. They may meet together and talk together, but I am not aware of that. I could not say that they do or thnt they do not. 2070. You do not know of any such agreement at IMnnchester ? — I believe there is an understanding with them, but whether there is a rule written or unwritten I could not say. 2071. You do not know \vhat the understanditig-is? TB'ADES'UmON8, EMi'COMMISSION : — MINUTES .0^ ETXCENCE. 75- — '^ could not answer that ; it iS nothing whatever to do with the executive. 2072. During the time that you have been in the society the society has not been engaged in any strike or trade dispute in which a union with the brickmakers society has been involved ? — ^No. 2073. We had some question raised the other day when a witness from another bricklayers' society was upder examination as to a practice said to exist in the trade ; it has been asserted frequently in the newspapers that there was a rule of the bricklayers' society that a bricklayer should not put the trowel out of his hand so as to use both hands in laying bricks ; is there any such rule as far as you ai-e aware of in any lodge of ybur^society ? — There is not, and I am only sorry to see that the newspapers pander to such statements as that. ■ 2074. You mean to say that the statemeatis without any foundation at all ? — Without any foundation at all, 2075. And that there is no sort of objection ever made to a bricklayer using both hands ? — I have never heard of it. 2076. Do you know of any rule in your society, or in any of the lodges, which is directed against a brick- layer laying bricks in any mode that he considers best, that is to say, against using his hands in any mode that he considers best? — Not at all, and I must beg leave to distinctly contradict any such statement. Jf a man chooses to use and can use the trowel with his, left hand, we. are always extremely happy to work with 'hini, even though we are right-handed men ; we make as good work with right-handed men as witii left-handed men, and with left-handed men as with right-handed men. 2077. You are a practical workman yourself? — Yes.' 2078. Speaking from your own experience before you were secretary of the society, have you ever known any objection made on the score that a man was laying bricks Avith one hand rather than another ? —No. 2079. Have you ever known in any of the byelaws or in any of the lodges of your society, that there has been any rule, the object of which is to restrict the amount of work that a man may do in a day ? — I never saw or heard of it. 2080. Have you any cystom in the society or in the lodges of it which is directed against a practice some- tiines called "chasing"? — No, we have no mention of that. .2081. Not in any byelaw ? — Not in any byelaw. 2082. Have you ever known a strike caused by a workman having been accused of doing a greater amount of work than was considered the fan- average ? —No. 2083. Do you believe that in practice the union, or any custom which it maintains, tends to limit the amount v/hich a very skilful man could earn by the free exercise of his .skill ?-:-No. 2084. Have you known very skilful workmen who were able by their superior skill to earn wages some- what in advance of the workmen they were employed with ? — Ofteii. 2085. And you have never known any objection '. taken by his fellow workmen or by the society to u ■ man making the best of such skill as he possessed ? — We are always glad for him to do so. 2086. {Mr. Roebuck.) I-Iave you ever considered what is the amount of difference between the lowest o-rade of workman and the highest grade of workmen, the ditference in the value of their work during a dav I mean ? — I could not answer that precisely, but there is a great difference. 2087. So that one may be a very skilful man and another an unskilful man, and yet they are both mem- 'ibers of year society ? — I wish distinctly to say this, and not to be misunderstood on the point. We ha^e some very skilled workmen in our trade who are able "to earn their wages \vherever they go. Should an ,, unskilled workman come to any particular job, if the ^'' master "consiclei-3 that he Is not worth'the average rate of wages, our society leaves it to the master to Mr. G. pay that man what he thinks he is worth, and if the Housle y. man does not think he is amply paid by his employer ^ ^ .^ ^^^^^ he is at liberty to go and seek work elsewhere. 2088. {Mr. Merivale.) In the case, of the Sheffield lodge I see that this question is asked, '• Is it custom- " ary with you to work over time during the summer, " and is rhe practice pariial or general?" and the answer is " Yes." Then the next question is, "Are " you of opinion that the practice of working over '' time is prejudicial to the members in general and " to the unemployed in particular ? " the answer to which is " Yes." That is what I find in your " Col- , lection of Schedules " ? — Yes. 2088a. Am I to understand by that that over time is allowed but discouraged? — No, we do not dis.:.. courage it, but we do not believe that it is esseniiglto the well-being of the men that they should work over time. 2089. I see there is a considerable difference of opinion on that subject in the difl'erent lodges. The great majority agree with Sheffield, I think ; but I see several the other way. Here is Hartlepool, for in- stance ; to the question, " Are you of ojiinion that " the practice of working over time is prejudicial to " the members ingeneral, and to the unemployed in " particular ? " they answer, " No." Lincoln answers, •' No ; " Grimsby answers " No ;" and two or three, I see, do not answer at all. There is therefore some difference of opinion on that point among your lodges ? — Yes, rather an amusing difference. . -. 2090. How do you explain it? — ^It varies with th©; locality. I am not able to explain it. 2091. {Mr. RoehucK) Does it not arise from tbo fact that in the o'ne case there is a surplus of hands, and in the other case not quite enough ? — It is pos- sible that it may be that. , ■ ; 2092. {Mr. Hughes.) I see that your Society is divided into a friendly society and a union, and that the subscriptions are different, the subscription to the friendly society being 4fi?. a week, and the subscription to the union 2c?. a week ? — That is to the lodges, not to the executive. I may state that each membersends to the executive \^d. per week to the trada fund, \\d. per week to pay for accidents, and \d. each funeral, be they more or less. 2093. Do you keep those funds in youi' accounts separate ? — In the report, but not as a sum total. The amount is all banked together. 2094. {Lord Elcho.) Would there be any difficulty in keeping your benefit and trades funds separate? — There perhaps might be with respect to the trustees, should separate trustees have to be chosen. 2095. Where would be the difficulty ? — I am not prepared to say where the difficulty would be. W« believe in having as honest and good men as we Can get to be trustees, and two sets of trustees might clash. I do not say they would, but they might. 2096. You do not keep yom- funds separate, you say ? — They are all banked together. 2097. But you publish two sets of rules, one set of rules referring to a benefit society, the other set of rules referring to a trade society. I understood that the benefit society rules were certified by M.v. Tidd Pratt ; is that so ? — Yes. 2098. Then at present your funds must be separate, must they not ? — In one sense of the word you may say that they are separate, we keep them separate in our reports. 2099. These rules as to the friendly society having been certified by Mr. Tidd Pratt, you received protec- tion for those funds ? — Yes. 2100. {Mr. Hughes.) Your whole reserve of 3,649/. 15s. %d. is composed of the general balance of the funds which come in under the rules in both the books before us ? — That is so. 2101. {Sir E. W. Head.) The funds are not separate, as I und^stand you, but there are two sets of rules' bearing on the same fund, one set of rules relating to trade cS-bjeets and the other relating to accidents and funeral? ? — Yes. K 2 ■76 TBADES rNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Mr. G. Housley. 9 AotU 18C' 2102. That set of rules which relates to accidents and funerals is certified by Mi-. Tidd Pratt ? — Yes. 2103. So far, tlicrefore, as regards that set of rules, YOU h;ive complied with what is requisite to give you the pi'otectioii of tlie law for guarding those funds ; but which are the funds that those rules apply to ? — We keep them in our reports separate, we could not touch the aceideiit fund for any strike. 210-1. {Mr. Roebuck.') The accounts are kept sepa- rate but the money is put into the same bank ? — Tiiat is so. 2105. And, I suppose, in the same account in the bank ? — Yes. 2106. {Mr. Matheios.) When it is put into the bank it is put into one account and not into two, is that so ? — To one account. 2107. Then the funds are mixed ? — In the bank they are, but not in the reports. 2108. {Mr. Hughes.) Has your society had any case before the magistrates as to its right to the full benefit of the Friendly Societies Act ? — The Derby branch lodge had the case of a man that we considered wished to impose by his accident upon our society, and we refused payment. They wrote to Mr. Tidd Pratt to ask whether our rules were legal, and his reply to that branch lodge was that no society out of Man- chester was legal. We at once put the case in Messrs. Wake's hands to get the rules re-registered, but still our rules say at the head of the accident laws that the society shall not be removed without the consent of the majority of the members and it was an overwhelming majority for Shetfield. 2109. You are certified under the Act of 1844, the Old Friendly Society's Act ? — Yes. 2110. Under the Act of 1854 there have been several decisions? — Yef,M)'.Wake explained that to us. 2111. {Mr. Harrison.) You are aware as a society that by the recent decision your funds are not entirely safe ? — The}'- are not. 2112. {Mr. Hughes.) This balance of 3,649^. reserve fund is the result of accumulations ever since 1844 ? —Yes. 2113. Do you belong to the United Trades of Shef- field?— No. 2114. Do you admit any but skilled workmen ? — When candidates are proposed they are proposed by our members. They must be proposed and seconded, and their admission carried as jou will have observed by a majority of the members. 2115. But I apprehend that you are a skilled woi'k- men's union ? — Yes. 2116. I think you said, in answer to a question which was put before, that you have no minimum rate of wages. I suppose you have the same rules as to bricklayers wages as the other societies ? — I do not wish to be misunderstood on that point ; the minimum rate of wages will refer to diiferent localities. 2117. But in each locality you have a minimum rate ? — That is so. 2118. And you do not take any joui-neymau who is not competent to earn that ? — His master will decide. If lie is a member of our society we do not force him to earn that at all. 2119. {Mr. jMathetos.) I think you stated that this book before us governs your society with reference to its sick and friendly operations ? — Yes. 2120. This in point of fact constitutes your society a friendly society, un'der the state of the law which makes It necessary to be certified by Mr. Tidd Pratt ? —Yes. 2121. The Manchester association is a branch of yours, you say ? — Yes. 2122. Does that branch adopt your friendly rules ? — We only are certified ; if we are illegal, they are illegal. 2123. In addition to that, the Manchester associa- tion have adopted this other set of rules for the government of their trade operations ? — Yes. 2124. Do you adopt those rules, too ? — Yes. 2125. So that the Manchester rules, which govern their trade operations, govern yours equally ? — Yes. 2126. I think you stated that you kept a separate account of what is contributed under the Manchester set of rules from that which is contributed under the friendly set of rules ? — No, because we have not any two sets of rules. 2127. There is one set of rules which have been certified by Mr. Tidd Pratt, but the others have not been certified ? — That is so. 2128. Do you keep the funds which are raised under the certified rules separate from those raised under the uncertified rules? — I stated just now that the money was banked together. 2129. It constitutes one fund, then, under both these sets of rules ? — Yes, the 3,649/. 2130. That constitutes one fund in the bank ? — In the bank. 2131. Neither the Manchester society, nor your society, have any other rules which govern your operations, but the printed ones ? — Except the bye- laws, which no doubt the Manchester lodge has. 2132. In these byelaws is there anything about piece work ; are there any regulations in them res- pecting piece work on the part of any of the members of your society ? — There may be, but I am not aware of it. 2133. Are your members at liberty to take piece work, if they desire it, instead of working by the day ? — They do, but it is not always beneficial for them to do so. 2134. But supposing that they think it beneficial do you discourage it ? — No, I can simply state that the Sheffield lodge does not discourage it. 2135. Does the Manchester ? — I could not answer that. 2136. As to sub-contract work, does your society allow its members to take sub-contract work and pay their own men ? — I cannot answer that. 2137. You say that you have no objection whatever to any member of your society working as hard as he pleases and getting as much as he can ; if he is a clever workman you put no restriction upon him, say- ing that he shall confine himself to laying a certain number of bricks a day ? — No, we have no rule on that point at all. 2138. {Sir D. Gooch.) You say that your execu- tive council represents one lodge only ; they chano-e from time to time, do they ? — That is so. 2139. Is that change made often, or is it generally in the hands of one lodge for a long period ? — It has been in Manchester since it was certified up to August 1866. 2140. And then it was changed to Sheffield?— Yes. 2141. In that case which you were speaking of, when the masters did not give pi-oper notice to the men, and there was a strike in consequence, had that notice only reference to the wages, or had it reference to the time that the master must give notice to the men to leave his employment ? — It only referred to the wages. 2142. So that if he wished the master could have stopped the men working altogether ? — Yes. 2143. What is the rate of wages there ? — I believe the rate of wages for Bolton is 5s. Qd. per day. 2144. {Chair?)ian.) I see from this book that in several of these towns the wages per day are 4s., and in several 5s. 6d. ? — Yes. 2145. {Sir B. Gooch.) 1 uppose that the difi^er- ence in wages is, merely the diflference in districts, there is a large difterence in all trades in different dis- tricts ? — Yes, that is it. 2146. {Lord Elcho.) You say that there are more than 5000 members of your society. Do you know how many bricklayers there are altogether belonging to the ^society in the United Kingdom ?— I do not. 2147. Do you know the total number of non- society men ? — No. 2148. Do you know in the case of any district where your societies exists how many non-society men there are ? — No. 2149. Do you knov,^, though you may not know TRADES tTNlONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OT EVIDENCE. 77 the exact number, whether they are fewer in number or more than the society men in the districts with which you are acquainted ? — I believe I am perfectly right in saying that the non-society men are a great deal fewer in number. 2150. You have said that there is no sucli custom as sending men to Coventry, by which we mean non- union men not being spoken to, or being persecuted in some other way by union men when they happen to be on the same work ? — We have nothing to do with sending men to Coventry at all. 2151. Have }ou anything to do with the system of picqueting ? — I believe there is a system in case of strikes where the men picquet the work. 2152. Is that system recommended by the union ? — Not from the executive. 2153. Do the executive interfere to prevent it at all ? — No, nor to encourage it. 2154. What is the object of the picqueting? — The object I should mention would be this : if I were working at a contract and I considered that the em- ployer was not paying me a sufficient rate of wages, and if I left his employ on those grounds and then saw another man going to take my work, I would kindly say to that man what were the reasons for which I had left, and show him that he would not be doing me as a workman and as a brother a kindness in taking my place. 2155. {Mr. Roebuck.) In fact you picquet men to read homilies one to another? — No, we do not do that. 2156. (Lord Elcho.) How are these picquets se- lected ? — There is a considerable difference in different localities. Each lodge adopts its own system, the executive have nothing to do with it. 2157. Are there a certain number of men put to watch the works from the time they open till the evening ? — I could not say that. 2158. Have you never seen a picquet ? — No. 2159. Nor acted as one yourself? — No. 2160. What does that arise from ? Is it from the short time that you have been connected with the executive, or from the fact that you never have been on works where there have been strikes ? — I worked as a bricklayer before I joined the union, and I for- tunately joined the union and they never coerced me into anything. 2161. You have never been on works where there was a strike, and never have yourself seen the system of picqueting as I understand you ? — I have not. 2162. {Mr. RoehucK) Is the bricklaying trade brisk in Sheffield ? — It is not so good as it has been, there is perhaps not so much work now as there has been sometimes in the past. There may be more in the hands of the architects but I cannot answer for that, I have very little concern with it. 2163. There has been no lowering of wages lately, has there ? — No. 2164. Nor any talk of lowering by the masters? — No. 2165. Nor anj- talk of raising them by the men ? — Yes. I believe that the men wished the employers to give them the shilling per week advance this summer, they agreed to a reduction the last time. I believe I am correct in stating that. 2166. And the masters have refuged ? — I believe they said that that they could not entertain the question, 2167. Nothing resulted from that — no heart bum- ino-, or ill blood followed between the masters and the men ? — Not that I am aware of. 2168. {Lord Elcho.^ You have said that since you have been secretary 45^. only has been spent in strike pay ; do you know whether in previous years the pro- portion between strike pay, and the sum spent for benefit purposes, is as striking as it is in the case of last year ? — I believe that that is not an average state- ment for strikes ; I could not give the exact statement. 2169. You believe that in former yeai's it has ex- ceeded that sum ?— I believe so. 2170. Do vou believe that in former years the pro- portion spent on strikes has been anything like the Mr. G. proportion spent on benefit purposes ? — By no means. Homley. 2171. I understand you to say that in your society — ; — since its formation the sum spent on benefit purposes ^ April 186 7. has been very much larger than the sum spent on strikes ? — Yes ; if I were to give an opinion on the subject I should say that the sum spent for strikes, on the average, would be 200^. a year. 2172. You cannot, yourself, from your experience in the matter of strikes say to what extent sums have been spent by your society in strikes, or whether they have been successful or not ? — No. 2173. I think you said that you became secretary in August last ? — Yes, but I have given you the statement for 1866 entire. 2174. {Mr. Hughes.) That sum of 45^. Vis. in- cludes the whole of 1866 ? — It includes the whole of 1866. 2175. {Lord Elcho.) And that is set ag.ainst the other sum which you have already mentioned, the 1,362/., the 1,448Z., and the 1,088/. ?— Yes. 2176. There is a distinction between a labourer and a bricklayer, is there not ? — Yes, there is a great line of demarcation between them. 2177. Each bricklayer has his labourer, has he not ? — Yes. 2178. Are the labourers allowed to belong to your society ? — No. 2179. Have they societies of their own ? — Yes. 2180. Separate and distinct ? — Separate and dis- tinct. 2181. Is a labourer ever allowed by your society to do work whicli they consider properly belongs to a bricklayer ? — No, we do not consider that right. 2182. Is there any regulation as to the number of labourers that may be employed on a given work ? — Not with us. 2183. You lay down no rule that an employer shall not employ more than a given number of laboui-ers ? — No, the employer fixes that himself. 2184. {Mr. Hughes.) When you say that the em- ployer fixes the number of labourers, you fix it thus far, that you would not allow labourers to do brick- layers' work ? — No, we should not consider that right. 2185. {Mr. Mathews.) If an employer were to find a few intelligent labourers who had been with him for some years, and they were to turn their hands, on an emergency, to laying bricks, would your society object to that ? — Yes, they would take offence at it. 2186. In what shape would they show that ? — They would strike. 2187. {Lord Elcho.) Does a labourer sometimes rise to become a bricklayer ? — Very often. 2188. Is it a regular process that a man who begins as a labourer becomes a bricklayer ? — No. 2189. Is there anything to prevent his becoming so as far as your society are concerned ? — No. 2190. {Mr. Matheios.) Did you not say that you would strike in such a case ? — If at Sheffield, for in- stance, a number of men were employed on a contract, and the employers started one or two labourers to work side by side with them, I have no hesitation in saying that they would strike against it ; but if one of the labourers left that employer and went to another place, say a place where there is not a society, if he is a pretty good sort of labourer, the employer puts him to the troAvel perhaps, and be might pass for a bricklayer. In that way he learns something, and in a few years he may return to the town where he was before, and if he is able to do his work as a bricklayer, he is not objected to by our men. 2191. {Mr. Harrison.) No objection is made to a man who thoroughly understands his business ? — No. 2192. {I^ord Elcho.) Then a labourer in order to become a bricklayer must go where there is no society ? — If he were put side by side with our men as a labourer they would object to it. 2193. {SirE. TV. Head.) What number of bricks do you reckon that a good bricklayer ought to lay in a day ? — We have no rale whatever as to that. K 3 7^ TRADSS. XfSlOiXS, ETC.; OOMMIflSIONJtt-JttlN.UTES. Off EVJPftNCE. Mr. G. Housley. 9 April 1867. 2i94. WKal; is your opitiiou ? — It depends on tliJ cmality of the work altogether. ' 2195. A part of of the business of the labourer is to cany up the bricks to the bricklayer, is it not ? — Yes. 2196. Is there any rule, or custom, or understanding that you know of as to the quickness or slowness with ■which the labourer supplies a bricldayer ? — No. 2197. You know of nothing of the kind ? — No. 2198. {Lord Elcho.) The result of what you have stated is, is it not, that in any town where there is a society of bricklayers, it would be very difficult for a labourer to rise to the grade of bricklayers ? — Yes. 2199. In order to do that he would have to go to some country place where there was no society .^ — Yes. 2200. With regard to this schedule of questions which has been spoken aboct, I see amongst them (I think in Manchester) such questions as these : " Have you any bagging half-hour ?" What is meant by a " bagging '>alf-hour ?" — That is a term which 1 could not explam ; they mean by it the tea half-hour but the word '• bagging " I could not explain. 22U1. " Watering time," do you know what that means ?— Nb, but that has special reference to the tea hour. 2202. Here is a question which I find is put in the Manchester schedule during the summer season, " Is " it customary for you when employed at a distance '• from the town to meet at any particular place or " places at any particular time in the morning and " walk: from thence to your work?" What is the meaning of that question? — The meaning of that question is this : an employer may have a contract say four or five miles out of town. The bricklayer;^ who live in town have been working convenient to their own homes, but for that contractor they have, if they stay with him, to go and work at that distance, say three or four mUes, and they wish to have walking time, so that they shall not be compelled to be working all day and to be walking all night. 2203. That question is followed by " When you are " working a distance from the town do you walk to " your work in your own time and commence at the " same time as though you were in the town ? " Do you mean that when, as you put it here, they are working some distance from the town, the men start from a given place at the hour at which they would be naturally working in town if the work were in town ? — Yes. 2204. And that the time that they take to go to this place in the country is taken off their employer's time ? — Yes. 2205. So that in point of fact the walking is part of the day's work ? — ^Yes. 2206. And is paid for by the master ? — Yes. 2207. {Mr. Harrison.) That is agreed to by the master ? — That is agreed to by the master. 2208. {Lord Elclw.) I see that in some places that is the rule, and that in some places it is not. As a whole is it more customary than otherwise ? — .A.S a rule it is customary to have walking time. 2209. And the way in which that is done is for the men to meet at certain particular places from v.'hich they start. I see that at Manchester, for instance, they start at the Old Church, at St. Philip's Church, and at other places ? — Yes. 2210. They meet there to start at the hour at which theu" fellow woi'kmoii who are working on jobs in the town meet at those jobs to begin work ? — That is it. 2211. I see also from this book that boys who are not the sons of members pay a contribution of 4«. 4c?. a quarter. The custom varies I see very much as regards the employment of apprentices and boys according to the rules in the different places ; it depends on circumstances I presume ? — Yes. 2212. {Chairman.) In Preston and other places I see you have a regulation as to the employment of boys not sons of members, that they must pay 4s. Ad. a quarter. By what authority do you make a boy before he is allowed to work pay you 4s. 4c?. a quarter ? — -JJoys .nut the sons of members, pay 4«, Ad, per, quarter -to the branch lodge in the locality where they aie working, and in return for paying that 4s. Ad. per quarter they get the full protection of the society and instruction from our members to teach them their trade. 2213. {Sir D. Gooeh.) It is a sort of apprentice contribution to the men in fact? — That goes to the branch lodges not to the executive at all. 2214. {Mr. Hughes.) Do the boys get any benefit in the shape of accident or other fund out of it ? — No. 2215. {Lord Elcho.) You said that the employer might take as many apprentices as he liked, but from this book I see that it varies with the towns ? — I say that the rule is that they have no question raised about that ; there are exceptions. 2216. (Mr. Merivale.) A good many exceptions, ;ire there not. Preston and Birkenhead being among them for instance ? — The rule is that there is no ques- tion raised about that. 2217. {Lord Elcho.) As a central society do you try to regulate .such points as that ? — No, that is regulated by the different localities. 2218. Entirely ?— Entirely. 2219. Practically what your society does when there is any question of a strike is to see whether the rules of the local society have been adhered to ; is that so ? — Yes. 2220. In your rules for trade purposes you say that the purpose of this general society is to "aid its " member to obtain a fair day's wage for a fair day's " work." What steps do your society take to establish what is a fair day's wage for a fair day's work ? — If I went to Grimsby, for instance, to work, say that their wages thei-e are 4s. a day I should expect to have 4s. a day ; if I come to Sheflaeld and the wages there are 5s. hd. a du} , as a competent workman I should expect the same ; and in like manner wiatever the wages were in the place where I went to, those are the wages vi'hich I shoidd expect to receive. 2221 . But does not this statement which I have just read go further and mean more than that ; does not this mean raising wages or diminishing the hours of labour ? — No, it does not go any further than I have stated. 2222. Your society, you mean, does not take action in those questions ?■ — No, it does not. 2223. {Mr. Roehuch.) Supposing that you were to make an aiTangement with your employer at Sheffield to take less than os. Qd., what would your fellow labourers say to that ? — -I could not answer that question. We have never had a case of that sort that I know of. 2224. {Mr. Mathews.) In the preface to this little book of the Manchester rules, you say that your Society will endeavour to obtain a fair day's wage for a fair day's work, and that it will employ every lawful and legitimate means to reduce the hours of labour. Do you draw any distinction between reducing the hours of labour and raising wages. If you reduce the hours of labour by an hour a day, for instance, do you think it incumbent on you to reduce the wages in proportion ? — ^No ; no doubt a reduction of the hours of labour would be equivalent to a rise of wages. 2225. In fact you would not lower the wages in the same proportion ? — No. 2226. So that in point of fact shortening the hours of labour a.ud raising' the wases are convertible terms ? —Yes. 2227. {Mr. Roebuck.) Does your society extend to Blackburn and Preston ? — We have a lodge at Blackburn and a lodge at Preston ; the lodge at Blackburn has two members. 2228. Are there any strikes in those towns at the present moment ? — None whatever, supported from the executive. 2229. If there be any strike in those towns it does not exist in your trade ? — It does not exist with us ; if they have any we know nothing about it. 2230. {Mr. Matltews.) I think you stated that the demand for;the services of your, .particular t],-ade was TKAOES UNIONS, ETC. -tX^MMISSION;-— MINUTES OF! JEVOTBNCE. »79 rather declining at Sheffield ? — 1 stated that- it was not so good as it had been, I could not state what was in the architects' offices. 2231. But taking- the work which is out of the architects' offices, and is before the public, that is not so abundant as it was, is that so ? — T can answer that by saying that four months ago the Shefliold lodge did not return so many members as they do now — that is a guarantee that the work is still pretty good. 2232. In the face of that answer which you gave just now to the eflPect that the demand is not so great at Sheffield as it has "been, do you think it wise and prudent that the bricklayors should give notice for an advance of a shilling in their wages and threaten to strike ? — I did not state that they had threatened to strike. 2233. Still they have persevered in their demand for a shilling a week more, have they not ? — ^I beheve they have asked for it. 2234. {Mr. Harrison.) You said just now that youi- men object to work along with a labourer, do you mean that they object to work along with any thoroughly skilled bricklayer ? — ^Not at all, 2235. When, therefore, you said that you would object to work with a labourer, supposing that a labourer was put on the work, that objection does not apply where the man in question is a thoroughly skUled bricklayer ? — Not at all. 2236. A man cannot become a bricklayer simply by looking at the work I presume ; perhaps you can state how long it takes for a man to become a thoroughly skilled bricklayer — how long must he practise the trade ? — ^It will depend on circumstances ; if he is an intelligent man he will learn it in four or five years, while another man would be eight or 10 or even 12 years at it, and not be as well up in it then as the other man at the end of four or five years. 2237. Then, in point of fact, the labourer who has never done anything but carry a hod, and occasionally by a mere chance put his hand to a trowel, could not by any possibility be a skilled bricklayer ? — I do not say that. 2238. It is very unlikely, is it not, that he should be a skilled bricklayer? — I would not say that, be- cause that would be saying more than I should know to be true. 2239. Have you ever known any labourers who have done nothing but carry bricks on to the scaifold, who have suddenly, the first time that they tried, be- come skilled bricklayers ? — No. 2240. Supposing that a number of skilled brick- layers were called upon to work along with one or two labourers who were not skilled bricklayers, would they not have to be inten'upting their work to teach those other men their trade? — I do not see that necessarily. 2241. Do you mean that it would be no inconve- nience that these unskilled men were working with them ? — I should answer that by saying that if a con- tract were going on outside this building there would be work going on outside as well as inside, and the less skilled men would be doing the inside work and the more skilled men the outside work. 2242. Then there would be no objection on the parfc of your men to working with them ? — I never heard of any in such a case as that. The witness 2243r. Have you found any practical grievance to ^r. G. the men in your trade arising from the mtoons refusing . ^o«^ky- to permit bricklayers to do a little bit 6f mason's % j^^^^i^m work when it occurs in a wall .'' — I cannot say that • we have. 2244. You have no such grievance against the miisons' innou ? — -No. 2245. {Mr. Mathews.) Suppose that I as a master were to put on certain work three or four labottrei's whom I considered fit to lay bricks, would your mem- bers say that, in their opinion, these men were not fit to be bricklayers ? — Certainly ; the bricklayers would know whether they were fit to be bricklayers. 2246. But even though these men had satisfied the master, your members would still persevere in their objection to work with them ? — K labourers were put to bricklayer's work they would refiise to work with them. 2247. That is to say, they would not allow the em- ployer to judge of their capacity? — They 'do not interfere with the master. 2248. Except by striking ? — Yes. 2249. {Mr. Hughes.) Supposing that I am a labourer put to worlt between two skilled bricklayers, would it be the case that those two bricklayers could go on at their ordinary rate, assuming that I was not a skilled bricklayer? — I should quite believe it to be possible that a nob-skUled workman would not do, and would not bo able to dp so much as a skilled man. 2250. Then there would be great practical incon- venience from employing a labourer in such a case ? — Just so. '. 2251. {Mr. Harrison.) You have stated that you have not been very long a member of the society r — Scarcely four years. 2252. Before jon became a member of the society did you find, as a skilled workman, that the union men prevented you from making the most of your skill ? — They never did. 2253. {ntr. Huc/hes.) What led you to join the union ? — I believed that it would be a benefit to me if I had an accident for my family to receive 12s. a week, because it would be better than their going to the parish. 2254. {Mr. Roebuck.) You joined it then as a benefit society ? — Yes. ' 2255. Not because it was a union ? — Certainly not, and I believe that two-thirds of the men do not join it as a union ; that is to say, they do not join it to strike. 2256. {Lord Elcho.) You have put in here a book which you call " Officers' Charges," that contains the ceremony of admission, I believe ? — Yes. 2257. Are these ceiemonies common in other so- cieties, or are they peculiar to yours ? — Every branch of ours has one of those books, but I cannot speak of other societies. 2258. {Mr. Roebuck.) I think you state in your rules that you take no part in politics, as a society ; do you adhere to that rule ? — We strictly adhere to all the rules in that book. 2259. Have your society ever been requested to take part in politics ? — I could not answer that ques- tion. withdrew. Mr. William Macdonald examined. Mr. W. 2260. ( Chairman.) Are you the secretary for the Manchester Operative House Painters Alliance ? — Yes, not the financial secretary, but a corresponding secretary ; I am called honorary secretary. 2261. Do you produce the rules of that society? — Yes {producing the same). 2262. When was this society established ? — It was established in 1852. 2263. How many members have you now at work? —We have 3980 members. 2264. Is yours a socie'ty confined to the district of Manchester, or have you branches all over the king- "- ^«^^»^- dom ? — The leading society is the society that I be- long to. There are 58 branches ; you will find the names of the places at which those branches exist in one of the books before you. Perhaps it would be better to take the parent society, so to speak, first, and from that the Commissioners will be able to understand the nature and the principles of the General Alliance. 2265. Will you state what the funds are ; firgt, what is the reserve ^ fund ?— The reserve .ftmd'Jfor K 4 80 TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION :— MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Mr. W. the 400 members coustituting the parent society is Macdonald, 8181. Os. 3^d. ~ — 2266. Are the societies answerable for each other ; 9 April 1867, ^j^^^ jg ^^ ga,y^ jf there is a strike in one of the branches, do the other branches contribute to it if need be ? — I am now speaking of the parent society, or the principal society of the Alliance, numbering 400 members. Their fund is 818/. Os. 'S^d., that be- longs to the individual society, and is a fund with which the others have nothing to do. 2267. If you had occasion to strike, have you a right imder the rules to call for contributions from the other branches ? — Yes. 2268. Then it is an organized co-operation, all co-operating together for trade purposes ? — Yes. 2269. To show us the progress of the principles of the society, can you state how many members were added last year ? — There is a report here which con- tains the last year's account, and in the second para- graph of that latest report you will find this stated, " Our last balance sheet showed the strength of our " organization to the extent of 44 towns in alliance, " with a list of members amounting to 2,771. We " now number 58 towns, and members enrolled 3,980, " being an increase of 14 societies and 1,209 mem- " bers," that is within the twelve months. 2270. Is the mode of admitting members the ordi- nary one, namely, that they are proposed at, one meet- ing and either admitted or rejected at a second meet- ing ? — Yes, that is exactly the form adopted, they must be proposed and seconded at one meeting. 2271. And a candidate must be within a certain agej I suppose ? — He must be within a certain age, and he must be qualified. In the first placr^, he must either produce an indenture or establish the fact that he has served five years of apprenticeship. 2272. He is not qualified without that ? — No, that is the qualification required by our association ; he must either bring his indentures to show that he has served that time, or he mast prove that by other evidence. 2273. Are the aflfairs of the society managed by a central committee ? — The affairs of the Alliance are managed by an executive committee and grand council, and the affairs of our society are managed by a president, vice-president, secretary, committee, and trustees for the money, and what is called a steward. The secretary collects the money, and the steward conveys it to the treasurer. There are, there- fore, three parties to bank it, and the bank book is kept in three names. 2274. What are the objects of your society ? — The objects are the general objects of a trade society combined lyith those of anaccident and burial society. Our particular profession is more liable to accidents in fact than to sickness ; but we have never been able in our particular department to afford either an out- of-work fund or a sick fund, we pay our members, however, in case of accidents. If it is wished, I can furnish some statistics by-and-bye to show how much we have paid annually for accidents, and how mucli for funerals, and how much of the money collected has been spent in what are called restraint of trade pur- poses, or strikes. I have got a summary of tlie expenditure for the last five years showing what has been the annual or the average expenditure for the same time. I take of course my own society ; it is impossible for me at a short notice to go over a number of societies and get the statistics belonging to them; but as to the Parent societ}-, I can give a \-ery fliir idea of the mode in which the money has been expended by it. 2275. Will you give us each of those items ? — I will furnish you in the first place the current expen- diture for what are called the working expenses. 2276. {Sir D. Gooch.) This which you are about to give is limited to the 400 members as I under- stand you ? — Yes ; there are two societies in Man- chester, one numbering 250 the other 400. I am now going to deal with the 400 members, because that is the only society that I can I'epvesent completely; but it may be said that the parent society is the model and leader of the others. 2277. {Mr. Harrison.) That is the society in Manchester? — Yes, the society in Manchester. I will give a few items to show the nature of the expenditure. The first item that I have is the treasurers' and presidents' salaries, 26*. per quarter, which makes 51. As. Od. Then I go on to secretaries, trustees, and auditors, 53s. per quarter, which makes 10/. 6s. Od, Committee meetings and cost of deputations, 21. 9s. 2d. Rent for winter quarter, 51., for the other three quarters, 9/. The reason of that larger sum for the winter quarter is that the men have special accommodation for 14 weeks in the year, newspapers for instance being provided for them. There is one season of the year during which the employment is very small in our trade ; not above one-third of the men are employed all the year round, and the other two-thirds have to be pro- vided with newspapers and fire, and comfortable lodg- ings, to which they can resort each day. 2278. {Lord Elcho.) When you say lodgings you do not mean sleeping lodgings, do you ? — No, I mean quarters for the day ; a place where the men can resort to from 9 in the morning till 6 at night. 2279. {Chairman.) Inside work in painting can go on at any time, can it not ? — Yes, but there is a prejudice against it, and it is inconvenient. The greater part of our work of course is done in summer time. To proceed with the expenditure I may state that I make the sum of the working expenses per annum for the 400 members to amount to 33/. 10s. lOd. for that one society. 2280. {Mr. Hughes.) That includes the rent ?— That includes the rent. Then I have I'eckoned the expenditure under the head of what is called benefits, for instance, the expenditure on the newspapers I put under that head, because I call that one of the benefits that the members receive. Our payment is 3(/. per week for nine months in the year, and a penny per week (that is the ordinary contribution) for the other three. You will see, therefore, that the contributions are very low. The benefits which the trade recei-ces in consequence of paying the 3c/. per week for eight or nine months in the year and a penny per week during the remaining part of the year are these, and this is the amount which has been spent in one year. Newspapers for 15 weeks, 1/. 10s. Expenses of tramps, that is to saj-, parties who are in search of work furnished with means to go round t,he country and see if they can pick up a job, 13/. The various societies in connexion if they cannot furnish a member travelling vsith a job, furnish hun with the means of extending his journey to the next place to find work, but all this expense is kept against the society. So much per mile is allowed, and the amount is balanced up at certain interval-. Then there is 15/. for an annual dinner, which is a very fine affair, and is in fact, the great annual reunion of the tradt-. Then there is 5/. put here as granted by our society to the Art Al'orknien's Exhibition of Manchester. I state these facts to show the ten- dency of our association, and that we are not sordid, merely trying how much we can get from our em- ployers. \\\; wish to encourage a higher class of art, as it has a great eff'ect on our business. We tliere- fore, as 1 have said, gave 5/. to the Art Workmen's Exhibition at Manchester, luid it was said by those who were capable of forming an opinion that it was of a very superior character, "it was an exhibition got up for improving tlie taste of the men, and every man's name was, for the first time probably, fixed upon his work so as to connect him with it. " I may just state in passing that I was one of the committee of thiit association, and I came in contact with Sir James Kay Shuttleworth, a man of great taste and ability. Lord Houghton, too, came down on that occasion. All people of taste, both in the press and out of it, pronounced it one of the most creditable voluntary efforts ever made by workmen to elevate the taste of their brethren. The next item is 51, given in aid to the Bakers' Society, I may explain TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 81 that the bakers of Manchester are, I am sorry to say, in a very wretched condition, and we gave them 51. to try and help them. 2281. {Mr. Harrison.) Were they on strike? — Yes ; it was strictly speaking a strike, but 1 reckoned it an act of the greatest charity on our part to lielp them, knomng that the men were working 16 or 18 hours a day, and that by a little aid we might enable them to change that state of things. 2282. {Chairman.') Though we listen with much interest to what you are saying, you will remember that the purpose of our inquiry has more to do with the allowances to the men for trade reasons and the expenses of strikes ? — I wish faithfully to represent the society to which I belong by showing you that our society is to a larger extent, at least financially, a benefit society than what is called a trade society. I have got all these items from the secretary, and I wished to explain our objects to the Commissioners fully. The next is &\\ item of 3Z. to a painter who was thrown out of work in consequence of being active in forming a society in Shropshire in connexion with our branch (he was not on strike), and none of the masters would employ him, but he helped himself as he could ; we to assist him gave him 3/. 2283. How could he help himself as a painter if nobody would employ him ? — When I say that nobody would employ him I mean that none of the regular employers would ; of course he could get private jobs by himself to go on with, and by a little assistance he in that way got over his difficulty, and we gave him 3/., which was of great assistance to him. 2284. {Sir D. Gooch.) You have not told us, I think, the total of those benefits ? — The total of those benefits is 43^. 2*. lie?. Then I come to the accident benefits for the five past years. 1 give the five years and you can strike an average ; the average of the accident benefit is 24Z. 12s. per year. 2285. {Mr. Roebuck.') (Df what nature are the accidents ? — Such as a tumble from a scaffold, or a bruise, or anything like that ; there is a great deal of our w^ork done on ladders, and that causes some accidents. This amount is taken from the books of the society ; that sum has been paid in one year for accidents. Altogether the accident expenditure for the five years comes to 123/., and if you divide that by five it makes, of course, 24/. 12,?. Then as to funerals, I take the funerals for five years; for 1863 members' funerals are 61/., members' wives 12/. ; for 1864, members' funerals 69/. \s. 6d., members' wives 11/. ; for 1865, members' funerals 98/., members' wives 12/. ; for 1866, members' funerals 113/., members' wives 12/. ; for 1867, members' funerals 88/., members' wives 12/. That makes in the five years 498/. for members' deaths and their wives, or an average of 98/. 12s. per year. Then we have the item 24/. 12s. for the accident expenditure, which makes a sum of 123/. 4s. The other benefits I reckon at 43/. 2s. lid., making in all our annual benefits 166/. 6s. lid. Then I come to our payments last year from our connexion with all the strikes of the alliance ; that expenditure is not in our own society, because I do not remember a strike in our society, and indeed we might be en- rolled any day as far as the actual fact of a strike goes. During the last year the share of our 400 members in the expenses of the different movements (strikes you may call them) for advance of wages was 24/. 12s., against benefits 166/. 6s. lid. 2286. {Mr. Hughes.) In fact your contribution to strikes is exactly the same as your contribution to accidents ? — It appears so. 2287. {Sir D. Gooch). I make the figures 199/. for purposes other than strikes, and 24/. for strikes ? Yes, that is correct. I omitted the item of 33/. for working expenses when I said 166/. for benefit purposes. I may say that there are 3,980 in alliance who stand now enrolled members, good in the books, as it were. There may be a number of others not exactly on benefit, but this is the number represented in the operations of the society. I wish to let the Commissioners see the real nature of our society, 18425. because I think that it will beai- a very close _ inspec- tion, though I know that it has imperfections. I think you will find that the parent society is not only of great utility to our own members, but of great utility to the trade generally, represented by the alliance. 2288. {Chairman.) If you can mention the par- ticulars of one strike for a rise of wages that would enable us to understand the principle ; can you state, for instance, as to any one of those strikes, what it was which the workmen demanded, whether the em- ployers then refused to give what was asked, and what was the ultimate result ; did you know the pro- ceedings on any one occasion of that nature ? — I am glad to say that the thing is scarcely known in the society to which I belong. 2289. I understand jovl to say that j'our society has not really originated any strike at all ? — No ; we have stopped and prevented a good number. 2290. {Mr. Hughes.) I see that you refer to four cases iu page 2 of your last report, namely, Preston, Bacup, Walsall, and Liverpool, and the expenditure of the whole alliance upon those four strikes appears to have been only 74/. 2s. 2d. ; is that so ? — Yes. 2291. And you have contributed towards that 74/. 2s. 2d. the sum of 24/. 12s. ? — Yes, I have given the complete statistics of one year ; I have given five years' benefits, but we have struck an average on the benefits. 2292. {Sir D. Gooch.) The 24/. for strikes was not an average of live years ? — No, the average would be less than that ; that was the actual sum paid in one year. 2293. What year was that ? — Last year. 2294. {Chairman.) One of your objects is to keep up the rate of wages, and one means of doing that is by stril struck against, and after that time it was understood on all hands that the 4 o'clock should be absolutely given. 2607. {Mr. Booth.) Was it the result of the strike that it was conceded that it should te a rule absolute ? — It had been a rule absolute to a considerable extent before, and the universality of the rule was established by the strike. 2608. I Understood from you that the men declined to take it as a matter of indulgence, but insisted upon it as a matter of right ? — I think I may say so, but with the exception of some few firms it had been so conceded in the first instance. 2609. {Sir E. W. Head.) This was a strike only in a particular firm, as I understand you ? — -Yes, I hardly know whether I ought to have troubled the Commifj- sion with it. 2610. {Mr. Hughes.) In fact you consider the 4 o'clock rule to have been the rule of the trade pre- vious to 1856 ? — I think I may say so. 2611. {Earl of Lichfield.) Did your association take any action upon that strike ? — None whatever. 2612. {Mr. Hughes.) It calls the trade together on such questions, and that is the only thing it does ? Yes. 2613. {Earl of Lichfield.) Did it caU the trade together on that occasion ? — No. In 1857 I find thnt a discussion arose about the payment by the hour in consequence of the Saturday half-holiday, but no result followed. In November 1857 a memorial from the masons was presented requesting on and after tlu' first Saturday in June 1858 to cease labour at 12 o'clock on Saturdays, and to be paid at the rate of 64-. per day for the first five days of the week, and Zs. for the short day on Saturday ; and the resolution of the society then was that public discussion should be raised, and that the opinion of the public should bo obtained upon the question, if possible, as it seemed to go beyond their particular trade. 2614. {Mr. Mathews.) The wages are reduced in that case in the same proportion as the hours on Saturday ? — The hours are reduced and the wages are stated in proportion. 2615. The demand was for 6s. a day ? — It is tan- tamount to that. The memorandum M^hich I find on our minutes is, " Eesolved that public discussion be ^^ raised through the columns of the • Times,' &c. on the question of the masons' memorial in order to " obtain the opinion of the public generally, and to " afford information to the public upon it, and upon " the questions involved in it." In June 1858, on the masons' memorial being considered, it was re- solved, " That the members of the Builders Society do not feel themselves in a position to entertain the subject, involving as it does so important aii " alteration in the hours of labour and rate of wages." On August the 12th of that year a letter was received froni the operative carpenters and joiners requesting an interview by a deputation from the Nine Hours Movement Committee. On August the 26th' the deputation was received ;. the deputation consistitig of ■Mr. George Potter from Elliot & 'Odi.'brewers, and Mr. Kennedy, of the Houses of Parliament, and seven TRADES UNIONS, ET^. ■ iGOMMISSION SttMINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 95 others, arid the resolution come ,to wss, >' That,.the " question although raided by ih© , ^carpentei's ; and " joiners is really a questiori; involving all trades, and, " Only amounts to an alteration in the rate of' wages. " That within the last four or five years the price of " skilled labour has been advanced 10 per cent., and " it does not appear to this meeting that there is " anything in the circumstances of the present time " to warrant a further increase. That looking at the " very large interest involved beyond the bounds of " the building trade, this meeting does not feel that " they can accede to the request made." On the 9th of September a memorial was received from the masons on the same subject, and they were answered bj' a copy of the resolutions of the 26th of August, which I have just read. On the 9th of December, i\Ir. Potter, acting as secretary of the delegates on the nine hours' movement, requested an interview, but it wijs declined, inasmuch as the question had been fally discussed on the 26th of August. On April the i4tli, 1859, a letter from Mr. Potter was read dated 19th March, on behalf of the conference of the build- ing trades amalgamated for the purpose of obtaining the nine hours per day, requesting an, answer from iho meeting to the question whether they would con- cede the nine hours as a day's work, yes or.no.. The meeting adjourned to the 20th of April, and then called a public meeting of the metropolitan!, builders by advertisement. The resolutions which were passed at that meeting are recorded in the minutes of the socifety, but. they are not the resolutions ofithe. society and would perhaps better come before the Commission as a part of the proceedings of the Central Association T)f Master- Builders, which was a society formed at that time, and of which , I have no account in my possession. 2616. They were not the resolutions of the society ■which you represent ? — They were not the resolutions of the society. 2617,. But of the general meeting of builders ? — Of the central association of builders formed in June of that year.. 2618,' {Earl of JAchJield.) But they were resolu- tions passed at a meeting called by your association ? — ^Tes, at a meeting of the trade. 2619. (Sir E. W.Head.) Did your society initiate the resolutions ? — Our society initiated them inasmuch as they initiated the meeting. 2620. Having called the meeting, did they take the further part of suggesting resolutions which they approved ? — Those resolutions were initiated by the parties who proposed them. 2621. The point I want to get at is whether the society which you represent, in addition to calling a meeting of the trade, did, after the meeting was called, on that occasion put forward as approved by them any specific resolutions for the consideration of the meeting ? — No. 2622. {Mr. Roebuck.) Did you go to the meeting with a Ust of agenda ? — The committee formed for the purpose did. -2623. {Mr. Merivale.) Was the meeting attended by those not connected with the society ?— Largely. •Mr. Wales, the secretary of the central association, fan give you the details on that point. 2624. {Earl of Lichfield.) Did the establishment of that association which you refer to arise out - of anvthing that took place at that meeting, or was it an old' established society ? — The association of which I spoke originated altogether at that public meeting. 2625. It was the result of this meeting which was ("illed by your association ? — Yes. 2626. Another association, in fact, was formed in consequence ? — Another association, entirely distinct, called the Central Association of Master Builders, which went through the matter, and was dissolved at its close. The history of that, however, you can have from the secretary of that society. • 2627. " (CAaiVwiaM.) At. what hour were the nine hours to commence, becausey as in- factories, ,the_. men must come all together, I sttpt«)Be?-^They.mu8t come a^l at one, jhowf, but I think thstt,, the, object,9J^.;t^p Mr; T. Piper. nine hours movement was, as far as I under9tan,d it, — — only this, that nine hours should be w:orked for .» ^o April 1867. day's work. The time of commencing most likely would be 8 o'clock in the morning,, but 1 do not remember that anything passed on that subject, i i .. 2628. {Mr. Mathews.) Were the hours of beginning and leaving off fixed by the masters, or did the workr men assume the right of prescribing them ? — I do. not think it even went quite so far as that, but I am not quite sure. , ,. 2629. {Mr. Hughes.) You consider that you ;bave told us everything about the .great , strike as. far as your sociiety is concerned ? — Yes. • . 2630. {Earl of Lichfield.) Was th,a,t central as^pf^ft- tion, which, you have referred, to 'establisheil,. merely for th^ temporary purpose of meeting that partieular strike? — Entirely. . ,. ! 2631. {Mr. Hughes.) But yon are aware that there iSi at prese/it a. general Builder's Association, whiql} has branches in many parts of the kingdom i-r^l !(f^ quite aware, of -that, but the London bj^^j^qya^^have never joined it. They have had, repeated; invi,tatiQxi,s to join associ^tj^ns in differenti parj;^ of ithe ooifntry during: the period ji^s,], J have. had to, do with , them, but you will renieuiher that I ha.xe .already readi(the resolution; which ,gave. the ^opipion of o,ur. society about it, and. in which they expressed : thems^],Yes ,tp the effect that if better methods, of settling these questions, were BOit. found, the masters would be:' forced into a combination; which was greatly to be rdepreoatedi 2632. I thought that yqur' views might liawe',be^p growing more favourable to combinations? — They have not grown up to that. I do not think that there is any feeling of that kind, in existenqe, in London. I can only speak for London. -, „,. 2633. {Mr. Mathews^ Your society, therefore, has no union connexion with any society in Manchester or Birmingham ? — ^None whatever. 2634. {Mr. Roebuck.) May I, ask what is the ground upon which the individuals who form your society took that step ? — ^The ground was, I thinls^ that each master ought to., be, master ..of ,, his own business ; that it was a private question between him and his workmen, and that they had no right to associate themselves together either to oppress the workmen or to oppress the public., 2635. Was there not also some sort of difficulty as to their trusting one another ? — It never went so fv as that. . , 2636. Was it not in the minds of persons who ^id that they felt a difficulty in joining, that, if ,thpy did not join they would not be loyally d^alt with ?— I do not think so ; I do not know of any, such feeling. 2637. You do not know that there wa,s a general feeling that, the masters were not as , loyal, to one another as the men were to themselves ? — 1 do not know of any such feeling. The loyalty, among th^ workmen is for a definite object, and. so definite that it can be very distinctly enforced, whereas the question of loyalty with the masters would go through such, a variety of circumstances that there might have been such an occasion as you speak of though I do not know of it. 2638. When there was a determination amongst the masters to resist a strike, was there not always felt a danger that some of the masters might stand out, and take advantage of the difficulties of the trade, and concede individually the demands of the men while the masters generally resisted them? — It may. have been so, but I do not know of it. , -2639. {Mr. Hughes.) Was not that the case during the great strike, that many of the masters were not loyal, that many masters in fact kept their shops open while the others closed theirs ? — I do not think so, but I really am not informed upon tbat. Passing to the year 1861, by a memorial from the carpenters .and joiners, bricklayers, masons, plasterers, and. painters, the agitation ibr working nine hou];s instead of 10 hours per day was renewed, and then. a n^ember' of the society^ reported that his firm had determined on M 4 ' 9^ Trades dnions, etO. commission: — minutes of evidence. Mr. T. Piper, adopting the principle of payment by the hour instead — 7" of by the day. In June 1865, the masons having 80 April 1867. presented a memorial asking for three farthings per hovir advance, a meeting of the trade was again called, and then it was resolved, " That on and after January " 1st, 1866, the rate of wages of skilled workmen " engaged in the building trades now generally paid at " the rsite of 7c?. per hour shall be increased to l^L " per hour." In July a strike was commenced to hasten the time at which thatT^d should begin, and the result of that strike Was that it was yielded to the men tliat it should begin on the 28th of August instead of their waiting till the 1st of January. On April the 19tli, 1866, there was another meeting of the trade, at which the committee appointed recommended an advance of \d. per hour to the most skilful mechanics, making to them 8rf. per hour, and the increase of the pay of the labourers ^d. per hour. 2640. {Mr. Hughes.) Was that a spontaneous resolution passed without any application from the men ? — No. I think that there was an application received from the men though that is not stated in the minute which I have read. 2641. You think that that was not a spontaneous offer of the masters ? — I do not think it at all likely. 2642. Do you recollect a spontaneous offer of that kind ever coming from the masters in good times ? — I do not recollect the masters going into any market, and offering more than was asked. 2643. {Mr. Mathews.) Workmen are not in the habit, are they, of offering to have their wages reduced in bad times ? — No ; and in the records of the society with which I am concerned I do not find any hint of a reduction of wages ; the records of that society are not kept as dry minutes, but they would record such things as those, and I do not find anywhere throughout the whole history of the society that tiie question of reducing wages ever appears to have been discussed or mentioned. 2644. {Mr. Roebuck.) Then we may take it as a general rule that from the formation of your society wages have gone on steadily increasing, and never decreasing ? — They have gone on increasing, and I think that one curious result comes out of the facts which I have mentioned. I think that I am justified in drawing from them this inference, that unions in the face of a falling market would not succeed in raising wages, and I base that statement upon this circumstance, that in 1839 there was a strike for 5s. 6d. a day, but the actual rise to 5s. 6d. did not occur till 1853. 2645. {Chairman.) I do not quite follow your reasoning. In 1853, as I understand you, there was 6d. put on, and from 1853 onwards there has been a continual rise ; has the market never varied ? Has the demand for labour never varied ? — The dem.and for labour has been steadily increasing since that time, but I was adverting to the fact that in 1839, although a demand was made for 5^. 6d. a day, the advance did not become general until 1853. It was given in one instance, where the employers would not yield time as I have stated, but it did not become general until 1853. 2646. {Earl of Lichfield.) In 1 839 the application for the rise was made, and it was not conceded till 1853 ? — An effort to raise wages was made in 1839, but no general rise took place till 1853. 2647. {Mr. Roelmck.) And then the inference which you draw from that is that between 1839 and 1853 there was not an increase of business, and that there- fore there was not an increase of wages ? — I think, that is so. I think that the history of the country for that time will show that it was so. 2648. {Mr. Hughes.) Do you think then that there would ever have been an increase of wages but for these applications to the masters ?— I should think not, as I said before. 2649. Do you think that applications from individual workmen would have done the business ? Yes. 2650. {Mr. Merivale.) You think then, that on the whole, the wages have been rising for many years past under the influence of unions, whether it has been in consequence of unions or not, that has beea the general result ? — I do not think that you are justified in saying " under the influence of unions." 2651. I mean during the continuance of unions. I will put the question in that way. — During the con- tinuance of unions thei'e has been an enormously increased demand for building everywhere, and there has been the fever for railways superinduced upon that, the contractors being willing to pay any price to get the work done in time. 2652. Is it your experience that in the same time, the time you are familiar with, and during the conti- nuance of unions, there has been a falling off, as has been alleged, in the skill and industry of workmen in general ? — I think that there has been, but I think that there are two reasons for that. The builders trade as a trade is a new trade, by which I mean that formerly there was a bricklayer, and a carpenter, and a plasterer, and so on, concerned for each separate trade, and greater skill I think was acquired by each man following one trade only, and consequently when the matter came to be all under one management there was a want of competent skill in certain departments in one firm, and in other departments in another firm, and so on. 2653. {Mr. Roebuck.) Then the want of skill, as I understand you, was in the employers, and that led, you think, to the want of skill in the employed ? — I think so. 2654. {Mr. Merivale.) The fact being that there has been in your opinion a diminution in effectiveness of workmen (never mind the cause for the pi-esent), still they earn more wages man per man ? — Certainly they do not earn more man per man. 2655. You mean that they do not earn it, but they get it ?■ -Yes. 2656. You say that throughout these disputes the one main point with the men was to establish the j)rinciple of equality of wages, or something approach- ing to that ? — I understand it so ; that has been their object. 2657. Do you think that, in itself, a bad object, as far as the benefit of the public goes ; I mean taking it in the widest sense ? — Taking it in the widest sense, I should say Yes. 2658. You think that it would be better if men were ])aid more according to what they were worth ? — Yes. 2659. Do you think that that extends to all em- ployments ? — It extends to businesses of every kind, and it has operated very successfully where it has been adopted. 2660. {Mr. Roebuck.) You give a good lawyer more than a bad one, is that your view ? — I think that gen- tlemen at the bar must know that that is so. 2661. {Mr. Merivale.) Do you think that it would be better if men were paid as nearly as might be ac- cording to what they were worth, and if the employers fixed what each man should have ? — Certainly ; and if a man found that he could not earn his fair wages with a particular employer, of course he would not continue to work for that employer. 2662. That would be, in your view, tlie best organi- :iation of laljour; men and masters free, and the masters fixing what the men were to have ? That is out of the question. 2663. I thought you said that that was your view ? — No, I think that labour is an article in the market. 12664. Taking your principle that wages ought not to be equal, but that they ought to be according to what a man is ^\•orth, who is to fix the wag-es in each individual case ?— It must be a matter of arrangement between the two. If you ttike the higher branches of art, if you want a picture by Sir Edwin Landseer, yon cannot fix the price you will give him, but he fixes the price he will take ; and it is the same, in a lower degree, with workmen. 2665. Without going so high as Sir Edwin Landseer, but going to Her Majesty's navy, do you think that the ordinary able seamen who are rated alike and TRADES . UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINOTES OF EVIDENCE. 97 who receive the same rate of pay, ought each to receive ■what the officers think they are worth ? — I think that in regard to tlie work whicli those men have to do there is very little difference, it is all pretty much alike. 2666. Are you not aware that one able seaman is often a good bargain for the navy while another is not ? — I have heard that said, and I think it would be better if they were not paid all alike, but according to their merits. 2667. Do you think that it would be possible to man a ship or to recruit a regiment on any such prin- ciple as that ? — That I am not able to say. 2668. {Mr. Roebuck.') Taking the transaction be- tween the buyer and the seller in any other case, when you buy an article of a person, the agreement is be- tween you two. When you buy a coat, for instance, you ask the man who sells that coat what he demands for it, and whether you give that or not is a matter for your own determination ? — Yes. 2669. And you would have the same thing happen between the master and the workman, I suppose ? — Yes. 2670. You would wish that the arrangement be- tween the two should be on the same principle as the arrangement between the buyer and the seller ? — Yes. 2671. {Mr. Mathews.) To follow out the illustra- tion which has just been used, if a man comes and asks the price of a good coat, so much is required, but the same sum is not required if he asks the price of a bad coat ? — And if he gets a bad coat he will not come again. 2672. {Mr. Booth.) I understood you to say just now that an additional halfpenny had been conceded to the most skilful workmen ? — That was the form which the resolution took in 1866. 2673. But is it the case that the unions interfered in regard to the wages of the most skilful. I thought that their object was rather to fix a minimum ? — That was the endeavour on the part of the masters, to draw the line which the union objected to having drawn — that is to say the masters wished to limit it to the most skilful, but it was required by the union that it should be paid to all. 2674. That would be what they call their mini- mum ? — That would be what they call their minimum. 2675. And what the masters desired was to have the power of choosing whether or not they would pay that minimum to the less skilful men ? — That was so. 2676. Did the masters then reserve a power of paying the more skilful men a higher sum than this minimum ? — They can hardly be said to have reserved that power because it was always with them ; there never could be an objection to their selecting a. skilful man and paying him more, but the objection the masters had was to being obliged to pay an unskilful man a certain price. 2677. {Mr. Hughes.) You have told us that you had certain benefit rules in your association which enabled you to pay 75. a week to widows ? — Yes. 2678. Have you any account of the sums expended under those rules ? — I may say that it has not been at all a large thing; it went into abeyance and was forgotten and then was claimed again. 2679. Is this the account? — Yes; in 1838, 81. ]6s. Od., in 1841, 21. 4«. Od., in 1842, 4/. As. Od. 1843, 21. 8s. Od., 1862, 1/. 8s. Od. were paid to various widows. 2680. I see that in May 1853 when a deputation was sent to your association, on the occasion of the 6d. a day advance being claimed, your association declined to receive that deputation, but I see that you did receive a deputation in 1858 on the nine hours movement ? — Yes. 2681. Will you tell us what your practice has been as to deputations from the men first of all ; have there been frequent deputations to the masters ? — I think I have mentioned in the course of the statement which I have read all the occurrences of that nature, because I endeavoured to take out everything of the kind whether nhimpoi'tant or not, 18425, 2682. The society has only, you think, received those two deputations which you have mentioned ? — I may say at once that I believe that the general feeling was that deputations of that sort were objectionable, that combinations either of masters or of men were objec- tionable, but that of the men working for a particular employer had anything to object to they should go to their own employer and talk the matter over with him. 2683. As I understand the difference is this, the masters say, " Very well, if you want deputations let .them consist of men coming from our own workshops," but the men say, " No, our deputation shall be consti- tuted by the union." — That is so. 2684. The masters object to one form of deputation, but according to your experience they do not object to the other form of deputation ? — That is so. 2685. In 1861 I think your society passed a resolu- tion for payment by the hour ? — The society did not, but it was recorded that it had been adopted. 2686. Has that been resisted by the men ? — I think not. 2687. Is that the practice with the members of your society ? — It is the practice, I believe, with all builders throughout London, and I may just say in reference to that, that the calculation by the hom- gave a little advantage to the workmen, because when the price per day was divided by the ten hours it brought out a fraction which was very inconvenient, and the masters felt that while making a change of that sort they ought to meet the workmen, and rather than have a fraction give them a little benefit. I think you will will find that the price per hour works out to 6^d., and the masters gave them 7d. 2688. Has your society ever taken any cognizance of the discharge note which made such a disturbance in the London trade ? — I do not recollect it particularly by that name ; it was talked of, but I do not think it ever was acted upon. Of course the Commissioners will soon have an opportunity of ascertaining if it was ; in my experience I do not know of it. 2689. You have no code of rules whatever in your association, excepL that which you have handed in, I suppose ? — No. 2690. But have the members of your society any understanding about employing men who have been taking part in a strike ? Do they stand by one another in strikes ? Are they bound to do so in any way ? — They are not in any way bound to do so, but I apprehend they do on the general principle of honour that ought to regulate them. 2691. But as far as your society is concerned there is no combination specially referring to trade disputes, if I rightly understand you ? — None whatever ; and the reason has always been that the society have felt that it ought to be a question between the employer and his men. 2692. You must have had great experience of men belonging to trades unions. May I ask whether you consider them bad or good men in the trade generally ? — Well they are of all sorts. I do not think you can say either that they are bad or that they are good. 2693. You could not say that they were either inferior or superior workmen ? — No. I think that in the first instance the unions originated among the superior workmen, but then it was by engrafting upon the benefit societies rules which were of such a character as to be found fault with. 2694. There is certainly a very general impression that the unions were grafted upon the benefit societies, but as far as I have been able to ascertain the old unions, which were secret societies, existed long before the benefit societies. They did not come into light before the law was altered, but they existed ? — I have not read the evidence which has been given before the Commission, not having been furnished with a copy of it, but I think it is mentioned that one of the unions (I believe the union of masons) began in 1833. I think I recollect seeing that. 2695. Do you know any firm that hhs refused to N Mr. T. Piper. 30 April 1867. 98 TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Mr. T. Piper, employ unionists ? — In the year 1833 all fli'ms refused to employ them. 30 April 1867. 2696. I mean now. I want to test the question of the goodness of the work ? — I do not think that there can be any question upon that point. No doubt there are exceedingly good union men. 2697. Do you know any firm that employs no unionists ? — No, I do not. 2698. Do you know any firm that employs none but unionists ? — I apprehend it would be pretty much the effort of the unions to make that the rule. 2699. Is it not notorious in the trade that Mr. Myers has none but unionists ? — I do not know that. 2700. You know the reputation of Mr. Myers's ■work, I presume ? — Perfectly well. 2701. I suppose he is the best stone worker in the world ? — I think that Mr. Smith, who is now in the room, might object to that statement. 2702. I suppose Mr. Myers's stone work is as good work as can be ? — No doubt about that. 2703. Do you remember any instances of employers wishing to give to certain men higher wages than the ordinary woi-kman were receiving, and any opposition being offered by the societies ? — Certainly not in the case of higher wages, but there have been cases where, when lower wages have been offered, there has been an objection raised, and that is one difficulty caused by unions. There may be abundant employment for a man who is comparatively unskilled, although he is a moderately skilful man, but if everything is forced to a general rate, then that man instead of being con- tinued on work at a moderate rate of wages, will be sent about his business. Therefore the action of the unions is oppressive in that view of it. 2704. But you never knew an instance of an em- ployer wishing to pay a particular woi'kman higher wages on account of his aptitude, and any disturbance arising from that ? — No, I think that the skiU itself which elicited that offer on his part would stare the men in the face, so that they could not make any dis- turbance about it. 2705. We have heard here, I am sorry to say, about practices in relation to what are called pockets and rubble walling and so on, that is to say scamping building, does your association take any means to put those things down ? — None whatever, any such things as you describe would be nothing but robbery. 2706. But your society do not interfere with this robbery ? — We should not believe in its existence. 2707. We were told of little abominations called pockets, that is to say spaces left empty or filled up with rubble ? — In such a house as this, if the flue over that fireplace is gathered in to the side of the flue, there is a space there, which does not touch the sub- stance of the wall itself, which it would be absurd and rather injurious to fill with solid brickwork. That is called a pocket, and it ought only to occur in such a case as that. 2708. Then there are genuine and honest pockets ? — Certainly, and sometimes, I may further say it happens that where a brick wall is required which is to be supported on iron bearers, pockets are introduced to lighten the weight which those girders would other- wise have to bear. 2709. Then your association as I gather, takes no steps as to the honesty of building, to see that build- ings are honestly done and that the morality of the trade is kept up ? — Excepting their general influence. They would be sorry to believe that any members of their society could do anything of that sort, and they do not think that they do. 2710. But you have heard of such things in the contract building about London, have you not ? — In the contract building about London, generally speak- ing there is a clerk of the works, who is the repre- sentative of the architect and whose business it is to prevent anything of that kind, and if he does his duty, whatever the disposition is on the part of the builder to act dishonestly, he ought not to be able to do it. 2711. But there are no clerks of the works in the case of those houses which are being built so largely covering acre after acre over London i" — Those are generally speculative builders. 2712. But the speculative builder's action must have an effect on all the better part of the trade. I presume if the speculative builder gets his work done cheaper by scamping it, he thereby undersells the regular em- ployers, and it oecomes their interest to make him honest, I suppose ? — Well, I do not know that in that respect any different rule obtains in the building trade from that which obtains in any other. These parties of whom I speak sell the house completely made. If you compare one of the small houses in the outskirts with one of the houses the late Mr. Cubitt erected in Belgi'avia, the difference will of course be enormously great ; but just as you must supply clothes of all cha- racters so you must build houses of all sorts, so that the people who cannot afford to live in the superior houses may be able to find inferior ones. 2713. Of course you must have dear articles and cheap articles, but you need not have scamped articles at all, need you ? Each trade should seek, should it not, to keep up its morality in all cases ? — No doubt the object of each ti'ade ought to be to encourage morality throughout ; but, with the exception of that general principle, I do not think that anything can practically be carried out. 2714. Your society at any rate, as I understand you, takes no action in that respect ? — No. 2715. Have you seen any of this foreign timber work, windows, sashes, doors, and so forth, of which we have heard something lately ? — I have seen some that has been imported. 2716. What do you think of it ? — It would be ex- ceedingly well adapted, I think, for the inferior class of houses to which you were referring just now. 2717. Has it been used much ? — It cannot have been used much, because I think there has been only one cargo over. 2718. Have you heard any objection made by the unions to its use ? — I do not think that it has so come in as to give them an opportunity of objecting to it. 2719. {Mr. Mathews.) You were asked just now if ever the masters voluntered to give an additional rate of wages to the skilled workman over and above what are accorded to the inferior workman. Does not the fact of the master being obliged to pay an uniform rate of wages deter him from paying a higher rate of wages to the skilled workman unless he could have the inferior workman at a lower rate ? — That is the case certainly. If you take the room you ai-e sitting in, and take the different descriptions of work in it, you will see that it is impossible to make any general rule for these different kinds of work, such as you might make for men working in a mill, for instance, or producing shoes of the same size. 2720. Supposing that some employer were to say to a superior workman, "I think that yon are a superior workman, and therefore I will give you a rather higher wage than the others," if at the same time he could not say to the inferior workman I must give you a lower rate of wage, would not the effect of that be to prevent the master from increasing the rate of the wages of the skilled workman ? — I think that would be the case. 2721. I think you said that your society did not interfere with the rate of wages ? — No. 2722. They only act as advising the master builders as to the position and regulation of the trade ? — Yes, they advise one another ; they do not take action out of doors in that respect. 2723. The regulation of wages forms no part of the object of their association ? — None whatever. 2724. When the workmen determine to malce a strike in London, do they strike against all the master builders together or against one particular firm? — In the year 1859 they selected Messrs. TroUope, and struck against their firm, giving an intimation to the trade generally that they had selected them as the first, and that they intended to go round. 2725. In making their selection, do they fix generally upon the stronger master or the weaker, to TRADKS UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 99 begin with ?— ^I think that circumstances often pro- duce a strike at a particular part without any inten- tion to strike there. 2726. There is no concerted action, you think, in that respect ? — I really do not know. 2727. In the event of their succeeding with Messrs. Trollope or anyone else, then it is understood with the men, I suppose, that they take the others seriatim ? — The notice that they gave in 1859 was to that effect. 2728. If they did not succeed in the first case they would not persevere with the rest, I suppose ? — I do not know. 2729. Would not that be the natural result ? — I should doubt it. I think that if they had made ap tlieir minds to go tlirough with the strike they might do so. But really that is not a question for me, but for them, and in stating what I do state on the subject I only give my own impression. I have no information on that point. 2730. When men are paid by the hour, are they engaged under the contract for a particular notice, or do they leave at any time they like ? — There is an understanding that they should generally give a day's notice, bvit at all properly conducted establishments a thoughtful master would always give two or three days to a man if he is to be thrown out of work at the end of the week. 2731. With regard to picketing worlcs. is it the custom of the men, in the case of a strike, to send men to watch the operations at the particular yard ? — Yes. 2732. What is the nature of that picketing ? — I apprehend that the object of the picketing is to pre- vent anybody from coming to work by warning them that a strike is on there, and, if they do go to work, seeking, them afterwards and endeavouring to induce them to leave work. 2733. Has it ever come within your knowledge or observation that any threats have been used by these men so picketing the works towards men coming to the works for employment ? — -They would not be likely to come to my observation ; they would be used between individual and individual, but I was not likely to hear of them. 2734. You have a general knowledge that such a practice exists, but as to the particular operation of it you do not know ? — I have seen pickets and seen them converse with others, and have known them induce men to go away from the spot when they have been going to work. I know of the existence of the practice, and have seen it in operation, but what is said in the way of threats I have no means of knowing. 2735. You know of the existence of the practice, and the object of it ? — And I have seen the effect. 2736. {Mr. Hughes.') Did you ever see any violence used ? — I have never seen a man actually struck in such a case, but I have seen a man when he left work hustled by the parties who were waiting outside. 2737. {Mr. Mathews.) Have you ever had reason to suppose that in addition to persuasion threats were used towards people coming to seek employment ? — I certainly have had reason to suppose that. 2738. {Mr. Hughes.) You have have a considerable yearly fund ? — We have got 600^. saved, and we pay 21. 2s. Od. a year, and an entrance fee of 3/. 3«. Od, so that there is an income of about 120Z. a year, of which a certain sum is expended in the monthly meetings and a certain sum expended in a dinner once a year. 2739. All I wanted to ascertain from you was whether any portion of that fund was expended in trade purposes such as we have been speaking of, forwarding lock-outs for example ? — No, none what- ever. 2740. {Earl of JAchfield.) We have heard some- thing about working rules being established in every town. Have your association anything to do with the making of the working rules in the building trade in London in the way of agreement with the men as to ■ the rate of wages' for insttmce -?— I -■ do not think there is any set of working rules in -operation in Mr. T. Piper. London. 2741. There is a minimum rate of wages ?— There 3 April isfr )*: is a minimum rate of wages for the skilled artificer, but I know of nothing else. 2742. But is that not agreed to on the part of the employers and the men ? — I think that in the record which I read from the proceedings of the society mention is made of an instance which occurred very lately when the rate of wages was agreed upon be- tween them. 2743. We have heard that in every town thel-e are certain working rules which are agreed upon between the employers and the men, amongst other things as to the minimum rate of wages. Are there any other rules besides that which your association have had anything to do with ?— I have already said that there are no rules that I know of of that character in London, and that being so of course the society can have had nothing to do with them. 2744. Are you aware whether the members of your association have in any instance supported firms where the men have been on strike and assisted them to resist the strike ? — In what way do you mean. 2745. By supporting them while their men were on strike or assisting them by contributions in any way ? — I do not think that there has been any in- stance of money contributions. 2746. I understand you to say that there has not been any assistance given on the part of the members of your association to any firm while the men have been on strike .'' — I do not know of any. 2747. You said that the result of a minimum rate of wages being fixed for certain work was that if a man was not up to doing that work he was turned off, and you implied that it was an injury to the man that that minimum rate of wages should be fixed. Would not that rule as to the minimum rate of wages there- fore be an advantage to the public rather than other- wise, in preventing an inferior sort of work being done by the employer getting it done at a cheaper rate ? — I tliink not, because generally speaking the question of skill touches the question of speed as well the question of quality, so that the most skilled man is generally the fastest workman and therefore the dif- ference would be that the employer would pay a lower rate and get less work done ; that is to say the public would have the same work but a smaller amount of it ; the public would pay the same. ' 2748. Do you know any instances in which your association has taken notice of anything that they have thought unsatisfactory on the part of any mem- bers of the association ? — I think I do, but I do not think that it is of a character that I should mention. 2749. It bears upon the operations of your associa- tion does it not? — Only in the way that has been mentioned already of moral influence. 2750. You cannot give any instances (without mentioning names) in which any members of yom' association has ever been expelled from the association for anything that may have been considered unsatis- factory ? — No ; but there have been instances where they have been black-balled and not admitted., 2751. {Chairman.) Not admitted on the ground of their suspicious character, if I may put the question in a general shape ? — Yes, if you put it so. 2752. You sometimes blackball a man because you think that he has not the same degree of honourable feeling as the rest of the, association ? — That is so. 2753. {Earl of Lichfield.) Do you know of any instance in which a complaint has been brought to your association against any of its members ? — Cer- tainly not to the association itself. They are not a court to try their members. 2754. {Mr. Hughes.) In fact it is a mere club of gentlemen belonging to your profession ? — You may say so. 2755. {Earl of Lichfield.) And the only action they ever take in the case of strikes is to callthe trade • together?- — ■'That -is so. N 2 100 TRADES UNIONS. ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OP EVIDENCE. Mr. T. Piper. 30 April 1867. 2756. (Mr. Hughes.) You have special knowledge of the mason's business, I believe ? — I have. 2757. I should like to know your opinion as an old skilled man in this trade on the question whether a mason now does a worse day's work than he did when you were a young man ; I mean taking both skill and amount of work into consideration ? — For the last seven years I have been out of the business, and have had no means of judging. The accounts which I hear are that they do not do so much. 2758. Comparing the state of things when you were a young man with the state of things when you The witness left off, was there any real difference as to the amount of vi^ork done and the skill ? — Yes. 2759. In which way ? — I do not think that the men were so industrious. 2760. That would come to this, that they did not do so much work ? — That is so. 2761. But was it as well done as before ? — There are as higlily skilled men now as there ever were, and in fact a mason must be a well skilled man because his stroke is irrevocable. A carpenter can glue a bit on if he makes a mistake, but a mason cannot. withdrew. Mr. G. Smith. Mr. Geoege Smith examined. 2762. {Chairman.) I think you are from the firm of Smith and Taylor ; are your firm the contractors for the Foreign Office ? — They are. 2763. T think your attention has been drawn to some statements made here in respect of that build- ing ? — It has. 2764. Will you explain to the Commission what has been the result of that? — In the first place I have taken every means to ascertain whether Mr. Coulson was ever employed upon the building, and I find that if that were the case he was employed under a feigned name ; and therefore any evidence which he could have given, unless he was there under a feigned name must be from hearsay and not from any personal knowledge. I think that is important. 2765. What are the particulars of his evidence which you think ought to be answered ? — The accu- sation seemed to be generally of imperfect work, and there was a particular allusion to pockets. Now these pockets may be understood in two senses ; there are some walls that are built purposely hollow, but there are others, namely, those where scamping is intended, where there are vacancies left, and those vacancies filled in with what we term bats, that is to say, portions of bricks which would be otherwise thi'own away. Now, I have no reason whatever to believe that there is anything of the kind there ; indeed, I may state that within the last few weeks in con- sequence of a visit which was paid to the building b_y a committee of the department, they require some re-arrangement of the rooms, and a great many of the walls have been cut through, that is to say, there have been openings made which were not previously intended by the plan. Those openings quite disclose the internal state of the walls, and in no case is there anything of the nature which was described in that evidence. They are all perfectly solid, and I should be quite willing (iu fact I have invited attention to the subject on the part of the architects who are more particularly concerned (as the protectors of the Go- vernment), that the architects should cut iu where they like. I believe that the work is as sound as it is possible for work to be. Tliose are always our instructions. I have been now rather more than 40 years engaged in building, and I have never yet had a stain upon my character, and I do not think I am very likely to begin at my age doing scamp work. 2766. {Mr. Roebuck.) You have a clerk of the works, I suppose ? — There are clerks of the works on , the part of the architects, and also superintendents on our part. 2767. {Mr. Hughes.) I do not find in this evidence anything accusing you of scampiug work. Mr. Coulson was asked this question: '■ Take the Foreign Office, " do you consider that that is an example of what you " have been describing ?" and his answer is this : " I " include that with other buildings. The men there " consider it is. It is called piece work, but of " course it is not really piece work. It is given out " to the men by the man who is placed over them " that they have got this work as jDiece work, and to " make it appear to the men that they had piece ^vork, " the privilege was given to those over them of " paying them, and in paying them they paid off " whatever they chose, according to their abilities. " The inference generally drawn (and which is pretty " correct) is that the foreman pockets the balance or " bonus. Although there is the quantity of work " done that is allowed by the firm, the quality is out " of the question." Now with respect to that answer, would it come to the knowledge of your firm if such a practice as that were adopted by the foreman ? — Certainly, it could not escape our attention, that sort of arrangement never could be carried out without the orders of the firm ; for instance, the transfer of the payment from our clerks to other people never could be done without our knowledge. 2768. Is that Foreign Office work then done by piece work ? — It was. 2769. And how was it paid ? — The contractors for the piece work were in the habit of drawing out every week a certain sum. 2770. Who were the contractors for the piece work ? — Messrs. Wilkinson and Bone. 2771. You were not the contractors for that work ? — No, they contracted under us. 2772. {Earl of Lichfield.) You had some check over them I suppose ? 2112a. {Mr. Hughes.) What check ?— If we found them out in doing any thing contrary to our prac- tice, we should never employ them again. 2773. How could you find out whether they let the work in this way to which Mr. Coulson has referred ? How do you know that they have not done so ? — I know perfectly well that they have not sub-let it, they paid the workmen the ordinaiy pay. 2774. {Earl of Lichfield.) Is not the whole of the work directly superintended by yourselves ? — Certainly. 2775. And do not you consider yourselves directly responsible to the Government for the work that is done upon those buildings ? — Certainly, and no one else. 2776. If they cut through the walls and found bad bricks or bats, if an action were brought against you, you would be the sufferers I presume? — ^Yes. 2777. {Mr. Mathews.) You are the contractor for the Government, and you employ clerks of the works to see that all the works for Avhicli you aa-e responsible is properly and efficiently executed ? — Yes. 2778. In the event of your employing sub-con- tractors, your clerks of the works supervise the work done by the sub-contractors ? — Yes. 2779. With a view to satisfying you that the work is done by the sub-contractor in such a way as to meet the requii-ements of the government, to whom you are responsible ? — Yes ; and in addition to that I may say that my partner and myself were frequently there. 2780. ( Chairman.) You wished to have the oppor- tunity of saying that within your knowledge there was nothing which is in the smallest degree dishonour- able in relation to your work at the Foreign Office ? Yes, and I can only say that the opinion of persons out_ of doors upon reading that portion of the evidence which has been made public was that it was a direct accusation, and I was told that the use of pockets was mentioned in relation to our works. 2781. {Earl of Lichfield.) I suppose that when you saw it stated that Mr. Coulson had asserted in his TEABES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE, 101 evidence that the way in which the work was done at the Foreign Office was " a swindle against the " men and a swindle against the Government," you naturally took to yourself the responsibility which attached to that if true ? — Yes. 2782. In question 1529 the witness was asked, " What mischief is it to the Government ';" and his answer was, "The mischief to the Government is " that they do not get value for the money that they " pay; they do not get the proper quality in the " work done" ? — Yes; and that following upon the other is a direct accusation. 2783. {Mr. Merivale.) Not direct but implied ? — I can only tell you what the influence of that evidence has been upon the public mind. I think that has been mentioned to me by no less than five members of parliament. 2784. {Mr. Hughes.') Have you seen any reports of the evidence except those in the " Times " ? — Yes ; I was sent a copy of the Builders Trade Circular, I think it is called. 2785. {Earl of Lichfield.) Is this statement correct or not, and can you inform us upon that point, " that " the government do not get the proper quality in the " work done" ? — I believe that they will get a great deal more than the value, because I believe we shall lose a considerable sum of money by it. There has been a rise of 15 per cent, in wages since that con- tract was taken. Now the wages over that building with that rise would absorb a great deal more than the profits. But that of course is no answer to the accusation ; if we lost 60,0001. by it they ought to get what they pay for, there is no doubt about that. 2786. Is it done by piece work or not ? — The brick- work was done by piece work. 2787. How is that arranged ? — It is done in this way. We call upon these men who are sub-contrac- tors under us, to give us a price at which they will do that brickwork at per rod. That price is regulated according to the height of the building ; that is to say up to a certain height they get a certain price, beyond that height a certain other price, and so on as the labour increases. Our protection against them is the fact that they have been employed by us for many yeai-s, and if we found them doing anything that would be disgraceful that employment would cease. 2788. {Mr. Hughes.) Who have been employed by you for many years ? — The two contractors. 2789. {Mr. Mathews.') The two contractors merely being men who take work by piece work ? — Yes. 2790. So that in point of fact they are your fore- nien ? No, we could at any time dismiss them by having their work measured up and settling with them. 2791. Are these contractors employed by any other employers besides youselves ? — I think they have been within the last year or so. I think that they have undertaken work for other parties since that building was completed, but they are generally em- ployed by us. 2792. {Mr. Hughes^ Then I apprehend, that you would see no harm in what Mr. Coulson speaks of, that the contractors should make a considerable profit upon this contract work which you let out. 2793. I do not think they did in this case, but of course we always expect that they will make a profit. 2794. Or else they would not take it ? — They would not take it. 2795. The only person who has any control over these contractors is your clerk of the works, or some- body equivalent to him ? — And there is our own per- sonal supervision, and also the supervision of the architect's clerk of the works, who is entirely inde- pendent of us and paid by the Govei-nment. 2796. Then if there had been any unfair pocketing of any portion of the sum that you paid for this con- tract work, the persons who did it must have deceived, in the first place, the clerk of the works of the archi- tect, and in the second place you and your partner, and also your foremen? — ^Yes. 2797. I am referring to this : " The inference Mr. G. Smith. " generally drawn (and which is pretty correct) is, — Ttokt " that the foreman pockets the balance or bonus." 3 " April 186 7. If such a pocketing of balances or bonuses were to take j)lace, the jsersons who did that wrongfully would have to escape first the inspection of the clerk of the works appointed by the architects, then your own personal inspection, and then the inspection of somebody employed by you ? — Our personal in- spection, and that of our agents or foremen would simply go to the quality of the work. A return is made of the number of men that they have, and they draw, say lOOZ. That lOOl. they pay to their own men, aiid the payment and the pocketing (if there is any) must be entirely between them and their men, and if they pocket anything for themselves, or cheat their own men, the men are generally able to take care of themselves. 2797a. Mr. Coulson, then, may be right or wrong in his statement, but you have no knowledge of the mat- ter ? — He seems to me to have gone on the conclusion that we were trying to get as much work out of the men as we could by subterfuge ; he seems to think that these contractors were not bona, fide, but that under the guise of our foremen they were getting as much out of the men as they could. 2798. {Earl of Lichfield.) I was going to ask you to explain in your own way what Mr. Coulson says with regard to the way in which that work is given out. His words ai'e these, " It is called piece work, " but of course it is not really piece work. It is given " out to the men by the man who is placed over them " that they have got this work as piece work, and to " make it appear to the men that they had piece work " the privilege was given to those over them of paying " them, and in paying them they paid off whatever " they chose, according to their abilities." — There is not one word of truth in that which you have read. 2799. {Mr. Highes.) Except that the job was done by piece work ; that is the fundamental truth ? — Yes, but then the inference here attempted to be drawn is this, that to deceive the men and get as much work out of them as we could, we raised up a sort of fictitious piece work, and that these men instead of being absolute contractors ivere simply our foremen, and that we delegated to them the payment of the men in order to deceive the men. Now here is the agreement between us and Messrs. Wilkinson and Bone {producing the same) under which, I believe, that work was done. 2800. {Chairman.) You pay them by the rod, as I understand ? — Yes. 2801. Is the price stated in that agreement, and, if so, may I ask how much it was ? — I have no objection wliatever to the price being i-ead out, but I think you will find that there are several j)rices, according to the variation in height. I am not sure whether that was the case or wliether we found them engines to hoist. 2802. {Earl of Lichfield.) Would it be possible for the men to be misled in the manner described in that answer of Mr. Coulson's ? — I do not think it is at all probable. I think that if they fancied they were we should have had some representation on the subject from them, because we are always open to see any man who feels himself in any way aggrieved, or who has got a suspicion in his mind that he has not been fairly dealt with. I think that in the course of the three years we should have had some representa- tion from the men if anything of that kind had occurred. 2803. {Mr. Hughes.) Do you believe that the men were paid according to their abilities ? — It was their own fault if they were not ; of course there is nothing to compel a man to stop where he is not paid according to his ability. 2804. I suppose Mr. Coulson means that certain bricklayers were paid at one rate and certain brick- layers at another rate, instead of all being paid as the union rule is, one sum. Do you know whether that is the case ? — I do not ; I should he very glad to hear that it was, because I have been all my life opposed N 3 102 TBAt>E8' Ui^IONS, ETC. COMMISSION : — MINUTKS OF' EVIDENCE. Mr. G. Smith. to one uniform rate of wages, and intend to continue — ■ that opposition, believing that it'militates against the 30 April 1867. ■well-being of the men and the well-being of the trade generally. 2805. (Earl of Lichfield.) Will you tell us who paid the men in the case of this building ? — I have no doubt that the two sub-contractors themselves did. 2806. If, as you say, the coniractors paid the men, through whom did they pay thorn ? — I have been there when they have been paying, and I have seen them paying them themselves. 2807. The contractors or the foremen, do you mean ? — The contractors. 2808. ( Chairman.) The men that lay the bricks are paid by the day ? — They are paid by the day. 2809. And the sub-contractors are paid by the rod ? —Yes. 2810. And your firm are the contractors for the whole building ? — Yes. 2811. {Mr. Matheivs.) Have you any doubt about the sub-contractors regularly paying the workmen ? — Not the least, because if it had been otherwise we should have heard of it by Monday morning. If we give a man 150?. or 200/. to pay workmen, it would be perfectly well known to the men that he would have that sum from us. 2812. {Earl of Lichfield.) Are the men on that work really paid for piece work or day work, the men who are actually doing the work, I mean ? — I do not think it is at all probable that they are paid by piece work. 2813. But you do not know that they are not ? — I could almost say that I know that they are not. I should not like to assert it, because I have no positive know- ledge of it ; but I think it is extremely unlikely that anybody of working men could remain so long -idthout a settlement as would necessarily be involved in wait- ing for the measurement of the work. For instance, speaking now of the sub-contractors, their work was only measured up at certain intervals. I do not sup- pose that there were above three measurements during the whole progress of that building ; therefore, if they had sublet it, they must have paid the men on account, and when men were being discharged every week, it would be impossible to say what each man's share of the piece work would be. 2814. {Mr. Mathews.) Is it at all likely that these sub-contractors of yours could have let the work under piece work without your knowing it ? — I do not think it is possible. There would have been so many disputes arising that we should have heard of it a hundred times, and I never heard of a case of the kind. In the course of my investigations, with regard to this alleged inferior work, I had nearly completed my inquiries one day when one of the clerks of the works came after me, and said, " I think if there is " any thing in this it must have been owing to a " report that may have got abroad, as to some hollow " walls," and he added, "You will recollect that in " consequence of certain parts of the building having " to be kept fireproof, some of the walls had to be " built upon iron girders, and, in order to lessen the " great weight upon those girders, they have been " built hollow, and are so shown upon the architect's " drawing. Now," he said, " that may have got " talked about ;" but that went only to the extent of a few walls. 2815. {Mr. Hughes.) Would that be Ukely to deceive the men ? — No, not at all likely to deceive any man who was at all conversant with the matter, because those parts were carefully carried out ; in fact, they required more care than the other walls. 2816. Do you think that any competent bricklayer, even though not informed of the reason why these walls were left hollow, would have been certain to see the reason, and would have had no temjstation to think that it was of a dishonourable character ? — I do not well see how any man could have been mistaken. 2817- {Mr. Roebuck.) I suppose you know that none are so blind as those who will not see ? — Yes, and it reminded me of a circumstance that occurred (I do not know whether I am right in mentioning it here) when I was very young, at the lime of the building of the great sewer down Regent Street. It had not long been finished when there was a letter written to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, stating that there was some bad work there. It was publicly announced that it was impossible for them to take notice of a general accusation of that kind, and then a man came forward who said that he would point out the spots. He went up to the sewer and pointed out two places, and when they cut between those two places, the moment that they had cut into the she]l, out came a quantity of rubbish. The builder was there of course, and he tuined round and said, " Cut in any where else," because this man went MO systematically to the two places, that it immediately occurred to the builder that there was some special ■ icason for it. Of course they investigated the thing, and the result was that they found out that that was t]ie very man who had built those places. 28 1 8. ( Chairman. ) Did he sell the bricks that ought to have been put in sound, because there is often some interest of that kind in the case I suppose ?— -Or revenge it may be. 2819. {Mr. Booth.) This suggestion of the hollow wall was merely made in ans-vver to a supposed state- ment from Mr. Coulson, that pocketing and scamping had taken place in this public building ? — Yes, I thought it possible that it might have got gossipped about among the bricklayers, that there was hollow work there, and that then this good man instead of satisfying himself of the truth of it, spoke upon com- mon rumour. 2820. {Mr, Hughes.) Where you engaged in the great strike of 1859 and 1860 ? — I was. 2821. Do you remember the discharge note that was issued ? — No, I have heard the question which you put to Mr. Piper on the subject, and I have been endeavouring to recollect it ; my impression of it was simply this, that it was talked about and never used. Of course there would have been such a machinery involved in the issuing of those notes and the printing of them, that I must have recollected it if they had been used. {Mr. Applegarth.) That was altogether a Midland Counties arrangement. 2822. {Mr. Hughes to the witness.) At any rate there was talk about it in London? — It was discussed and probably might come up as a measure, that origi- nated in the Midland Counties, and they might con- sider how far it might be made applicable to London. 2823. {Mr. Merivale.) Are you building the India Office as well as the Foreign Office ?^ — Yes. 2824. {Mr. Hughes.) Were any what are called black lists used in that strike ; did you send round the names of men who had struck, so that they might not be employed in other firms ? — No. 2825. Nothing of that kind is done?— No, that would be a piece of machinery which we could not organize very well. 2826. What ha,s been your experience of unionists, do you consider them average workmen, good work- men or bad workmen generally ? — There are some of all sorts, I do not think that they confine themselves to one party or the other. 2827. Have you ever been inconvenienced by the bad work or the slow work of unionists ? — By their slow work, certainly. In fact, now it is extremely difficult to fix any prices for labour in estimating a contract. I should perhaps say in explanation that in taking a contract we fix the prices which we suppose to be cost prices, and at the end we put what ve. conceive ought to be onr profit, and therefore if wages have risen 15 per cent, in a year, the putting 15 per cent, upon the labour of that contract (that labour being always taken out separately) ought to represent the fair value of the work, but we find that it does not do that, because there is less work done in a day than there used to be, and that to a very great extent. 2828. I have heard that it is the practice now for TRADES UNIONS, :ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 103 London builders to make a regulai- allowanca for the chance of strikes. Will you say whether that is so in the trade generally, if you do not think it undesirable to answer the question? — I have no objection to answer it. The only arrangement' that we make with reference to strikes is to get a clause put into the contract that in the event of a strike, which is of general operation in the trade, and not the result of any feeling between the particular master and his men, there should then be an aUowanco made by the architect during the operation of that strike. If, for instance, the building is contracted to be done in two years, and a strike of that charaetei' occurs, we are not to be pressed for time. That is the only attempt that we have made to protect ourselves, because otherwise if one man were exceedingly apprehensive of strikes he would put on a greater price, and another man would perhaps be indifferent to them. 2829. {Earl of Lichfield.) Is it the case that in estimating the price at which you make a contract you do not take into account the possible rise of wages during the time that you have for finishing the work ? — If we saw any circumstance impending that was likely very materially to interfere with the rate of wages, we should take that into account. Of course we cannot calculate the capricious way in which the strikes have been regulated, but we can only look at supply and demand. 2830. Do you, in fact, take that into calculation in estimating the price at which you make a contract ? — A man would be exceedingly imprudent who did not take in every calculation. 2831. {Mr. Hughes.) Did you ever offer to any journeyman higher wages in respect of his greater skUl than the other men on the same work were receiving — Yes. 2832. And has he been allowed to receive those higher wages ? — I cannot say that I know of any dii-ect interference, but it created a degree of jealousy which made the man uncomfortable. I think that the greatest mischief, however, arises from the fixed minimum. It throws a vast number of men out of work who would be receiving fair wages, because in every establishment there are men, whom I will not call inferior men, but who ai-e physically incapable of earning as much as others — for instance, a man may be so from age. The consequence of our being obliged to pay almost a uniform rate of wages is that the moment there is a reduction the shops or the works are gone through, and all these poor men are picked out and discharged, I mean those who are receiving a greater rate of wages than they are really fairly entitled to. 2833. But with reference to the man to whom I referred and to whom you referred, the skilled work- man to whom in consequence of his superior skill you have given extra wages beyond those which his fellows have gained, so far as you know has he been obliged to leave your employment, and has anything happened to him to your knowledge, or has he gone on working for you ? — I have had such men come to me and say that they felt uncomfortable, and that they would rather go. 2834. Men to whom you paid extra wages ? — Yes. 2835. {Earl of Lichfield.) But is it not only in the more skilled trades that the minimum rate of wages is fixed, that is to say, although a man working at some particular trade may not be allowed by his society to receive below a certain rate of wages, could he not be employed by you at some more ordinary work ? — The difficulty of giving him a lower rate of wages would equally exist. 2836. Does that rule apply to all labourers or does it only apply to the trades of carpenters and brick- layers and those more skilled trades ? — In the other case it would be activity that would be the man's chief recommendation. 2837. But you could employ that man without the society's interference, could you not ? — No, I think that the Labourers Society would interfere with that, .at all events the general feeling ampng the men would. 2838; In short, then, it applies to all the men in Mr. G. Smith, whatever manner they may be employed ? — Yes, I .-" — believe it does. . 30_Aprin867. 2839. {Mr. Merivale.) With reference to one of the building trades, we heard that there was a rule that the union would not interfere in the case of u man above 50, but that he might get what wages he could ; are you aware of that regulation ? — No. 2840. Do you think that the operation of trades unions of late years lias tended to increase that un- certainty as to the estimate of the cost of works of which you complain ? — Very much. 2841. {Mr. Booth.) I think you say that the result of your experience of the influence of trades unions is that the work now, though not less skilful than here- tofore, is yet of a more sluggish character ? — Yes ; and I have been quite surprised, knowing what my own disposition would be, to see men working down to such a low level, because it would be more difiicult to write slowly or to do anything else slowly than to do it at a proper speed. 2842. But the result as I understand you is not that the work is now done less skilfully than it was formerly, but that it is done more slowly ? — Yes ; and there is not that esprit de corps which should exist, but which is I always found wanting when a dull uniformity is aimed at. What would be the case with the fine arts in this country if artists were all sought to be brought down to one level ? 2843. {Mr. Hughes). What is your idea in calcu- 1 ating wages, upon what principle do you go ? Is it upon the principle of getting the most work you can ? — Upon the principle of supply and demand. 2844. For instance, if you were to introduce machinery, you would not consider it necessary to think of the people who were displaced by it ? — I think that there is a vast deal of machinery which never would ha\'e been introduced if labour had not been in this unsettled state. 2845. But still, you for instance, would not intro- duce machinery without considering what became of the men displaced. You would say, I presume, that it was not a part of your duty to consider what became of those men ? — Well, I have very often con- sidered that. 2846. Did you ever provide for it in any way ? — No, I cannot say that I have, but it has been a matter of reflection with me, often when we were about to introduce machinery. 2847. But the reflection did not result in any action ? — We are obliged in these cases to do that which is best for our business. 2848. In the sanie way, iu the case of overtime, I suppose you do not consider the health of the men, but if it is necessary for your purposes you take any one that offers ? — There is a great mistake with regard to overtime. No man in his senses would ever want overtime work if he could avoid it, but it generally arises under a pressure for time or from inadequate premises. A man has a demand made upon him, but his premises are not elastic, and there- fore the only way in which he can comply with that, is to put on as many men as he can on his premises, and with a view of keeping time, ask them to work overtime. But it is a matter of calculation, a man cannot do so much work in each hour of 14 J hours, as he can in 10 hours, there is no question about that. 2849. {Mr. Roebuck.) Have you ever heard any difficulty made amongst the workmen on the ground that certain workmen worked too fast ? — Well I have heard of it, as a matter of conversation, what they term chasing. 2850. I am not alluding to that, but to the case in which a man comes and does his work well and rapidly, and his fellow-workman says, " No, that is too fast for us, you must not work so fast. — I have often heard of that ; I have no proof of it, but I believe that it exists. 2851. {Mr. Mathevis.) I think you stated that the effect of an uniform rate of vy^^ges was iiyurious to the N 4 104 TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE, Mr. G. Smith, skilled workman by taking from him his zeal in the execution of his work, inasmuch as he got insufficient 3 April 186 7. remuneration for it ?— Yes, I do not think that there is that incentive which he would otherwise have, and it is a very great hardship also upon the less skilled, those who may happen to h&xe met with an accident, or who are not so active as they were because they are as it were a sort of outcasts, who go from shop to shop, and ultimately come to a workhouse. 2852. So that as far as the skilled workman goes these rules for the regulation of wages are injurious to him ? — I believe that all these attempts to carry out an artificial system are injurious alike to men and masters. 2853. On the other hand you have stated that when the builders have not the power to employ so many men as formerly they are obliged in consequence of this regulation of wages to discharge first the inferior workmen ? — Yes. 2854. So that there is first an injurious operation upon the superior workmen, because they are pre- vented from earning according to their worth, and at the same time there is an injurious operation upon inferior workmen^ because in times when work is scarce they must be the first to be discharged ? — That is my view of it. With reference to the regulation of wages, I will show what would happen if I had a sudden demand for men. Supposing, for instance, that I wanted 500 men next Monday, we should take the usual means of making it known, and if we did not get the necessary number of men within a reason- able interval we must raise our price, and there would be a natural inference that the labour was all em- ployed, therefore I feel quite sure that wages if left to themselves would be always regulated by a fair proportion. It is far better that all should be em- ployed than that a certain number should be wander- ing about subsisting on alms. 2855. {Mr. Hughes.) But do you believe that if the men were not in the union wages would be kept up ? — I do, and they would save all the machinery of the union. The men cannot make work, it must be remembered. 2856. I suppose in your trade there is a lot of wliat you may call inferior or scamped work ; people be- lieve that there is a great deal of that inferior work being done about the metropolis ; is that so or not ? — Yes, but there are regulations that ought to check that. In the neighbourhood of London the land is generally in large estates, and it is let out upon what are called building leases, and when a man who lets his freehold ground for a limited number of years, it is his interest to see that there is something built which is not likely to fall down. He looks for the reversion, and he almost invariably employs a sur- veyor, and the lease is not granted until that surveyor gives his certificate. 2857. Then we are mistaken in believing that there is a lot of that inferior work about London ? — I do not believe that it is worse than it has been. The witness 2858. Do you think that in the case of masters doing that kind of work, a man going alone would have a fair chance of getting a jjroper rate of wages even though he had no union to fall back upon ? — Yes, if a master wanted men he must give such a price as he could get men for. 2859. And he would give the lowest price he could get them for ? — I believe that that is just what happens in eveiything else. 2860. He would give a lower price to a man who had nothing to fall back upon than to a man who had the funds of the union to fall back upon, would he not ? — I think that the whole system is bad. You know what was said a few years ago when they would have burnt the houses of the men who would have bought up the corn. I believe that buying up labour is the same thing as buying up corn. 2861. I do not think it is, but I want to know whether it is really your opinion that a man going by himself to a m.ister, that man belonging to no union, and having no union to fall back upon, has the same chance of getting a good rate of wages as the man who has the union to fall back upon ? — He has his own common sense to fall back upon. If he goes to a master, and asks for a job, and the master says, " I will give j'ou 4«. 6d. a day," the man may say, " I cannot work for that," and he may go to another master, and get 6s. 2862. But meantime he has to live, and the union m.akes a provision for that ? — -The question is whether that very provision does not lead to improvident habits. 2863. {3Ir. Roebuch.) Does the union enable him to get moi'e to this extent, that if he went to the master singly he would get what he deserved, what his labour was worth, whereas the union enables him to get more ?~It enables some to get more, but it throws a great many out of work I believe. The union can- not increase the quantity of work, and if the present state of things goes on I have no hesitation in saying tiiat work will be diminished, there will be nothing done but what is absolutely necessary. 2864. {Mr. Mathews.) Then you chink that the effect to the workmen if he gets some little advantage by the union is more than compensated by inferior workmen being thrown out of employment, and superior being unable to get a higher rate of wages ? — That is the immediate influence of the unions, but the remote influence (it will be some time before it is felt) will be the withdrawal of capital from building operations. 2865. {Mr. Merivale.) I suppose when trade is thriving there is always something in the price ob- tained in the market over the ordinary rate of wages, and natural profits of capital, some surplus, that is to say ? — Yes. 2866. Are not you engaged, both masters and men, in endeavouring to get as much of that suri^us as you can ? — Every man buys in the cheapest market and sells in the dearest. withdrew. Mr. G. F. Trollope. Mr. G-EOEGE Fkancis 2867. {Chairman.) I think you employ labour in the building trade to a considei-able extent ? — Yes. 2868. And have had experience in employing labour in that trade for several years ? — Yes. 2869. In particular you were concerned in the strike of 1859 I beHeve ? — Yes, unfortunately we •\\-ere the first parties aimed at on that occasion. 2870. Will you give the Commission information about the circumstances of that strike ? — Certainly. There had been for a considerable period an agitation amongst the men for what was called the nine hours' movement, and after a time it resulted in this, that on the 18th of July 1 859 we and three other London builders received the following notice : " Gentlemen, — We, the " men in your employ, consider that the time has ar- " rived when some alteration in the hours of labour " is necessary, and having determined that the re- Teollope examined. '• duction of the present working day to nine hours "■ at the present rate of wages asked for by the " building trades during a public agitation of 18 months would meet our present requirement, we " respectfully solicit you to concede the nine hours " as a day's work. A definite answer to our re- "^ quest is solicited by the 22d day of July 1859." That was the first notice which the masters received, and on the 23rd of July our men struck work. The following notice was then extensively circulated through the metropolis :— " Nine Hours Movement. " Important notice to the operatives of the building trades. The master builders having refused to concede the nine hours as a day's work, the confe- rence of the united building trades have been directed " by the members of the movement to call upon a " firm to cease work. Having done so they now .ap- " peal to you to aid them in supporting the men TRADES UNIOKS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 105 " now on strike at Messrs. TroUope & Sons. It " is earnestly hoped that no workmen will go in to " supplant them till they have gained their object. " ' It is expected that every man will do his duty.' " By order of the Executive, Geoege Potter, Secre- " tary. — ^N.B. Any firm striking for the above " object without the sanction of the conference will " not be supported. The committee sits daily at the " Paviors' Arms, Johnson Street, Westminster." At the same time there was this notice sent to all our works, at least to the foremen of the works : — " 96, " Denbigh Street, Pimlico. Dear sir, — I wish through '' you to communicate to the carpentei's, bricklayers, " and labourers at ■ that the men in the " employ of Messrs. Ti'ollope & Sons will cease " work on Monday next, at 8 o'clock, a.m., and meet " at the Paviors' Arms, Johnson Street, Westmin- " ster, at 10 o'clock same morning, when I hope " you will attend and take a part in the busi- " ness. The strike will be for the nine hours. I " remain, yours respectfully, Geoege Potter." That was addressed to , one of our foremen. I happened to find it in his pay office, and I took the liberty of having a copy of it made for me by my clerk. That was the origin of the strike. Now I should tell the Commission that at that time we had a great number of men who had been in our employ for a long while, and we saw many of them on the subject. Of course we were quite aware that this agitation for the nine hours movement had been going on for a long period of time, and I discussed the question with them in this way. I said, " Realty I cannot see anything at all reasonable in " your demand. The master builders for many years " past have been very desirous to adopt the nine '■ hours in the winter, that is, from November to " February. You have resisted it, and have insisted " on working ten hours, and now you say that you " want nine hours all the year round." I observed to them, " There are two things very important in " your notice. You say (without reference to anybody " else) that you have " determined " that the hours of " labour should be reduced to nine hours, and you " next say that a reduction of the working day to " nine hours per day will meet ' our present require- " ' ments.' What do you mean by ' our present re- " ' quirements ? ' " They said, " Well, sir, it is no " use disguising the fact, if we get nine hours now " we mean to get eight next summer ; eight hours " is aU that they work in the colonies, Australia and " so on, and there is no i-eason why we should " work longer." I said, " Do you mean that this " nine hours or eight hours is to be restricted to the " building trade ? because you cannot tell me for a " moment there is anything injurious to your health, " or anything else connected with the trade that " should cause your labour to be reduced to nine " hours or eight hours per day any more than any " other class of labourers, say agricultural labourers, " or factory men for instance." They replied, " We have nothing to do with that ; they can look " after themselves ; we think that we can force the " master builders to give in to the nine hours per " day, and we mean to try it." That was the only answer I got. I said, " I am very sorry that you " have struck against us ; nobody likes to stand in " the front of a battle for nothing ; but we cannot " stand alone, we must act in concert with the whole « body of the trade." We then communicated with Mr. Piper, and he summoned the Builders Society. The society said, " This is not a thing that we as a " society can deal with ; it is a question for the whole " trade ; we are only 60 or 70 ; we must have all " the builders of the metropolis summoned." And accordingly the Central Association of Master Builders was formed, and Mr. Wales was elected the secretary of that association. Things went on. The master builders conferred with one another as to what was the best thing to be done. Of course everyone saw that it was not a question which affected Messrs. Trollope only. If we had succumbed 18 42S. and conceded the nine hours, the next man to be Mr. G. F. taken was Mr. Kelk, I believe, and we should have 'Trollope. been knocked over one after another like ninepins. At a~7~ the same time the subject was agitated in the press, 30 April 1 867. and everybody seemed to agree that there was no reason "" whatever why the working men should say that no one should be jjermitted to work more than nine hours per day, and that no overtime except under very extreme circumstances should be allowed. Then the master builders said to us, " You must try what " you can do for the next fortnight to get your " works filled, and if at the end of a fortnight you " cannot get your works filled, then we must take " measures to support you." During that fortnight we endeavoured to get men, but ineifectually. The place was picketed, many men came and offered their services, but they were insulted, and so were afraid to continue. At the end of the fortnight the masters met again, and asked what we had done. We told them that we were standing still, and that we had done nothing. They then agreed as follows : — " We " will issue a notice that we will close our shops until " yours (TroUope's) are filled," and they further required that there should be hung up in the shops, and be handed to every man who came in, a memorandum to this effect, " I declare that " I am not now, nor will I during the continu- " ance of my engagement with you, become a " member of or support any society which, directly or " indirectly, interferes with the arrangement of this " or any other establishment, or the hours or terms of " labour ; and that I recognize the right of employers " and employed individually to make any trade en- " gagements on which they may choose to agree," and they added, " Every workman shall be distinctly " required to pledge his word to the observance of " these conditions, and on his name being entered on " the file of the engagement book, and the duplicate " agreement detached and handed to him, he may re- " sume his employment." The thing went on for several weeks ; the masters all loyally stood by us. We met I think every week at first, and afterwards every fortnight, and the master builders were always anxious to know whether our works were not filled. Of course we had to incur a great deal of loss, and a great deal of difficulty, because we took in a number of men who were perfect strangers to us, and we could not tell whether they were really good workmen or not. At last we got 300 or 400 men on. Then the masters said to us, " Now will you give us all leave to open our works ? " and we assented. With regard to the placard that had been put up in the shops, we conferred to- gether after the masters generally had opened for two or three weeks and had each got several men. We said, " We must still keep it up in the shops, until '' they are tolerably filled with men who have come in " under that engagement, else the unionists will out- " number them, and there will be a row." At last the men said that they gave up the nine hours movement altogether, and that they only required this declara- tion to be taken down out of the shops. After three or four weeks the thing gradually subsided, and the declaration was taken down and the matter ended. 2871. That was the end of the strike you mean ? — Yes, they formally withdrew the strike. I should say that during that time they had continually represented to the central association that they were quite wilHng to come back to work if that placard were taken down, •so that they should not be supposed to come in under it. The masters said, " Do we understand that you withdraw your strike against Messrs. TroUopes ? " but they sent evasive answers, and for several weeks they would not say whether they formally withdrew the strike against us or not. At last, however, they did. They said that they withdrew the strike, and that they objected to nothing but that placard. The masters, as I have already mentioned, kept it on two or three weeks longer until they got the shops pretty well filled. It drew on to winter, and the placards were washed out, and in one way and another were removed, and the thing died out. 106 TEADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION : — MINUTES OP EVIDENCE. Mr. G. F. 2872. Is there any other strike that you have Trollope. suffered from ? — No, we never went : through any other strike. 30 AprU 1867. 2873. {Mr. Roebuck.) There has been no strike since, has there ? — There has been no strilte since in our firm at all. There have been strikes elsewhere, because the men wanted a foreman discharged, but not with us. 2874. {Earl of Lichfield.) What are the hours now, are they the same as they were ? — We made an alteration last year when we raised the wages (very unnecessarily as we thought) to 8d. per hour. We then determined that the men should revert to the old time of working, namely, nine hours from Lord Mayor's Day to Valentine's Day, and that they should not be able to compel us to employ them for 10 hours during the months when they could only partially see on out-door work. The masters con- sidered that it was a great robbery on the public to be paying the men for 10 hours during the winter months, and we determined when we raised the wages to 8d. per hour that we would have that arrangement altered. 2875. What are the hours now, and what were they before that strike ? — The hours before that strike were 10 hom's per day all the year round, except on the Saturday when they left off earlier, and now they are 10 hours, from the 14th of February to the 10th of November, a,nd nine hours from the 10th ot November to the 14th of February. That was the arrangement, excepting in shops where they could have gas, and there they went on at 10 hours all the year round. 2876. Did you concede the 8d. per hour ? — Yes, and We at the same time said, " If it is to be 8d., we " must put a stop to the 10 hours in winter out of « doors." 2877. At the same time that you raised the wages you reduced the hours of work ? — During the three months of winter, but they get more wages for the nine hours now than they did for the 10 hours formerly. 2878. {Chairman.) Were the hour wages brought in after 4869 ? — They were brought in after 1859, in 1861. ' The masters were very dissatisfied with the previous system. In fact we had various complaints from our customers, who said, " What is the use of " our having men to come on Saturdays at six, and " go away at two, for which you charge me a day's " work ?" — After 1859 I think there was also a rise of wages talked of, and we said, " To prevent any trouble we will have the hour payment," and I am very glad we did. I think that it worked exceed- ingly well, and that it is but just. 2879. Comparing the day wages of 1859 and the hour wages at 8d., what were the two rates ? — In 1859, if I recollect right, the wages were 5s. 6d. per day, that is to say, 33*. per week, now the wages are 8d. per hour, and the men on an average work 56^ hours, which makes about 38s. per week. 2880. In your opinion, have the unions operated to raise wages more than they would have risen if there had not been the action of unions ? — I have no doubt at all that the operation of unions has been during tne last few years to force up the rate of wages, quicker at aU events, but I quite agree with what Mr. Smith has already said, that it is a very unjust arrangement to fix a minimum rate of wages for all men. There are a great many men who have been perhaps years in our employment, and those men are not permitted, although incapable of doing as much work as a man in full health and strength, to receive less wages than such a man. It cannot be denied, I think, that that is tyranny, and that it injures those men, because directly we have a slackness of work we have to turn off a number of men, and under the present rule we cannot pay respect to a man's character beyond a certain extent, but we must immediately tell our foreman to turn off every man Who is not up to the tnark. Of course advainced age prevents a man being up to the matk. And then, too, ybu may hare very respectable young men who come from the country, improvers, and so on, who are per-' fectly well able to do the work to which you might set them, but not able in speed to compete with the other men. I have told the men over and over again, " Yoii' " are doing yourselves a great mischief; it ma]Jr be " all very well now in the time of railway works, " when every man may have employment, but by " fixing a minimum rate of wages, and that minimum' " a very high one, you are bringing about a reduction " of work." They say, in answer to that, " In con- " tracts we quite understand that you must put in the' " best men you can, but with day-work " (this is'their' absurd reasoning), '' what does it matter to you, sir ? " You send me to a gentleman's house, and pay me 5s. " or 6s. 8d. per day. You put a certain profit upotf " that, and he pays it." I say to them, " That " is not just, to begin with. If I send you to a cus- " tomer's house, and charge him 10/. for wages, he " will expect 10/. value for it." But some of the men seem to think that we have nothing to do but sit at our desks and add 10 per cent, on to everything that comes before us. It is our duty, in my opinion; to see that our customers have value for their money; 2881. The fixing of a minimuni obliges you to turn' off a man not up to the mark ? — He may be up to the mark in one respect, but still not able to do the work so fast. 2882. One result of the high price of labour might be you think to hinder people from building ?^J- think it will have that effect, but I am bound to say that the argument of the men hitherto has been borne out by facts, because there has been such an enormous pressure for work owing to railways that almost every man that can handle a tool has been taken on at an unreasonable rate. I do not think that that will last. 2883. {Mr. Hughes.) Considering that there are three parts of London to be rebuilt, as yet the trade seems to be perfectly illimitable ? — I do not think so, but of course it is a matter of opinion. I do not think that if things go on as they have done it will be so. In fact, I know of my own knowledge that people say that builders' work has come to such an enormous price by reason of the wages that they must really have less done. 2884. {Mr. Merivale.) Is there as a fact less done^ — At the present time I say there is ; there are a very large number of operatives out of employment. 2885. {Chairman.) But are there not fewer work- men than are required to do the work in the building trade ? — Certainly not now. There are a large num^ ber of men, in fact, out of employment. 2886. Since when has that been so ? — That has been gradually increasing since the summer of last year. There are more men out of work now than there were in the autumn. 2887. Eailway extensions being checked would be one cause of that, I suppose? — Yes. 2888. Is there any other ? — Yes, we have one very good test. We can judge from the applications we receive from architects and other people, to compete for works, and' we know this, that there never was k period when less work was coming forward th?.n the present time, and the estimates tendered are compara- tively few to what they were, and I think that that is partly owing to the fact that people find that woA comes to a large sum of money. Of course if. people get very rich they may go on with their works: again in full swing, but at the present time it is not so.. If there are enough workmen in England to get 8d. (a 9d. the hour, I have no objection to pay themj but I say, let us have a proper day's work, so that we call calculate what the cost of wages is likely to be. Now, within the last few years, it haS been perfectly im.>- possible for a master builder to know what wages represent, and that not on account of the risa of wageSj 'but owing to the way in which ^ labour ite carried out. ' ■- '•■■•. '2889. Have you formed any opinion as to theques" tion upon what basi4 wa^e^'out to 'be flexed ?— I think TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OP EVIDENCE. 107 that wages, if left to them^elTes, would always find their natural level. 2890. By competition you mean ? — ^Yes. 2891. Not by calculating what the price of the work would be, and giving a fair proportion of that to the workmen ? — I do not think that it is possible to carry out the building trade on the sort of social principle, if I may call it so, of dividing the profits between the master and the worlsmen. I cannot see howit is possible, though I should be only too glad if it were, because it might effect an improvement I think. ' 2892. {Mr. Hughes.) Your accounts do not show, as I understand, the names of the men who do the work ? — "We have our regular weekly pay lists which show the wages of every man. 2893. Then at the end of the erection of a building yoti wOMld' know ' hbV much every man who had worked upon each different job had earned upon it ? — No, that is impossible. We will say that Mr. Smith, for instance, at the Foreign Ofl&ce, begins with 400 or 500 men, whom he employs to dig tlie foun- dations. Of course they are discharged gradually as that work goes on, and then bricklayers and labourers are taken on, and so it goes on through the whole work. I might by minute calculation say what the excavation cost me, and what I got for excavation, and what I got for the bricklaying, and what I paid for the bricklaying, but it would be such an intermi- nable system of minute' accounts that no person could ever do -it. Take any firm — you pay your workmen for what they do, but you cannot divide with them the profits of a job or make them share a loss. 2894. {Mr. Merivale.) Does it seem to you a fair competition to fix the rate of wages to have one em- ployer bargaining against each individual man ? — He would not bargain with each individual man. 2895. How would he do it, according to your notion of what is fair ? — As Mr. Smith, I think, stated, if there were various works going on, and there was a great deal of business doing throughout the country, your customer would perhaps come to you and say, "Mr. Trollope," or " Mr. Smith, my work is going on very slowly, I want to go on faster." You would say, " I cannot get more men," and he would reply, " But you have undertaken to do it by a given time, and I must have it done." Then we have to instruct our foreman to give 6d. a day extra to all the men we can get. Upon that the men would flock to us, and the other masters would have, of course, to follow suit in paying increased wages. 2896. That, you think, would be the fairest way, the employer offering what he can afibrd to offer, and nothing more ? — He would pay what he must to get the men. It is the same thing in building as in every- thing else. There is a great demand for sugar or tea, for instance, and I who sell them would put the price up. 2897. (Mr. Hughes.) Supposing that you were buying your tea from a man that was in difiioulties you might get a bargain from him ? — If there was a great demand the man would not be in difficulties. 2898. But if there was a small demand ? — If there was a small demand for labour, of course the master might say, " Well, I can get as many men as I like for 7d. an hour, I shall not give 8c?." I say that that is supply and demand, and that that is fair. 2899. Our unfortunate man, whose case I am sup- posing, who had tea to sell and could not hold it in reserve would be obliged to sell it at a loss ? — No doubt of it. 2900. And you think that it would be no advantage to that man to have 50 other men united with him who would say, " No you shall not sell your tea at that " which we consider an improper price, but you shall " hold it in reserve and meantime we will support " you ? "^But it is never so in other cases, look at stocks or anything whatever dealt with in the city, it is always according to the supply and demand that the price is regulated. But I have never known in my experience ' in London wages forced' down, and just for this reason, when woi-k falls oflf very much in j^^^.^ q p our business, there are a certain number of men who Trollope. have worked for us for years and we always keep them on (and every other firm does the same) at 30 April 1867. their regular wages, even if we are making stock work or doing anything of that kind. 2901. And turn off the others you mean ?-— Yes. 2902. What become of them ? — We do not know. 2903. Supposing that they have the union to fall back upon, they are surely in a better position than if they stand alone ? — Then comes in the provident element. If they chose to subscribe during their time of work for a rainy day, nobody can object to that, indeed we should all be delighted to see it. 2904. Is not that what they do in the unions ? That is one thing they do. As far as I and my part- ners are concerned, and I believe the generality of the masters, we are very desirous to consult the com- fort and the advantage of our workmen. But that feeling unfortunately has changed of late years; In my younger days there used to be some sort of attach- ment between master and men, but that has entirely gone, and I say that it is the unions and nothing else that has brought about that result. In the strike of 1859 men came to us -who had worked at the place for 30 or 40 years and said to us, " This is the saddest day that ever happened to us in our lives, but we must go, we are bound to go." 2905. {Mr. Mathews.) You believe that the effect of these unions is to loosen the tie between the work- man and his employer ? — That most decidedly has been so. Of course in a large establishment (and ours is a moderately large establishment) you cannot know a thousand men, but you may know a great many men who have been in your employ for many years, and you may feel an attachment to those men. But when you find that you cannot come to those men and talk to them as Mends, that in fact their individuality is lost because they are members of a union, it seems to me a most distressing thing. I have talked to them and argued with them, but in two or three' days' time it is all obliterated by the influence of the uhion. 2906. In the absence of any operation of the unions when masters are left to themselves the tendency is for each master to keep his men as long as he can, is it not ? — Most decidedly. 2907. On the other hand when the union tries to screw every penny out of the master that it can, it destroys the very essence of the relation which should submit between them ? — ^Yes. 2908. It is then natural for the master to say to the man, " Having got out of me everything you can " you have no right to ask me on social considerations " for anything more ?" — Yes. I have heard many masters say, " I used during the winter to keep on as " many men as I could even at my own personal loss, " but now these men care nothing for me." In fact, the effect of the unions is to induce them not to do anything for my benefit, and therefore why should I put my hand into my pocket for them ? 2909. That feeling is general throughout the trade, is it ? — I am afraid it is. 2910. And it is increasing, you fear ? — Yes ; every one notices that there is a difference in the very behaviour of the men ; some hardly address you with ordinary civility. 2911. So that the effect of these unions is to increase the antagonism between the interest of the master and the interest of the workman ? — I think so. 2912. I think you said that there was a disincli- nation on the part of the unions to allow inferior workmen to take Jess than a certain rate of wages ? They cannot do it ; they would be worried out of their lives. 2913. If men were to come to you, and say, " We " are willing to work for 4*. Qd. a day," while the standard rate was 6s., they would not be allowed to do it? — At the ptesent time we should not entertain such a proposition, in fact We should not' be able to do it. I have known a case in our shop, where an old joiner has been at work, and we have been paying 2 108 TBADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION : — MINUTES OP EVIDENCE. Mr. G. F. Trollope. 30 April 1867, him less wages, and he has said, " I am sorry, sir, I " caunot stop, but the men worry me out of my life. " I linow I am not worth what they are, but I am " not allowed to take less wages." 2914. And if he persevered in working with you without the consent of these men, they would probably strike ? — Probably they would strike, but they would first of all try to woriy him out. 2915. And in the event of that failing, they would strike ? — ^Yes. 2916. Do you know anything about picketing ? — In 1859 our works were picketed morning, noon, and night. Several of the men who came up from the country came to us, and said, " I am sorry I cannot " stop ; but when I go out, the men follow me, my " wife is annoyed, and my children get hooted at in " the street, and therefore I really cannot stop." 2917. So that, in short, although there is no actual physical violence towards the man, there is that sort of social violence which prevents his following his employment ? — Quite so. There were two or three men taken up before the magistrate ; the magistrate, not finding there was any \'iolence actually committed, the men were discharged. One or two were con- victed because they shook their hands in a man's face, or did something which amounted to more than insult by word of mouth. 2918. You consider this social violence, if I may so call it, quite as effective as if it were physical violence ? — Yes, just as much so as if the men were knocked down. This which I hold in my hand is a list of the " blacks " circulated, that is to say, the unionists were not to work with any of those (pro- ducing the list). That was brought out in 1859, and it gives the names of those workmen who had come on after accepting that condition which had been hung in the shops. Our shop was not mentioned, of course, because all the men that had come to us were blacks to that extent, but those who had gone to other masters in that way were mentioned. 2919. They published a list of this description, and that was an iutmiation to the world that no other men were to work with those named in the list ? — Yes. 2920. (Mr Booth.) Have you found that since the general establishment of unions there has been a less amount of work done in a given time ? — I cannot speak to that, because they say that the unions had begun to be established before my time, but I mean to say that it has been growing worse and worse. I have sometimes said to some of my men who were at work in the joiners' shop, " Now come, do you mean to say that that is a fair dajf's work." And the answer has been, " Well, sir, it is not, but I am not allowed to best my mates." That means, " I am not allowed to do more than others." I said to a young man from the country some months ago, who was walking along the street going to his work, " V/here are you going ?" " Oh, I am going to Mr. So-and- so's to work." That was about 2 o'clock in the da}^. I said, " At what time do you expect to get tliere ?" He said, " I do not know, sir." I said, " At the pace '■' you are going at you will get there about when it " is time to leave oif." He came to me afterwards and said, " Sir, I am very sorry to say it, but wc are '■ not allowed to sweat ourselves if we are walking in " yoiir time." 2921. (Mr. Idatheios.) Are we to infer from that that there is a restriction as to the pace at which the men are to walk ? — There is a sort of understanding between them that they are not to walk too fast. Their theory is this (and a most absurd theory it is), that if there is work for three men to be done, and they can somehov^ scheme it that four men shall be employed, they are doing their cause a service, and then they tell us, " If it is on day -vvork it does not " matter a pin to you — the public have to pay for it, " and you can put your profit on the wages. If it is " a contract we can understand how you may lose, " but if it is not, what is the difference to you ?" — I say that it is a most unrighteous state of things, and I have often said that I was so disgusted with the system I should be glad to leave the business alto- gether. 2922. {Chairman.) Does the walking time to which you refer mean the time of walking to the work ? — 1 am speaking more particularly of jobbing work. If you send to a builder to do a little job in your house the man whom he sends would finish it by two o'clock perhaps, and then walk to another job. 2923. You are not referring to a man walking from his home to his work ? — No, he is bound to be at his work in the shop at the regular time in the morning. 2924. Do you remember any time before 1859 when there was a kindly feeling between the em- ployers and the workmen ? — When I first came into business "\vo had a number of constant men. I was very happy to say, and used to boast of it, that we had men who had been 30 or 40 ye^rs with us. We had a respect for them, and they for us, and if we said to them, " Here is Mr. So-and-so coming to town, and " he wants his house done, do drive along," these men would enter into the thing with readiness. I am sorry to say that that spirit is utterly gone. 2925. You say that as between employer and man there was a mutual kindly feeling ? — There was in our firm, and I believe it was so in many other firms. 2926. Has the change been that the relation between you has become that of hostile overcaution ? — I say that the individuality of the men in dealing with US as employers is lost in their being absorbed in the unions. I do not wish to speak ill of the unions except that I think they have acted very preju- dicially to the men themselves as well as to the masters. 2927. {Mr. Merivale.) You say that they have raised wages do not you ? — I think that wages would have risen in just the same way, though not so fast jDerhaps. 2928. {Mr. Hughes.) But Mr. Piper says that he never knew an instance in which the masters volun- tarily raised the wages ? — They have not raised the whole body together, but in our individual firm we used frequently to say to the better men, " Well, now, we " will give you so much more." We used to pick them out. But the raising of all the wages indis- criminately, I dare say, would not have been done except by the unions. 2929. There used to be a time, used there not, virhen there was a great deal of violence in strikes, when men were assaulted and beaten ? — I do not know of a.ny great strike but one, and that was in 1859. I saw two or three men injured in that, only two or three. 2930. Did you see them beaten ? — I saw they had been beaten, and other men were subjected to insult, and were followed about and dogged from place to place, and all that sort of thing, which would be just as bad as being knocked on the head. 2931. I remember it was stated at the time that there had been no open violence, that was not true you say ? — All I can say is that I saw two or thres men who had been knocked about on the head and bleedhig. I cannot tL-U you how far they had pro- voked that themselves, or how far others had pro- yoked it, but they were men who had come on to work for us. Po!to correct some statements that were really inaccurate and did not pu^f the case fully before theCommis- sionfers. For instance, the Cbrnmissioners (though this does not affect the point really at issue) Were given to understand' that' in the case of Mr. Howroyd at ' Bradford there was no strike on the part of- the men, ' but that it was a lock-out on the part of the master^ — a lock out, to 1)0 surCj antiOipatory of a strike, but still a lock out on th^" part of the master^ that is to- say, - that the master did not give the men time seriously to think oyer the matter, but that directly the demand ■ -vfras preserlfeil to him that ^1 his sons should join the union, the -reply hfe gave was not a verbal one at all, but that it was the turning out of the whole of -the 4 112 TRADES UNIONSj ETC. COMMISSION ; — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Mr. A. Mault. union plasterers. I can state positively that that was not the case, but that this notice was given to Mr. 7 May 18G7. jjo^j-oyd in a letter dated the 7th of January 1867, and received by him on the 8th : — " Mr. C. Howroyd, " We, the operative plasterers of Bradford, do hereby " five you notice that all your sons that are working " r-s plasterers which are above 21 years of age are re- " quested to join the society on or before Saturday " next, and failing to do so all our men will cease work " on Monday morning next and not return again un- " less you pay all the expenses of the strike. We " remain yours, The Operative Plasterers op " Bradford. " — The evidence, however, which was o-iven to you went on to state that Mr. Howroyd immediately on the receipt of that letter locked out those men. He did no such thing, he simply refused to compel his sons to do what they did not want to do, and the consequence was that the men did actually strike on the Monday morning. The strike lasted for some time, and then the other masters, especially as some of them knew that they were about to be treated in the same manner (and another of them, Mr. Dixon, was actually treated in the same manner with reference to a relative of his) made common cause with Mr. Howroyd and locked out their shops until the strike should be withdrawn from Mr. Howroyd's. But the masters did not hold together so well as the men ; they gave in at the end of five weeks and left Mr. Howroyd to fight the society alone, which he did. He has got other men but they have been continually interfered with and annoyed, if not intimidated, as they have been going about the streets, and consequently Mr. Howroyd has to carry on his work under very great disadvantages. I should say also that the Plasterers Union, seeing that Mr. Howroyd was not to be beaten at the same time that the rest of the masters were beaten, have induced Mr. Howroyd's labourers to leave his employment, although they of course are not actually connected with the Plasterers Union. 2972. This is information which you have received and not a matter which has come under your own knowledge, as I understand you ? — This is informa- tion which Mr. Howroyd himself has given me. 2973. {Sir E. fV. Head.) Do I rightly understand that that letter which you read just now, addressed by the men to Mr. Howroyd, was copied from the original ? — It was copied from the original and sent to me by Mr. Howroyd ; the whole statement is signed by Mr. Howroyd himself. 2974. You did not copy that letter yourself from the original ? — I did not, but I prefaced all that I had to say by stating that as to all these points I would put the case before the Commissioners, and that then if they wished further evidence, or were not satisfied with the simply secondary manner in which I could speak, Mr. Howroyd would be perfectly willing to come and give evidence himself. Every statement which I make here I am prepared to sup- port by the production of the people who were actually involved in the matter, that is to say, in cases where I was not involved myself. 2975. As I understand you, that letter was written by the men on the 7th of January, and Mr. Howroyd the received it on the 8 th ? — Yes. 2976. What day of the week was the 7th of January ? — Monday. The letter was written on Monday, and he received it on the Tuesday. 2977. And on what day was the strike begun ? — The following Monday ; the intimation was : unless your sons join the society on or before Saturday next our men will cease work on Monday morning. 2978. The statement in the evidence already given here wa.s that Mr. Howroyd received notice on the Friday, and that then he told the men they could leave? — He did not tell the men that they could leave on the Friday ; he did not give them any such notice whatever. 2979. Then you consider that portion of the evi- dence incorrect ? — Yes, it makes it appear that Mr. Honrroyd did not leave the men to think better of it, that he gave them no opportunity of withdrawing this rather arbitrary notice which they had sent him, but that he took the initiative by locking the men out, whereas he did nothing of the sort, he took no action in the matter at all. The statement which is signed by Mr. Howroyd is this : " The following are " the circumstances of a strike on the part of the " plasterers employed by Mr. Charles Howroyd, " Ashley Street, Bradford. On the 8th January last " Mr. Howroyd received the following note by post : " 'Bradford, January 7th, 1867. Mr. C. Howroyd. " We, the operative plasterers of Bradford, do hereby " give you notice that all your sons that are working " as plasterers which are above 21 years of age are " requested to join the society on or before Saturday " next, and failing to do so, all our men will cease " work on Monday morning next, and not return again " unless you pay all the expenses of the strike. We " remain yours, The Operative Plasterers op " Bradford.' Mr. Howroyd did not comply, and as a " consequence all his men struck work on the Monday " as intimated in the above note. A week after this, " six or seven of the ])rincipal masters joined action " in a lock-out of their men, which lasted for five " weeks, but it failed to alter the determination of the " men, and it was withdrawn. The result was Mr. " Howroyd was left without plasterers, and the society " finding that this did not compel him to force his " sons to join the society, they then withdrew the " labourers from him, so that Mr. Howroyd is now " employing both non-society plasterers and la- " bourers." That is signed by Charles Hovproyd, plasterer, Ashley Street, Bradford. I have other evidence as to the action of the plasterers trade union under this same head, though perhaps I need not give it, but might pass to the action of another union. To show, however, that that is not simply an isolated case, I can give other similar cases. Here is the case of Mr. John Tanner of Liverpool, who is a master slater and plasterer. In that town, I may explain, those trades are carried on together. In different districts of the country the trade is differently carried on. In London and in all the south parts of the country, and in the Midland parts of the country, there are employers who call themselves master builders who employ men belonging to the greater part of the different branch trades connected with Ijuilding ; whereas in the north of England and in Lancashire, and throughout Scotland, the trade is chiefly carried on by masters connected with par- ticular branches of the trade ; sometimes they carry on two or three different branches, and sometimes only a single one. In different parts of the country, there- fore, the trades are carried on differently. At Liver- pool, for instance, the slaters and plasterers work under one master, and very oiten a boy is apprenticed both to one and the other. At Manchester the painters and plasterers go together, at Scarborough the brick- layers and plasterers, and so on. Now Mr. Tanner says this : " I have two sons working at the trade, and " between six and twelve months since I first heard " from the men working with them that if they did " not subscribe to the union the same as those who " were in the shop they would strike against them. " I ultimately gave the amount demanded, rather " than disturb the work. I have now by me a second note from the union men, demanding another pay- " ment of 15*. each, but no threat has yet talcen " place in reference to that second demand. Here is a statement signed by Mr. Benjamin Dixon, a master plasterer, of Horton Lane, Bradford. " After the strike at Mr. Howroyd's shop against his sons for " not joining the society, it is intimated that neither " sons nor brothers can be allowed to work in any firm unless they become contributing members of " the Plasterers Union. In consequence of Mr. Dixon having two brothers in his establishment, he receives " the following communication :— ' Bradford, March 30th, 1867. Mr. Dixon, — Dear sir, We wish to ' inform you that you have not complied with our ' request, therefore we wish you to do so to night, TRADES UNIOSS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 113 " ' or all our men will cease work on Monday morn- " ' ing. P.S. — Please send an answer by 6 o'clock. " ' Jacob Latcogk, Chairman.' Mr. Uixon who is " under great pressure in the execution of extensive " contracts, and only to avoid the loss and incou- " venience of a strike, sends back a note in answer, " intimating that his brothers shall comply with the " demand. The messenger returns to say that his " note is not satisfactory, and that he must pay down " at once the entrance fee of 10s. 6d. for each brother " or else the threat of a strike will be carried out. " He immediately paid the 21*. thus demanded." 2980. That statement you have from Mr. Dixon himself ? — I have that from Mr. Dixon himself. 2981. {3Ir. Roebuck.) You had all these statements from the persons of whom they speak, had you not ? — ^Yes. Mr. Dixon goes on to say, " That this is " fully authorized by the general executive of the " National Association of Operative Plasterers at " Liverpool is shown by the fact of Mr. Dixon " receiving from the General Secretary, Mr. Charles " Williams, a letter in Avhich his compliance is in- " sisted upon to avoid the consequences of any " further unpleasantness, and likewise to save ex- " pense." That is signed by Mr. Dixon. 2982. (Mr. Booth.) Have you got that letter of Mr. Williams's ? — I have not with me here Mr. Williams's letter, but simply Mr. Dixon's statement that he has received the letter. 2983. Could you get that letter for us ? — Yes ; I have another long statement here in reference to a great many other points which I shall raise. I can either read it all now or read part of it now. 2984. {Mr. Roebuck.) From whom is the state- ment you are now referring to ? — It is from another plasterer, Mr. Jatnes Branton, of Leeds. 2985. Possibly the best thing you can do is to make your statement and support it in each case by an extract ? — If I read the statement now I might not perhaps have an opportunity of referring to it again. I think therefore that I had better pass it over for the present. Here is a case in which a master plasterer was requested by the union to dis- charge apprentices rather than society men. It occurred in connexion with a Mr. Lomas, a plasterer, in Manchester, who was carrying on work at a little distance from Manchester, namely, at Bolton. He had a number of plasterers engaged on a job there, and he had occasion to reduce the number on account of the other trades not being forward enough for him to press on with the plastering work, consequently he discharged two and kept on the foreman with two apprentices. The work was at once picqueted, and sometime after when he wanted to set on more men, that is to say, when the other trades had got on fast enough for him to do so, he found that in consequence of the work being picqueted, he could not get men without a good deal of trouble. 2986. (Chairman.) We understand from what we have heard here that picqueting means dogging the men and following them about to their annoyance, and so on ; how much of that would you understand to be included in ordinary picqueting? — The whole of it. 2987. The men watch who comes to the work, do they not ? — They watch who comes, and if simple persuasion is not sufficient, in many cases (I do not say that men are instructed to do so, but in many cases) intimidating words and actions are used, and "there have been many instances in which the evidence of such a state of things has been sufficient to insure conviction, though in many more instances we have gi-eat difficulty, of course, in getting the necessary evidence. 2988. In the case you allude to the premises were picqueted, the master wanted to go on for a time with a foreman and two apprentices, and when he came to o-et more men to proceed with the plasterers work, the picquets hindered him, as I understand you ? — Thepic- quets hindered him, and that same work was again stnick against under other circumstances, and when I 18425. have read it I will put in, if you please, the statement of Mr. A. Mautt. Mr. Lomas's manager on the subject. In connexion with the painter's union the same proceedings in 7 May 1867. reference to the attempted establishment of a mo- ' nopoly in labour by the union in favour of its own members are occurring pretty continually ; since the Commission has been sitting this case has occurred : Messrs. Worthington and Challinor are master house painters at Blackpool. Among their clerks, or per- haps their only clerk, is a man who was brought up as a painter and writer as it is called, that is, a painter who does the lettering that is required on signs and so on, but of course during the time that he was acting as clerk he had not any occasion to exercise the calling to which he had been brought up. He was a non-union man, and one day when he wanted to measure up some work, he found that the rods with which he usually measured were worn out, and consequently he took a little paint and painted the figures of the feet and inches upon this rod ; where- upon Messrs. Worthington and Challinor received this from the committee of the Blackpool Operative House Painters Association. "Blackpool, April 18th, " 1867. Messrs. W^orthington and Challinor. Sirs, " It having been brought before the meeting on " Monday night that your book-keeper had been " doing some writing or painting, you are requested " not to let him, he not being a painter. By doing " so you will oblige yours respectfully. The Com- " MiTTEE, Blackpool Opeeativb House Paintees " Association." And that is signed with the seal of the Blackpool lodge of the National Association of House Painters — whose secretary you have had before you. 2989. (Mr. Merivale.) Have you any evidence of what was told to these people, what did their associa- tion hear before they wrote the note which you have just read?— I cannot possibly speak as to that. No- thing was said to Messrs. Worthington and Challinor on the subject at all. 2990. You do not know on what representations they received that notice from the men ? — No. 2991. (Mr. Roebuck.) Did any consequences follow on that ? — The masters have paid no attention to that. Here is a case which occurred on the 1st of March this year. " Mr. Foster — Sir, You have three " men in your employ that do not belong to any " society. I am requested to inform you that if " thej^ do not become members of a society on or " before the 1 1th of March next, youi- shop will be " called a black shop, and no society man will have " to work in it. I remain yours respectfully, J. " Hayes, secretary." That is from the same lodge and has got the same seal on it. Here is a notice received by a master painter at Nottingham from the lodge there of this same union of house painters. " Nottingham United Friendly Society of Operative " Painters, May 19th, 1866. Mr. Barnsdall— Sir, " This society knowing you have in your employ " one man of the name of Carson, he not being a " member of the above society, and as this society " will not acknowledge anyone who is not a member, " we hope you will take such steps as will prevent " an unnecessary collision between us and yom' shop " as we do not wish to put you to any inconvenience " whatever, if it can possibly be avoided. Your " immediate reply will greatly oblige, respectfully " yours, The Committee. Address the Committee, " Old Dog and Partridge, Lower Parliament Street." As this note was not signed by any person, Mr. Barnsdall took no notice of it, and in a few days afterwards because he did not choose to discharge the man Carson, all the society men were withdrawn from the shop, and he has to cari;y on his business with a few non-society men ; and these non-society men, every time they appear in the street in the pre- sence of the society men, are hooted at and otherwise annoyed. Passing to the next case, as far as the masons are concerned, I have a statement here which has been sent to me by a Mr. James Brier, a contractor at Dewsbury. I will read the whole of his letter, if 114 TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Mr.' A. MauU. 7 May 1867. you please " My men struck work on the lOtli of " August 1866 with only 20 minutes notice, because " I woukl not stop seven non-society men, two of tliem " beino- my own brothers. Not content with striking " the masons, they amalgamated with the labourer's, " and persuaded them to strike also, offering them " 10*. pel' week. My works were continually pic- " queted for three months, but notwithstanding this " I got some men by advertising in the papers, and " other means. After some few weeks the men " offered to commence work on condition that I " stopped all the rest of the non-society men, and " allow my brothers to go on. I would not submit " to this, being determined at any cost to stand by those " who have stood by me, and I have refrained from " doing any injury to the society men in all cases not " in the immediate neighbourhood. I have never " asked a man to come back, but have left them to " suit themselves in all eases, and I am sure I have " been able to carry on my work with one-half the " dissatisfaction I have had before for two years or " more. Next the men were continually summoning " my men to attend the lodge, and in all cases where " the men have mentioned this to me, I have always " told them to suit themselves, but I would stand by " them if they stood by me,, as I did not intend to give " way even if the masons opened the shop which they " had closed for 12 months. In February last they " waited upon me to say they had waived the non- " society question, but wanted the inferior wallers I " was then employing stopped. I promised to stop two " but no more, as I considered the rest were good " average wallers. They would not agree to this, so " the strike continued until now, when the old men " are coming back. One has commenced — they have " opened the job and declare they have acted a *' very foolish part in stopping away so long, and " I am of the same opinion. Thus ends a strike " which has lasted seven months and two weeks, " unreasonable and unjust at its beginning, dis- " honourable in its continuance to the Masons " Society, and very lamentable in its ending. Some " of my men declare to me that they are 10/. worse " in money and much more in the inconvenience " they and their families have had to put up with," and so on. Perhaps I need not read Mr. Brier's own remarks. That is a case from Dewsbury. Here is one from Bath : " I beg to inform you that I had " a large house building at Bradford Leigh, Bradford- " on- A von, Wilts, last spring, and on Monday April " the 23rd, my foreman came to Bath to inform me " that all masons except three came to him at break- " fast time and told him that unless the three masons " were discharged because of not joining their society, " they should leave the work. The consequence was " that I found I could not discharge three men upon " such tyrannical and arbitrary demands, [and sent " the foreman back with the money to pay them all " off, which caused the work to be nearly at a stand- " stiU until I could send some apprentices up and put " on more men as soon as I could get them. Their " conduct of course caused nearly all the labourers " to be stopped that had nothing to do with the " matter. Before the men struck I had on the works " upwards of 50 men which was at once reduced to " less than a dozen , which put me to a great inconvc- " nience and loss. Yours truly, Joseph Bladwbll." I can say in reference to the brick makers that they adopt exactly the same course — they refuse to work except with members belonging to their own society on all works where there is a majority of society men. The labourers do the same thing. I have in my own experience known men strike because a iion-societ_Y bricklayers labourer was employed on a job, and that case was the case of a man named Carroll at Birming- ham, and the master brought Carroll before the magistrates for interfering with him, and obtained a conviction against the man. 2992. {Sir E. W. Head.) What was the man con- victed of ? — Of interfering with the master's manner of carrying on his business. 2993. How was he punished ? — I think the magis- rates gave him a month's imprisonment. 2994. They did not impose a fine in that instance ? — They did not impose a fine. They said that they could not impose a fine. We tried to get the man bound over to keep the peace, as we simply wanted to put an end to the state of interference, but the magis- trates would not listen to us, and committed the man for a month. 2995. Was it a case of assault? — No, there was no assault ; the man went to the master and said to him, " You have got a non-society man in your " employ, if you do not discharge that man, I will '• call off all the rest of your men, and none of them " shall work for you." 2996. What was the offence for which the man was convicted? — The offence was the threat. 2997. {Mr. Booth.) Have any such cases come under your notice in which the magistrates have im- posed a fine ? — Not any. Here is a ease from Brad- ford, connected in the first place with the labourers, but afterwards involving at the instance of the labourer's union other men. " On Thursday, August " 28th, 1862, a mason, named Abel Kershaw com- " menced to work for us (Booth Illingworth, and " Son) at quarter time in the forenoon. Imme- " diately on his appearance at his banker, the whole " of the masons at work, numbering about 25, struck " work, because this man was not and refused to " be a society man. This man was discharged " on the evening of the same day ; and during the " course of a week after about 15 of the men who " had struck returned to their work, and about 10 " did not return, but got employment elsewhere. On '• the 6th of October following six of our masons '• labourers struck against five others who had " lefused to join their union. Their places were " filled by other non-society men in course of a day " or two. But by an arrangement made between " the masons union and the labourers union it was " agreed on the part of the masons union that they " would withdraw all their men who were building, " and by this means deprive the labourers of employ- " ment, as their work is to serve the builders or " wallers." I should explain to the Commission that masons are divided into two classes, the men who are here called the builders, and what are called the banker hands, or hewers, so called because they work at what is called the banker; that is to say, the little bench upon which the men put the stone which they work. You will observe that the masons in this case only agreed to call off the walling hands, the building hands, because they require labourers to serve them, whereas the banker hands, the hewers, serve themselves, and they did not want to put more men on to their funds than necessary. The following note was sent to the works from the committee of the Masons Society. " To the masons, wallers at Booth " Illingworth's Chapel. After having heard a depu- " tation from the labourers' society with regard to a " grievance known to you, the following resolution " was carried. That a note be sent to the wallers at " Booth Illingworth's Chapel to either start hewing " or suspend labour till the men be discharged who " wont conform to their rules. This decision has now " to be carried into effect. By Order of the Lodge " Committee. On receipt of this note the wallers im- " mediately ceased work and the progress of the works " was so far suspended, the hewers only continuing to " work." Here is a case from Dailmgton. " In June " last year a strike took place amongst the bricklayers " of this town for an advance of wages. A few days " after the strike commenced I went on to the works " (this was a Mr. Eobinson of Darlington) " one morn- " ing and was aiixious to forward the works ;" (that is to say, by working himself he having been brought up to the trade) " as soon as I commenced to lay bricks " the labourers came to me and said they would have " to leave off work. I asked them the reason, and " they stated they were ordered to do so by the lodge, " the bricklayers having arranged with them that they TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 115 " were not to carry any material to an employer so " long as the strike continued. I replied that it was " a monstrous proceeding," and so forth. But the men actually struck, and he was obliged to discontinue carrying on the trade himself although he had learnt it quite as well as any of his nieu. 2998. {Sir E. W. Head.) He was an employer as I understand you ? — He was an employer, and in con- sequence of a strike, he went to do the operative part of the work himself, and the labourers refused to serve him because an arrangement had been come to between the bricklayers lodge and the labourers lodge to prevent such occurrence as that ; that is to say, the labourers were not to serve any master who commenced doing work for himself during the exist- ence of this strike. 2999. {Earl of Lichfield.) Did the labourers in that case belong to the society ? — They belonged to the society. 3000. A society of their own ? — A society of their own, and the two societies worked in unison. As far as the bricklayers are concerned here is the case of a Mr. Kennard, bricklayer at Bridlington Quay in Yorkshire ; he received this document from the bricklayers' lodge, signed with their seal, " Sir, I am " requested by the Bricklayers Trade and Protection " Society to inform you that if William Bell does not " join the said society and pay part of the entrance " fee by Saturday the 13th of April, it is their " intention of drawing the men from your employ " belonging to the said society. Yours respectfully, " T. Hahrison, Secretary." In my own experience during the time that I was in business as a builder I had with the bricklayers exactly similar trans- actions. My men have been all drawn off because I refiised to discharge a non-society man of the name of Marsden. At that time I had about 70 or 80 brick- layers at work, and the whole of them left at five minutes notice because I refused to discharge that man, and of course they threw out of employment quite an equal number of labourers ; I allowed them to strike, and told Marsden that I should never in any way interfere with a man for being either a society or a non-society man ; that it was a thing in which he must please himself entirely, and that though he might not choose to joiu the society, I would never discharge him. Well, he worked for about a quarter of a day, and then lie told me that he had received an intimation which made it advisable for him to leave, but that he would not join the society. He would not tell me what the intimation was, but of course I could understand its nature, and the man was obliged to leave the town. 3001. {Sir E. W. Head.) Do I rightly understand you, that you have received these various statements in letters from persons who are members of your asso- ciation ? — ^Yes. 3002. You being the secretary of the association ? —Yes. 3003. You have obtained these statements from persons connected with the association as master builders or contractors in diiFerent parts of the coun- try ? — ^Yes. 3004. {Mr. Booth.) Have you found that the present combination laws are sufficient for the pro- tection of non-union men ? — They are not in prac- tice ; they may be in theory, but the non-union men, being of course without the moral support to be de- rived from union, being as it were disintegrated, can- not stand against the moral pressure (tosay nothing else) which is brought against them by the combination of any of their fellow- workmen. Moreover, in many cases in which the interference has proceeded so far as ac- tually to come under the present law, we cannot get evidence sufficient to convict. The fact is that the men themselves are in many cases quite too frightened to give evidence, and I am sorry to say that the same is the case with the masters. I have received viva voce I should think, a hundred times as much evi- dence as I have received in a form that I could bring before this Commission ; and I have received many letters also, but in these cases the masters have said, Mr. A. Mault. " We do not wish to make martyrs of ourselves, we " do not want our names mentioned, and you must ^ ^^^ 'i-^^T. " not say anything about this before the Royal Com- " mission." Consequently, of course, my mouth is shut as far as that evidence is concerned, and some of that evidence is really of a more striking nature than the cases that I have got here. 3005. {Mr. Roebuck.) Amongst the cases of which you have not told us is there any of a threat of vio- lence, dangerous to life ? — Not on the part of the masters, but on the part of the men. 3006. You mean that you have reason to believe that men have been threatened in away to endanger their lives ? — Yes, I have received an offer from cer- tain men to come and give evidence if they were enabled to emigrate after they had given it ; if the circumstances were published the men could be traced, and as I received that offer in confidence I must not state more. 3007. {Mr. Booth.) In the case of picquets, have you ever known any instance in which a man acting as one of the picquets has been convicted ? — Yes, con- victed of intimidation and actual violence. That is under what I may call the first division of my first head. I next go on to state that these unions act as if monopoly on labour were already established, in that they enforce the payment of a purely arbitrary price for labour. As a specimen of the way in which a purely arbitrary price is placed upon labour I can give you two or three cases in my own knowledge. Here is a case stated in a letter from a Mr. Wood, a contractor at Derby, " March 11th, 1867, Dear sir, " I am building a church at Rangemore, the contract " for which was taken in autumn of 1865. Masons " wages were 28*. per week in summer, and 2Qs. 6d. in " winter. After a promise from the masons to exert " themselves during the winter months I agreed not to " reduce their wages, but continue 28«. all the winter. " See what followed. A month before the winter " quarter expired, they applied for an advance of " Is. 6d. per week more, making 29s. 6d., and knowing " from past experience how useless it would be not " to agree to their terms, also receiving a guarantee " from them that if I gave it, all would go on com- " fortable. After a week's consideration I consented, " feeling sure that I should not be called upon for -" any more. In three weeks after the masons society " served me with a notice, also some printed rules " (which I have), requiring me to pay 2s. 6d. per " week in addition to the Is. 6d., making 32s. per " week instead of 28s. as I had expected when the " contract was taken, and also threatened to strike if " I did not comply. As there was no alternative I " yielded, and am paying 32s. at this time." Of course Mr. Wood gets no additional price for his contract, but just because the men know that in this case it is a time contract, that is to say, that the work must be done at a given time, they are enabled to do what I have read. I have, of course, known hundreds of similar cases. I know a case in particular in which a master commenced to build the town hall at Congle- ton with wages of masons at 24s., and by the judicious use of the screw the men got wages up 25 per cent. in the course of about three months ; and because he would not then consent to a still further rise, but rather sub-let his work to a master mason of Congle- ton, the men even then struck against him. But I shall have a chance of referring to that matter again, perhaps. 3008. {Earl of Lichfield.) In all contracts now, there is a clause providing for strikes, is not there ? — No, not in all cases. 3009. In that particular contract relating to the church was there ? — In the church conti-act I am not quite sure ; but in the Congleton one there was not. We have great difficulties with many architects in getting the insertion of the strike clause. I know a case pending now between the builders in Birmingham and one of the architects of that town in reference to the building of a bank, and the builders have declined P 2 116 TRADES UNIONS, EXC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Mr. A. Mault. 1 May 1867. to send in tenders because he will not consent to that clause. 3010. {SirE. W. Head.) In the Congleton case did the men know whether there was a strike clause in the contract or not ? — I cannot answer for their knowledge, but I think that it is most likely that they did know by some means or other. I do not bring this evidence forward to make it appear that the associa- tion objects to the payment of high rates of wages, or has anything to do with it. The payment of wages is one of the subjects which the association has declined to have anything to do with. In no case of dispute that arises out of an attempted settlement of wages will the general association have anything to do in the matter. They think that that is a matter which each district must settle for itself, and that no central committee sitting at any one place can judge so well what are fair rates of wages as local committees can, and consequently the general association will have nothing to do with that. In reference to the wages question generally, if the Commission will allow me to be perhaps a little discursive, I should wish to say what our feeling generally is as far as the trade is concerned. We find ourselves in an altogether diiferent position from that which any other of the great trades of the country are placed in in reference to wages. All other trades have not only to think what effect the increased cost of wages will have upon the work as far as they are concerned, but also what it will do in reference to foreign competition. For instance, if the cotton weavers were to get a great rise of wages, the effect of that would be not simply to stop the demand for cotton goods in this country but to supply the demand that would still exist with goods from abroad. They have to compete with the manufacturers abroad, whereas we have nothing whatever to fear from any people, except ourselves, and consequently the only considera- tion that we have to look at is that which was so well put before you by Mr. TroUope — we have simply to think what is fair to the public, and what the public can reasonably afford to pay, what they will pay, and what it is right and proper, so far as we can ascertain, that they should pay. In regard to the evidence which I am about to give, I wish it to be understood that I simply bring it forward as a proof that fi'om some cause or other (wc attribute it to the existence of Trade Unions) there is no free trade in labour in this country at all. In a subsequent portion of my evidence I can show the manner in which the unions do actually stop the freedom of trade ; but just now I should like to enter into the proof of the fact that no free trade does exist. I think it is shown by this circumstance, that the wages all over the country vary in a most unaccountable manner, as far as any proper reasons arising from the circumstances either of the trade or of the locality could lead one to expect. For instance, masons' wages are at Chester 6^d. per hour, at Shrewsbury 5d. per hour, (I have reduced it all to the hour, because I could not well reduce it to the day, as the day varies in length so much,) those are two towns which, of course, aie very similarly situated as far as expense of living is concerned, and as far as other circumstances are concerned. At Clevedon they receive 5|c?., at Taunton they receive only 4e?. ; at Penzance they receive 6d., at Exeter 4-^t^. ; at South Shields l^d., at Newcastle-on-Tyiie 5^d. ; at Preston 7f 6?., and at Lancaster only Qd. 3011. When was that rate taken ? — In January last. 3012. Since the depression of the mining trade ? — Since the depression of the mining trade. These figures, as fur as masons' wages are concerned, are taken from returns furnished by the union itself, as far as they go ; in some cases, where they do not go, I have other means of ascertaining. 3013. {Earl of Lichfield.') You mean that you have the means of ascertaining the rate of wages in cases not referi'ed to in the reports of the trades societies ? — Yes. Bricklayers at Chester receive 6\d. per hour, and at Shrewsbury 4|«?. As a matter of calculation I might here say that on an average |^th of a penny means *ld. per week, so that in these cases where the difference is so much in the hour it would amount to a serious difference in the week. At Blackbuni bricklayers wages are Sd. per hour, at Liverpool 6^d. : at Stafford 6^d., at Wallsall 5\d. ; at Hudderstteld 8rf., and at Barnsley 5|«?. ; and in different parts of England the wages xsa:y from Sd. to A^d. per hour. 3014. You tell us the rate of wages in the different places, but a great deal of course depends upon the number of hours that the men work ? — Yes, and that is why I have reduced it to the hour ; and when I mentioned just now that ^d. per hour amounts to 7c?. per week, I gave that as an average all over the country ; in some places it is more, and in some places less. I think I omitted to give you the variation of masons' wages in England ; they vary from 8d. to 3|6?. per hour. 3015. {Mr. Booth.) Has the operation of Trades Unions tended to the equalization of wages according to your experience ? — -Just the opposite. Carpenters and joiners at Chester get 6c?. per hour, at Shrews- bury, A^d ; at Southport, 6f rf., and at Wigan, 5^d ; and wages vary in England from 8c?. to 4-§rf. per hour. Plasterers wages at Durham are Q\d. per hour, at Darlington, 5^d. ; at Barrow in Furness, l^d., at Wigan, 5-|(^. ; at Chestei", 5|c?., at Shrewsbury, 5^d. ; in the Staffordshire Potteries, l^d., at Wallsall, 5|e?. ; at Scarborough, 1\d., at Wakefield, 5-^c?. ; and wages vary from 8c?. to 4|ment come to, was it that there should be a chairman chosen upon each occasion ? — As each occasion arose they very foolishly left it to be decided then. I am glad to say that at Wolverhampton, under the direction of a gentleman who is present, they were very much wiser in pro- viding a permanent court, but in Birminghan it was left pro re nata. 3098. Then they agreed, as I understand you, that the chairman should be appointed on each occasion ? —Yes. 3099. And, I presume, that chairman would be one of the delegates ? — No ; the understanding was that in every case he was to be an independent person. 3100. He was appointed at the meeting ? — The delegates would first be appointed, and these delegates would meet and appoint the chairman. The first case Q willing to 122 TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — •MINUTES OP EVIDENCE. Mr A. Mautt. in which ihat occurred formally waS in connexion ' with this notice of the bricklayers, 7 May 1867. 3101. Will you tell us when that nieeting took place at which this question was considered ? — It would be about the same time ; it was some time during March. 3102. Who was the chairman then ? — Mr. Lloyd. 3103. He was selected then for that particular oc- casion ? — Yes ; precisely the same proceedings were gone through as on the previous occasion. A public meeting was called of all the masters, whether con- nected with the association or not, and of all the men, whether connected with the unions or not, to appoint delegates, and that same resolution was also put to the meeting and carried unanimously, and the dele- gates met as they met before, but they did not need to go through quite so much form as to the selection of an umpire, because the men at once said. We are quite content to have the same umpire as we had last year, and the masters also said, We are quite content. 3104. I cannot understand the necessity for a pub- lie meeting if you had agreed to that code of rules, because that code of rules, if I understand it, con- templated all those questions being referred to this particular court ? — We thought it desirable on this ground, that no body of masters who were united in association had a right to say to the rest of the masters, " We shall take the management of this matter out of your hands." We thought that the associated masters and the union men had not simply to put themselves right, but that they should give to the unassociated masters and non-union men an op- portunity of putting themselves right, and this could not be done unless a public meeting had been called to indorse the action which the masters on the one side and the men on the other side thought right. We thought that we should have no other means of compelling the non-union men and the un- associated masters to abide by it. 3105. Then you began over again, and your public meeting agreed to appoint some more delegates ? — Yes. 3106. And they met on this subject ? — Yes. 310?. And this question of the rise of wages was brought before that meeting, with Mr. Lloyd in the chair ; is that so ? — Yes. 3108. Did Mr. Lloyd at that meeting decide the question as chairman of the meeting, or was it referred to him as the arbitrator ? — It was referred to him as the arbitrator. 3109. Was it put to the vote at the meeting ? — My own notion is that it was not formally put to the vote at the meeting. I was not present, but from what I have understood I do not think that Mr. Lloyd put it to a formal vote, but he gathered bythe expression of opinion on both sides that masters and men were dis- agreed on the matter, and so he settled it. 3110. Had they agreed to refer it to him ? — Yes. 3111. And he decided against the rise that was asked for ? — Yes. 3112. Was any objection taken to his decision? — No exception was taken to his decision, except on the point that I have referred to, and none was publicly taken. Some of the union men said that he had not put the matter to the vote, that he had not called for a show of hands on both sides, and that he had no right to decide till he had gone through that form. 3113. That objection was taken after his decision was given ? — That objection was taken after the strike occurred, and the masters quoted to the men the resolution come to. 3114. Was any objection taken at that meeting ? — None whatever. 3115. After that a strike occurred ? — After that a strike occurred. ■ 3116. And it was after that strike occurred that the objection was taken that you have referred to? — Yes, and I do not know that it was ever seriously taken. I heai-d one or two of the men say so, in some con- ferences I had with them. I asked them once or twice to come and meet me, and they did come, and I heard the men state that. The masters also did the same, and asked the men to meet them, but they could come to no settlement ; they would not abide by the decision that Mr. Lloyd had given. Privately the men mentioned to me that the matter had not been put to a show of hands, and that they did not think the right form had been gone through. 3117. {Chairman.) One of the matters which you propose to bring before us you have put under the head of forbidding sub-contracting and piece work ? — ■ There is a point before that, namely, that the unions endeavour to equalize the value of labour by reducing the work of the more industrious and skilful to the standard of the least industrious and skilful. The Commissioners have already had evidence in the case of the masons, for example, as to the existence Of their chasing rule. 1 believe that the Commissioners have copies of the masons rules, and the chasing rule is there openly stated. And the feeling of the other secretaries that have been examined to a great extent carries that out. 1 do not believe it is so in every case ; there is one exception in the case of the secre- tary of the Amalgamated Carpenters Society. I do not think that they have any such rule as that, but all the other secretaries that I have heard examined have admitted such a rule I believe. In addition to that I should like to put before the Commissioners two cases that I have. One is a case from Liverpool, showing how very distinctly the operation of this rule can be traced in our daily intercourse with the men. A Liverpool master has told me that he had once as plain an illustration of that as this : The first man that came on to a certain work which he had happened to work one stone while he was alone. After other men had come to him the man was set to work pre- cisely a similar stone in every respect, size, and quality, and woi'kmanship ; and whUe in the former case he took one day to do it, in the latter case he took two days and a quarter. That is a single illustration ; but even if the influence of the rule depended upon that the result could hardly be believed. You have, however, already had evidence from some of the London builders as to the slowness with which work is done now in comparison to the rate at which it -was done a short time ago. It is so aU over the country. I have here one case which was related to me by a gentleman of Stockport, to show how the masons extend this rule in a manner that would not perhaps strike one at first. At Christmas time last year, when he was taking stock, among other parts of his work he came to a chapel that he was building, and he took the value of the work that he had done at that chapel, and entered it into his stock book ; and as the masonry was very nearly complete he instructed his fore- man that the simplest way of making this stock book of his serve as his cost price book would be that for the few remaining stones which had to be worked he should take an account of the time that the men were in working these stones. A stone was measured when it was put on the banker, and the time that the man took when it was on the banker was made a note of, and after it left the banker, before it was set, the quantity of superficial feet or inches, as the case might be, of the different kinds of labour that were put upon it was entered and put in that way upon the price book. But because the master chose to carry on his business in that way his society masons struck ; they said that it was contrary to their trade privileges that a master should so check them as to whether they were doing their duty by him or not. 3118. He was not however estimating his paymenis to the men, as I understand you, but estimating the nature of his stock ? — Yes, and the men regarded it that he was seeing whether they were doing work enough for their wages. That was not really the object for which he did it, though it might have served that object also ; but because the men thought that he ^as doing it for that object they struck, as if it were not a right and proper thing. 3119. {Mr. Booth.) Because it might serve as a measure of what might be expected from them in future, although not done with that view ? — Although TE4PES UNIONS, ETp. COSIMISglON :— MINTTTES OF EVIBENCE. 123 not done witli that view, but I daresay that the men thought that that was the object. 3120. {Earl of Lichfield.) Did the men give that as their reason for striliing ? — They gave that as their reason for strilsing. In reference to the labourers, in their unions they put in the chasing rule. In the whole of the rules that I have seen it is the same as this, which I am about to read (and I have seen it in four or five different ones), which is taken from the Bradford labourers rules. I know that it is the same as exists in other lodges. The fifth rule of the Bradford labourers lodge of the Labourers Union is this, " You are strictly cautioned not to outstep 'i good rules by doing double the work you are re- " quired (by the society), and causing others to do " the same, in order to gain a smile from the master. " Such foolhardy and deceitful actions leave a great " portion of good members out of employment the " year round. Certain individuals have been guilty, " who will be expelled if they do not refrain." 3121. {Mr. Hughes.) Where does that come from? — From the Bradford rules. That is the fifth rule of the Bradford lodge. 3122: {Earl of Lichfield.) Have you got that in print ? — Yes, this is the iifth rule of the Leeds brick- layers labourers lodge : " Notice. Any brother in " the union professing to carry any more than the " common number, which is eight bricks, shall be fined " Is., to be paid within one month, or remain out of " benefit until such fine be paid ; any member know- " ing the same shall be fined the same sum unless- he " give the earliest information to the committee of " management." 3123. {Chairman?) What does "knowing the same" mean ? — It means to say knowing it of any other man. I should tell the committee that this " eight bricks " is a ridiculously small number. At Liver- pool the rule is 12 bricks. I believe that the usual rule all over the country is 10 briclvs. In ihe, country that I have worked in the bricks I should think are larger and heavier than in any other district, and the rule there is 10 bricks. 3124. {Mr. Merivale.) What district is that ? — Coventry and that district. 3125. {Chairman.) I thought that nine inches was indispensable as the size ? — The Brickmakers Union is attempting to restrict the size of bricks all the country over, but that is a point further on. The rule, of course, if there is a rule on the subject, usually varies with the height that the brick has to be carried ; that so many bricks shall be carried to the first floor, and so many to the second floor, and so on. I re- member a very amusing illustration of the foolish way in which the rules were drawn up in Birmingham. The masters agreed with their men that the number of bricks to be carried should vary according to the height, but they put it that it should vary according to the means by which it was to be taken up that height — that was the ladder ; and I remember very distinctly the case of one master who met one of his Irish labourers carrying up eight bricks on to the first floor of the house ; and he said to him, " Hallo ! What are you doing this for ? " The man answered, " Well, sir, you know it is the rule." "No," said the master, " it is only the first floor." " Ah 1 but, sir,'' the man replied, " I am taking it up a three-storey ladder." 3126. By that means they reduce the amount of work done ? — They do it evidently for the purpose, I should say, though of course I do not profess to judge what their intentions are, but in order to justify their scale of averages they try to make the men of equal value. 3127. {Mr. Merivale.) I think I understand you to say that in your opinion rules or customs which have a tendency to produce uniformity of wages are so far objeptionable ? — Yes. 3128. What principle would you substitute for that ; how should the wages be settled if not by uni- formity ? — ^By agreement between the master and man individually. j 3129. Is that your opinion with reference generally Mr. A. Mault. to the association of bodies of men engaged in the — — same work ? — Yes. 3130. For instance, at a public office we have some hundred clerks at work, all paid alike, some being worth a good deal and some nothing ; do you consider that right or wrong ? — If you could have the same superintendence over them that we are obliged to exercise over our men, I think that it would be far better to pay every man according to his intrinsic value. 3131. And you think that it would be practicable to carry on a public ofiice on that principle ? — I do not profess to know any public office, but if it could be made practicable, I think that in every case it would be better. 3132. In a ship of war, again, all able seamen are rated alike, and paid alike, though very different in value, is that right or wrong ? — But you cannot say that that is a case in point. 3133. Why not ? — I understand that you do not pay a man who goes on board a ship of war, or a man who enters the army only for the work that he does but for also the risk that he runs ; the man who goes into the army or navy takes his life in his hands. 3134. That is the only difference which you see between the two things ; that in the one case it is payment for work done, and in the other case pay- ment for risk incurred? — I think that that is one dif- ference ; I do not say that is the only one. 3135. In the merchant service a similar equality of payment prevails, though there is no such risk as you speak of ? — In that case you are obliged to make a contract with the man before you can judge what work he can do, and of course the captain does the best he can after the man is on board to make him work ; whereas what we would do, or ratheii what we used to do, would be this : a man comes to me for example, and was set to work, and at the end of the week when pay day came I would ask my foreman what is he worth ? He would say perhaps, " He is worth so and so," and I would pay him accordingly. If the man said " I cannot stop for this " 1 would sometimes " say Well go on another week, and if we think that " you are worth more we will give you more, and if " we do not think you worth more, you can .try " elsewhere." 3136. Your opinion generally is, that it is better, if you can manage it, to pay men for what they are worth than to pay them on the footing of equality which prevails in such cases as I have referred to ? —Yes. 3137. {Mr. Booth.) What you desire is free trade in labour ; you desire that the master should say what he is willing to give, and that the man should say whether he will accept that or not ? — Yes. 3138. {Earl of Lichfield.) I suppose you would draw a distinction, would you not, between an employ- ment in which the minimum work to be done in the day is fixed, and an employment in which it depends on the efficiency of the individual workman ? — Yes, where you can let it be piece work, I think that piece work of precisely the same description is worth the same, where it is done under the same circum- stances, and if you can put the men either openly or practically under piece work, you can get to a certain extent uniformity of wages. 3139. {Mr. Hughes.) Although you say that you approve of free trade in labour it is perfectly clear that your society does not ? — I have said already that our society has nothing to do with wages. We refuse to interfere in any strike or in any dispute in which wages are the element of the dispute, because we think it absurd to suppose that an association sitting at Birmingham can settle what wages should be paid at Manchester better than Manchester people can settle it themselves. 3140. You have nothing whatever to do with these branch rules in my hand ? — Those are not rules of a branch association, I think, but trade rules. , 3141. "The General Association of Builders," it is Q 2 124. TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION : — MINDTES OF EVIDENCE. Mr. A. Mault. headed ?— Then they are branch rules probably, but we have nothing to do with a.ny society, and we do not 7 May 1867. interfere with any society except at the special request of the society itself, and even in those cases we only interfere for the enforcement of arbitration. 3142. But then you, as an association, are just as unable to carry out your free trade ideas as the unions are unable to carry out those ideas, because I hold in my hand the rules of the Bury branch of builders, and I have got the Bradford branch rules and others, in which there are rules quite as stringent as any of the men's rules as to limiting free trade in laljour ? — I confess that I have seen such rules as that in con- nexion with the association, but we have invariably condemned them, and as far as the general association is concerned we have taken no action in such cases. 3143. {Mr. Booth.) You think that as a general rule it would be better both for masters and men if matters were left to be decided between them from time to time ? — Yes. 3144. {Mr. Hughes.) But is that possible if there is to be any union at all ? — ^But we have an union, and what we consider an efficient union without entering upon the question of wages, and why could not the men. 3145. But you see that even in these general rules of yours, in which you endeavour to avoid all such difficulties, here is this rule that you will, none of you, take a man that is on strike ? — It does not say that. 3146. I wish to ask you whether if it does not say it that it means it. Here are the words, " and during " the continuance of a strike no member shall take on " or newly employ any operative connected with the " trade on strike without first ascertaining the name " of his last employer, and enquiring of that employer " whether the operative is on strike." It does not go any further than that, but the real meaning of that is is it not, that you do not take a man who is on strike ? — No, it does not mean that, because if you read the rule before it states that the names of the men on strike shall be published if the committee so direct. The first question the committee ask as you will see in the directions given to the local societies is, " Have you referred this matter to arbitration, and " have the men refused arbitration ? " If they say so then the association takes it up, and we hold ourselves bound by that rule not to employ a man that is on strike under those circumstances. 3147. Surely that is a limitation of free trade in labour ? — It is a limitation of free trade in labour that is forced upon us. 3148. You publish black lists, do not you ? — No, we do not publish black lists in the men's sense of black lists, we publish a list of the names of the men on strike in particular towns under particular circumstances. 3149. What is that {handing a list to the witness), is that not a black list ? — Not in the men's sense of the term. In their sense of the term a black list is a permanent list which a man gets placed upon, and he does not purge himself and get off the list until he has paid a certain fine. That black list now before you is not ours, it is a Yorkshire list. 31.50. Is not Yorkshire included in your associa- tion ? — It is now, but it was not then ; it was on the 28th of January this year that it became so. What we do is this, we sav that " the committee have ascer- tained," or in general terms, that " it has been ascer- " tained that the following men ai'e on strike under the " following circumstances," and we state the circum- stances under which they have been on strike. Directly that strike ends that list is withdrawn and no further use is made of it. You will remember the circumstances, if you will allow me to recapitulate them, under which that list has been issued. The men have refused arbitration, that is to say, the men have deliberately said, " We will fall back upon the " strength of our union to coerce you into such and " such a course." Well, the first and the most natural thing for us to do, if the men put the question upon the strength of their union, is to weaken their union as much as possible by refusing to take these men who would otherwise be on the funds of the union off the funds of the union. That opens up the whole question as to the manner in which these strikes have hitherto been carried on. The unions have purposely avoided taking up any general question so as to bring on a general strike, and thereby place a great number of men at the same time on the funds of their union ; but they have trusted to the disunion of the masters, and have trusted to beating the masters in detail and gaining their end in that way, just as Mr. Trollope explained in his evidence the men acted in the case of the strike in 1859. He stated that they began with his firm and intended to proceed with others in order, and it would have been of course madness in the London masters to have allowed anything of that sort to be done. We do what we do as a matter of simple self-defence ; but no persons object more to black lists of all sorts than we do. 3151-2. But the men object to black lists, too, and they say that they are driven by your union to that resource ? — But we offer them arbitration. 3153. {Mr. Booth.) Those lists are formed under the circumstances of unions being in existence ; but you, perhaps, think that it would be better if unions were not in existence at all as regards the matter of wages ? — Yes. 3154. {Mr. Hughes.) How would a workman be able to be supported in a dispute with his master without the existence of the unions ? — I think that the ordinary fellow feeling of the workmen would be sufficient without any organization. 3155. A man disagrees with his master, we will say, on a wage question. At present he has behind him, say a hundred other men, who will support him in his fight with that master, because they think that he is right on that wage question. But knock away those hundred men, and how is he to subsist while he fights his battle with his master ? — By going and getting the wages that he wants from another master. 3156. But how is he to subsist in the meantime, while he goes about seeking employment elsewhere ? — That is not a question for me. 3157. But it is a question for him surely ? — It is a question of the man's own provident habits. I should say, let him pay into a friendly society by all means, or into a society which will support him when out of work. I have no objection to that in the least. 3158. Why do you object to his paying to a friendly society which is also a trade union. I suppose it is because you are inconvenienced by it ? — I should say that in the abstract masters should not combine to restrict trade, nor should workmen combine to restrict trade. The natural process is, when a man goes to one master who refuses to give him what he thinks he deserves, that he should go to another master and seek to get it from him, and if he cannot get it anywhere he may shrewdly suspect that it is because he is not worth what he asks. 3159. {Mr. Booth.) You would wish, as I under- stand you to deal directly with the workman and not with the union ? — Yes ; that is to say, I wish to have my opinion as to the value of anything that any man can give me, and I do not think that I should be without a voice in the matter. 3160. {Mr. Merivale.) Do you think that that bargain, one master against one man, would be a fair • one ?— I think so, and I think that it would tell, and that it always has told to the advantage both of the masters and of the men, and that it is more conducive to the general progress of the country. 3161.^ {Mr. Hughes.) Did you ever know a case of a trade in which the union has been broken down, or in which there has been no union, where wages have risen ? — I confess that I am only practically acquainted with my own trade, but I have been told that it is so among the millers ; that the millers get good wages ; that the masters and men live in peace and amity as brethren should ; that the men have got no union, and TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OP EVIDENCE. 125 that they are far better off than any similar class of "" people. I am speaking now only from simple hearsay. 3162. (Chairman). What millers do you mean ? — Flour millers. 3163. {Earl of Lichfield.) I suppose you are aware that there are cases in which wages have risen con- siderably where there is no question of any union ? — I should say that all trades and professions, although left without any organization, must necessarily rise ; we may assume that prices have not gone down. 3164. Is it the case with domestic servants, and in fact with everything, that wages have risen consider- ably ? — Yes, undoubtedly. 3165. Do you know of any exception, whether they have unions or not ? — I do not know any. In other trades there is not the same continual demand for laboui' as there is in our trade. I should think, for instance, that railway surveyors are not paid so much now SiS they were paid in 1843 and 1846, in fact I know that they are not. There is no doubt that there was then a sudden demand and very few men to meet it, and I had the happiness myself of getting six or seven or eight guineas a day, or almost anything I Uked at that time. 3166. {Mr. Booth.) Competition has brought wages down in fact ? — I do not say that competition has. Every schoolmaster in the country bought a theodolite then. 3167. Now that the number of surveyors has in- creased the competition has increased ? — Yes ; but I should think, on the whole, that even railway sm-- veyors, taking those special cases out of the question, are worth more than they were. I am told also that the tanners have no union, and that the tanners of the country get on uncommonly comfortably. 3168. {Earl of Lichfield.) You have referred to the operation of these unions as having a tendency to fix an arbitrary rate of wages, and you have re- ferred to a great many places where the wages vary very considerably, in some places being 8c?. an hour, in other places as low as 4c?. and od. Does not that prove that unions have not that arbitrary effect which you would lead us to supjiose, or do you mean to imply with reference to those places which you have referred to, where the wages run higher than in other places, that there the unions are the strongest ? — I believe as a general rule that there the unions are the strongest ; that they have been strong enough to take advantage of the prices having been raised by some sudden demand to prevent their ever falling away again from that point. 3169. In those cases then they certainly have had the effect of raising the wages ? — They have had the effect of raising the nominal wages, but I very much doubt myself whether they have had the effect of increasing the earnings of the men. 3170. {Chairman.) When you tpokeof Srf. and Id. per hour as the rate of wages over the different towns, was it always the same line of the trade that you took ? — Yes ; I took the carpenters, and gave you them together, and the masons together, and so on. 3171. And when you said 5d. in Shrewsbury and Td. in Chester, was that always in one trade ? — It was always in reference to one trade. 3172. Because the carpenters have monthly returns, and in the case of the towns that have a high rate of wages, we were told that it was part of the duty ot their secretary to inform the towns where the rate was low of what was going on, and, as I understood the secretary, the tendency of that was to bring up the other towns to the higher rate, unless there was some reason why they should not be brought up to it ? — I can say that at present they have not done that. Hardly two towns have equal rates which are in similar circumstances. 3173. {Earl of LicJifield.) With reference to stone- masons, I suppose that the rale of wages of a stone- mason must depend to a certain extent upon the cost of stone in that particular district ? — It does not seem to do so. I have noticed this particularly myself. hat the bricklayers are paid far higher wages in stone Mr. A. Mault, districts than they are in brick districts. 3174. {Mr. Hughes.) How do you account for i 7 May 1867 . that ? — I account for it in this way, that the com- petition in the stone districts among the bricklayers is very much less than it is in the brick districts. In a town where there are perhaps not more than a dozen bricklayers, those bricklayers can very readily all be embraced in their union, and therefore they have no non-union labour to compete with them. 3175. {Earl of Lichfield.) Do you know of any cases of masters belonging to your society who have declined to employ men belonging to the unions? — No ; I know some masters who are called black masters because they do employ only non-union men, but that has grown up from the connexion of the master with a strike or something of that sort. For instance, Mr. Brier, at Dewsbury, whose case I was mentioning lately, is employing at present only non- union men, or he was doing so up to the time that his men began to come back to him. In some cases a master has non-union men, and because he has exclusively non-union men, the union men do not like to work in that shop any more than non-union men like to work in a union shop. It usually depends upon whether there is a majority as to which class bears sway. 3176. Amongst the rules which you have prepared for your association, and which in many cases, as you have stated, have been agreed to between the masters and the men in the different districts, is there any rule as to the number of apprentices to be employed ? — If you will allow me I will come to that subject later in my evidence. 3177. {Mr. Booth.) With reference to the rate of wages being r.iised by the unions, is it not also the case that the insisting upon a minimum by the unions has the effect of throwing out of employment a num- ber of men who do not come up to the mark according to the opinion of the unions ? — Yes, that is so. I have known men who themselves acknowledged that they were not worth the minimum rate of wages, and whom no master would (>mploy except at a time when he was so busy that he would employ anything that could hold a tool. 3178. In fact, then, while the condition of some persons has been improved by the action of the unions that of others has been injurioi.isly affected by it ? — Yes. 3179. {Mr. Hughes.) I suppose it is to meet that that you have adopted that rule about the foreman or the employer having the discretion to decide the rate of wages of the inferior workmen ? — Yes. 3180. {ChairmaTi.) Have you anything further which you wish to say on that point ? — I could give other cases very similar to what I have already given in reference to the masons' chasing rule, but probably it is not necessary for me to do so. 3181. With regard to piecework, generally stated, it is the fact, is it not, that the unions have discoun- tenanced piecework ? — Yes, they very openly do so, and we hold that that is bad because it acts contrary to the natural law, that an industrious and an intelligent man should have no obstacle placed in the way of his making the most of his industry and his intelligence. I do not know any union that does not set its face against piecework, and in most districts with which I cm acquainted the unions have hitherto been strong enough to enforce upon the masters the placing of such a rule amongst the trade rules of the district. 3182. {Mr. Hughes.) May I ask if piecework generally is good work ? — It is a question of character altogether. 3183. I ask whether as a rule it is good work ? — Undoubtedly the tendency, and the natural tendency, of pieceworlt and contract work is to depreciate the quality of the work, unless due selection is made of the persons to whom you let that piecework, but every argument that can be used against piecework can be used against contract work also. 3184. I only wish to know whether, as far as your Q 3 126 TKADEa UNIONS, ,I:TC. .COMMISglOlTJ-^MINTITES OF EVIDENCE. Mr. A. Mault. 1 May 1867. experience goes, piece work in England is good or bad? — You can lay down no rule about ^t., A man who lets piecework to every person gets bad work done, but a man who selects the person to whom he will let piecework gets as good work done by piece work as he does without it, and in some cases the person for whom the work is done gets better work by piece work. 3185. Then if you give credit to the unions for the best motives in the framing of their rules about piece- work it may be that they wish to get good work done. I do not say, that it is so, but I ask whether, if you chose to give them credit for the best motives, it may not be so ? — There are certain classes of work in which the men themselves have hitherto preferred to do the work by piecework, and under that system they could make more and work far more comfortably than without it, and yet in two or three trades the men have set themselves against it, and do everything in their power to prevent it. 3186. But can you form any judgment as to what the opinion of the men is as to piecework ; is it not (as I believe it is) the general belief of the workmen in England that piecework is bad work ?— I cannot say it is. It has passed almost into a proverb, you know, that contract work is bad work, that is to say, that most people fancy that work which was done long ago when people took their tinie over it, and when sub-contracting is supposed not to have been known, was a great deal better than it is just now. 3187. Most people believe it, do not you? — I cannot say I do, 3188. {Mr. Booth.) But you think that the em- ployer ought to be allowed to judge for himself whether he would have the work done by piecework or by the day ? — Yes, and not only the employer but the general public ; and the general public have decided that they will have the great bulk of their work, as far as we are concerned, done by piece, and that being so I do not think that any other persons should interfere. 3189. You think that the interference of the union is an unjustifiable interference ? — Yes. I believe that a great deal of the ordinary notion about the supe- riority of ancient brickwork and ancient stonework arises altogether from the effects of the lapse of time. I myself have pulled down work which was contract work in which the mortar and material were appa- rently good just in proportion to age; that is to say, where it had been done for two or three years it was not so hard as where it had been done for ten or twenly years, and where it had been done for four or five days it was not so hard as where it had been done for four or five years. I believe that the action of the elements tends to indurate mortar and that there is nothing in the point that people often raise about the superiority of the old buildings. 3190. {Earl of Lichfield.) Are you aware of the existence of any rule among bricklayers preventing men from trying to lay more than a certain number of bricks in the course of a day, or have you heard complaints in regard to that ? — I remember that once before Mr. Lloyd in one of the courts of arbitration which I attended there was some question as to what was a fair day's labour on the part of the bricklayers, and the men themselves varied in their idea of it, upon ordinary nine-inch work such as occurs in house building, from 300 bricks to 800 or 900 bricks a day. 3191. {Mr. Booth.) That is a part of the question of chasing, is it not ?■ — That feeling in reference to chasing among the bricklayers iindoubtedly does lead to such a wide difference in the estimates of different men as to what is a fair day's work. While upon that I may be allowed perhaps to give the Commission a little explanation in reference to the feeling of the bricklayers as to chasing. You were informed by one of the witnesses, 1 think it was Mr. Howell, that the bricklayers unions were very much against this sys- tem of chasing, or the use of the bellhorse, as the bricklayers' call it, and he made an incorrect state- ment (I think very likely it was unconsciously on his part for I am glad to admit that he gave his evidence in a very fair and straightforward way) to the effect that those bellhorses chose the easiest position on the' line of bricklayers for the purpose of forcing the others to do more work. Now from the very nature of things they must take the most difficult position ; the bellhorses as they are called are put to the quoins ; they have not such a long length of string assigned to them, but they are obliged to turn the corner and to do the whole of the plumbing that may be necessary for the work, and they have to raise the line for the other men to work to, and consequently instead of being at the easiest part of the whole lifle, they are really at the most difficult, and consequently, if such a system occurs, although I dare say, from what I have heard, that some of the builders in London do choose the best men they have got to work the quoins, and pay them a high rate of wages to do it, the fact is, that those men do not do the easiest work, Mitt the most difficult. 3192. {Mr. Hughes.) However, the fact remains that there is such a custom ? — For anything I know it remains. 3193. lEarl of Lichfield.) You say that in soipe cases there is a rule in existence with reference to apprentices ? — -A great many cases. 3194. Will you tell us what is that rule ? — It is a rule to restrict the number of apprentices that ' aiijr master may have, and, to a certain extent, it restricts the class from whom those apprentices are to be drawn. This is the Southport bricklayers' rule : " That no employer or employers of bricklayers shall " have more than two aiDprentices at one time, and the " said apprentices must be legally bound within one " month of his or their commencement at the trade, " and not exceed 15 years of age each at the time of " their commencement at the trade." I need not say that the operation of such a rule would be that in the course of a very few years, if that rule were to obtain all over the country, there would be no skilled brick- layers at all, but the race of bricklayers must die out. 3195. That is a rule agreed to by the masters, is it not ? — It is a rule which has been imposed by the trades unions on the masters. 3196. And has been agreed to by the masters and the men in some of those codes of rules to which you have referred ; is that so ? — No, it has never been agreed to by the masters, but it is obliged to be observed by the masters. They had no voice in it, but it was sent to them, and because they were disunited and the work- men united, they had nothing to do but to submit to it. 3197. Do you know of any instances in which there is a rule having reference to the number of apprentices in a code of rules agreed to between the masters and the men ? — Y es, but in none of those cases have the masters had a voice or a hand in the preparation of the rule, but the rule has been forced upon the masters, and any master who would not accept them has been struck against. For instance, this rule now before me is the Darlington rule, and it has been signed by the greater number of the masters in Darlington ; but I need not say that they do not agree to the principle of the rule ; they simply abide by it because they ai-e forced to do so. , ' 3198. What is that rule ?—" That no employer " shall be permitted to ha^ e more than two appren- " tices at one time, except in cases when the oldest " apprentice is in the last yeai- of his servitude, then " such employer may have a third apprentice." 3199. That is acted upon by the masters, is it ? — That is acted upon by the masters. 3200. Do you know of any case in which a dispute has arisen between the masters and the men where a rule to that effect has been agreed to ? — I know plenty of instances where a strike has been threatened or has actually taken place. 3201. In reference to that particular rule ? — In reference to such rules as that. I wiU now read the Manchester rule. I must explain, however, that at Manchester they have just agreed to a new set. of TfKADES UNIONS, fe'rc. COMMISSION : — MINUTES Oi* EVIDENGji. 127 rules, and I canaot say positively whetlier this rule is nbW in force there, but it was in force up to Sometime ■wl'thifl the last month or so. This is the rule in Manchester : " That no employer shall be permitted to "have more than one apprentice at one time except "in- cases where an apprentice is in the last year of his "' servitude, then such employer may have a second ap- " prentice." Now, of course, in a town like Manchester, where many of the larger masters employ 70, 80, or 100 bricklayers, the operation of a rule which enables them to have only one apprentice at a time, that. being arule which the masters were compelled' to sign in the same way as in tlie other case, would be that in the course of 10 or 20 years, when the present generation of bricklayers died out, there would not be a quarter of the nunlber to take their place. 3202. That was in a code of rules agreed lo by the masters and the men as I understand you ? — ^Agreed to under pressure. ■ 3203. I want to know whether they abide by that rule ? — The masters do. 3204. Do you know of any instance in which a dispute has arisen between the masters and the men in consequence of the masters not abiding by that rule ? — Tes. Here is a case from Lancaster : " William " Waterhouse, son of the late W. T. Waterhouse, who " was a near relative to me, was taken from school at " the age of 12-^ years, and was engaged as an office Mr.^A. Mault. " boy at 5s. per week wages. His father was out of " work two or three years, and died about 18 months 7 May 1867 . ago, leaving a widow and eight young children " totally unprovided for. At the request of Mr. " Alderman Brookbank, of Lancaster, I consented to " take William Waterhouse as an apprentice to the '• trade of a plasterer. He came to me on the 10th " September 1866, and I kept him in the office the " first week. At the end of the week, on the 16th, " I got the enclosed notipe from the men who struck work on the 18th, and the question still remains as " they left it. Some of the men have left the town " and the remainder are in the receipt of \0s. per " week. For the first two months they received 15s. " a week from the club." This was the notice : " Sir,— " This is to give you notice that the boy Waterhouse " will not be allowed to be bound apprentice to the '• trade of a plasterer by the rules of this society. If '■ bound contrary to the rules you hold the men wiU " be obliged to cease work on Tuesday morning 18th " September 1866, and if kept to assist plasterers in " their work it will be contrary to rules also. By " order." And it is signed by a cross. I can only of course attribute that to the union, by the fact that the union of plasterers acted according to that notice. The witness withdrew. Adjourned to Tuesday next at 11 o'clock. 1, Park Prospect, Westminster, Tuesday, 14th May 1867. Present : The Right Hon. Sir William Erle. The Right Hon. the Earl of Lichfield. Lord Elcho, M.P. The Right Hon. Sii' Edmund Walker Head, Bait. K.C.B. Sir Daniel Gooch, Bait., M.P. Herman Merivale, Esq., C.B. James Booth, Esq., C.B. John Arthur Roebuck, Esq., M.P. Thomas Hughes, Esq., M.P. Frederic Harrison, Esq. William Mathews, Esq. The Right Hon. SIR WILLIAM ERLE in the Chair. Mr. Alfred Mault further examined. 3205. {Chairman.') Will you proceed with your statement from the point down to which you consider that you have already carried it ? — I think that I have given the Commissioners evidence in relation to the fii-st five points in the paper which I have given you, and also in relation to the eighth point. My sixth point is that trades unions endeavour to prevent the introduction and use of machinery. That is done more particularly by the masons, the bricklayers, and the brickmakers. In connexion with the masons I may- mention the case of the firm of Messrs. Coulter and Harpin, who have in^-ented stone-working ma- chinery which is admirably adapted for the purpose of dressing all manner of hard stone. This machinery tiaey have endeavoured to introduce into various parts of the country, but they have been met everywhere by tlie fact that the masons forbid the use of machinery for the purpose of dressing stone ; and consequently, though they have had the patent out for some years now, I think they have only sold 26 of tliese machines. Six of them they have sold to Mr. Archibald NeiU, a large contractor at Bradford. He employs them at some quarries which he jjossesses in the neighbourhood 6f Bradford; but although he keeps these machines going in that quarry, and it is close by Bradford, and the cost of dressing stone by that machinery is very much less than that of dressing it by hand, yet he is not allowed to use any of that worked stone in his own business at Bradford. His stone trade consists alto- gether, I believe, or very nearly altogether, in the supply of the London market and other markets where the unions have not been able to forbid the use of niachine-worked stone. 3206. Will you give us the ralio of the cost of stone dressed by machinery to that of stone dressed by hand .-' — I am not prepared just now to state that, but I can state generally what has been said to me, and that is, that the cost of machine-worked stone is at least 35 per cent, less than the cost of hand-worked stone, and in many cases it is very much superior to hand-worked stone, especially in the case of large stones. 3207. What is the name of the patentee, and what is the price of the machine ? — The patentees are Messrs. Coulter and Harpin, and the price of the machines varies according to their size. I think Mr. Neill told me that machines of the size that he uses cost him about 120/. each. I know another case of a gentleman at Manchester of the name of , who many years ago invented a stone-working machine on a totally diffe- rent principle from that of Messrs. Coulter and Har- pin's. I should explain that Messi's. Coulter and Harpin's machine is really a stone-grinding machine. It places stones face to face with other blocks of stone, and fixes the two different faces in two different fi-ames which revolve in different ways and a,t different rates, and the two surfaces coming together grind each other to a true face. The machine of Mr. , however, is a chisel-working machine, a lot of chisels are fixed ill a frame and they hit the stone and make a stroke very similar to the stroke that is made by a mason using a chisel, and the stone which is dressed by this machinery looks very like hand-worked stone, only that it is a little more regular. This machine of his he cannot introduce at all, and, in fact, when he took me to see it, he had to take me as if we were a couple of conspirators into a back street of Manchester and locked me in before he could show it to me. It was lying there completely idle, just because the masons in Q 4 Mr. A. Mault. U May 1867. 128 tkades unions, etc. commission; — minutes of evidence. Mr. A Mault liis employment threatened to strike all his work if he ' J ' ' used it. In some of the rules which the masons in 14 May 1867. different parts of the country have got the masters to sign, under the circumstances which I mentioned in my evidence the other day, they have a direct rule against the employment of sawn stone by the master masons. They have such a rule at Buridey, and they have such a rule at Daiiington. 3208. {Mr. Matheios.) Are any of those rules put in ? — I will put the whole of those rules in at the conclusion of my evidence. I have a large number of them here. 3209. ( Chairman.) You use the words, " sawn stone," but stone is sawn by hand is it not ? — Very often, but very often by machinery also. The masons will allow the stone to be sawn on the ground where it is to be actually used, but they will not allow sawn stone from the quarries to be brought into the towns. To take another branch of the trade, the bricklayers of Manchester refuse to allow machine-made bricks to be used on any work that they have anything to do with ; they insist upon having hand-made bricks. At Sheffield they do the same, and here is a case that has been supplied to me by the gentleman at Sheffield who was actually connected with it which I wiU read to the Commission, and put in. "Benjamin Carr, a " mason and bricklayer of Carhsle Street East, " Sheffield, contracted with Mr. Smith of the Victoria " Mills, Sheffield, to execute the masons' and brick- " layers' work in the erection of a dwelling house at " Pitsmoor, Sheffield, Mr. Smith finding and deliver- " ing the pressed bricks used in building the said " house, which bricks were made by machinei-y at " Conisbro', 12 miles from Sheffield, the said bricks " being of a very good quality — a superior brick to the " bricks made at Sheffield, and the Sheffield bricks " not to be got in any quantity without a greaf loss " of time. It became known to the brickmakers that " these bricks were being got out of the town and " made by machinery. It was intimated by a brick- " maker to Mr. Carr that it would be dangerous to " use the bricks and he was asked if he was not afraid " to use them as they had not been made at Sheffield " and that they had been made by machinery, which " was contrary to what the brickmakers thought " proper. The house was got up to the chamber " floor, and on the evening of Saturday, April the 14th, " 1866, or early on Sunday morning, April l.'Sth, one " side of the house and part of a second side was " daubed with gas tar ; many thousands of bricks " that were stacked were squirted over with tar. " Seven half-gallon bottles and one gallon bottle, two " cans, and two large brushes were left on the ground. " Most of the bottles were empty. A reward of 20/. " was offered to discover the offenders, but without " effect," and it was rather openly talked about among the brickmakers as being a clever trick ; they did not at all disguise the fact that they had something to do with it, but of course that was no proof. 3210. What were those bricks which had tar put upon them ? — Pressed bricks ; they are the fine- made bricks which are used for the outsides of houses i they are facing bricks. There is another case : Messrs. Roberts and Robinson of Liverpool are builders there, and they also have brickyards, and they say that' " the brickmakers make the bricks at a fixed rate " per 1,000, but they refuse by order of their union to " sign any contract with the employer in order that " they may break their engagements with him when- " ever it suits them. We make some of our bricks by " machinery, consequently the unionists refuse to " work for us, and we are obliged to have our hand- " made bricks made for us through our agent instead " of employing the men direct." The bricks they make they are obliged to make altogether by them- selves and, as they state, they are obliged to go a roundabout way for the sake of making what hand- made bricks they want, simply because they make some of their bricks by machinery. That is the evidence which I have to give in relation to the objections made by these men to the use of machinery in the trade. On the other hand I can say that the carpen- ters and joiners, as a rule, never make any trouble whatever about it, but are quite content to allow machinery to be used, and they never raise any opposition whatever to it. It is simply in connexion . with the masons, the bricklayers, and the brick- makers, that any trouble is experienced on that point as far as I know. 3211. Is there any rule in any brickmakers' society condemning the use of machinery in making bricks, or is it by usage that it is condemned ? — Of course, I cannot say that. Very likely there may not be such a written rule, but practically there is one. 3212. {Earl of Lichfield.) Referring to what you have said about sawn stone from the quarry, there is another way of preparing stone from the quarry, namely by the axe, is not there ? — There is. 3213. And there is some sort of stone which may be prepared very cheaply in that way ? — Yes. 3214. Are you aware of any districts where the masons refuse to work upon buildings where stone which has been axed in the quarry is introduced upon the premises ? — Yes, I know of many such cases ; and that brings us to the point which I was just about to raise, namely, that the unions endeavour to lay an em- bargo ujDon the manufactured goods of each district. The two j)oints are so much connected that perhaps it will be just as well for me to take them together. 3215. Before you go on to that point, I will ask you one or two questions, because I do not think that the evidence which you are nov/ about to give, will go into the details of this subject. Do you know of any in- stances where the masons at work on a building either practically or in accordance with a rule of the district, not only refuse to allow stone prepared with an axe to be brought on to the premises, but also refuse to allow it to be prepared in that manner on the premises .' — No, I do not. I know instances where they have "refused to allow it to be prepared with machinery, that is to say, with machinery worked by other than hand power, but I do not know instances where they have refused to allow it to be prepared with an axe. 3216. Would you be surprised if you were told that the cost to the employer of putting stone into a building in a particular case had been 5s. 6d. a yard instead of Ss. Sd. a yard, in consequence of his being unable, owing to the rules of the society'-, to introduce into the building stone which had been prepared by the axe in the quaiTy? — I should not be at all sur- prised at that, because I know many instances very similar. As I have said, trades unions endeavour to lay an embargo upon the manufactured goods of each district, and they interpret the word " district " in a very limited sense indeed. The masons, I can say, invariably have a rule against the introduction of worked stone even from neighbouring quarries. Of course that is a very great loss, because, owing partly to the softness of freshly quarried stone it can be far more cheaply worked at the quarry directly it is got than it can be anywhere else ; and there is no doubt also that around each quarry there are a set of men who are accustomed to work the stone, and who can work it very much better than masons who are not accustomed to work that particular kind of stone. For instance, if such a rule as I have referred to were in existence in London, the contractor for the Thames embankment, instead of having his granite axed and dressed at Aberdeen by men who have been all their life long employed in axing and dressing granite in the particular Avay in which it is done, would either have to import Aberdeen granite masons here, or else to pay three or four times what he is now paying to get the v>'ork done as well as it is done. In London as I understand this rule of the masons which I complain of does not exist, and conseqnetly the contractor in question can do what he is doing. There is another matter which sometimes proves a very serious matter arising out of what I have mentioned. Some stone is got in very rough blocks indeed, and where the builder is obliged to bring this stone a long distance in the form of those blocks, he very often has to pay TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION : — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 129 twice as much for carriage as he would have to pay if he simply brought the stone when it was reduced to the actual dimensions which it will have when put into the work, because, of course, he saves the carriage of everything that is cut off the stone. As an instance of the loss which a builder at times is put to by the operation of such a rule, I know a contractor at Manchester at the present time who is engaged in a large contract for the Midland Railway Company. His name is Mr. Edward Johnson. In that contract he requires a great deal of Yorkshire stone to bs used as coping upon walls. Now the masons of Manchester have a rule allowing Yorkshire stone which is woi'ked upon one side to be brought into their district, but if it is worked upon two sides it cannot be brought in, or if it is worked upon the edge it cannot be brought in, they simply allow the stone to be worked on one side, and then it is brought into Manchester, and the Manchester masons are to joint it and work the edge, if the edge requires work- ing, and work the other side if it requires working. Because, under the circumstances, Mr. Johnson can- not get this stone which he requires for coping worked at the quarries in Yorkshire, he calculates that it will cost him 35 per cent, more to put that coping on the walls than it would do if the rule which I have referred to did not exist. I have here a statement of a case at Bradford which shows the way in which the masons carry out this rule. It is from a firm of the name of Burnley and Barker, whose place is at Lumb Lane End, Bradford. They say : " In August 1861 we had a contract for additions to " a mill in Bradford, for Messrs. J. Wade and Sons, " manufacturers, in which Avas a stone staircase of " hard Delphstone steps, which the masons are always " unwilling to work. To obviate the difficulty, we " got the steps worked at the quarry and brought to " the place ready for setting, when the society gave " us notice that they would not be allowed to be set " unless they were reworked by the society's men, " and to prevent the men from striking and stopping " the work, we had to consent to these steps being " reworked, thus entailing on us an additional cost of " from 5s. to lOs. per step. Since that time we have " frequently had cases where the best men have left our " employment rather than work the hard Delphstone, " which is always used for staircases, window-heads, " sills, &c.," so that they have now usually to give this class of work over to apprentices, or to such an inferior class of workmen as they can induce to do it. The next is a case from Heywood, in Lancashire. The contractor in this case was Mr. James Lord, who is a mason and builder. He contracted for several pieces of work in January or February of last year, and he says : " Work at that time not being plentiful " and the men having but little to do, owing " to the bad state of the weather and the short- " ness of days, I allowed them to commence and " work a large quantity of stone so as to keep them " employed during the winter, and had got a large " quantity worked by the spring. When the time " came that the stone should be used the men " actually struck work on account of the said stone " going to be fixed at the diiferent places. This " caused a strike in my shop for eight weeks, and the " same men who worked the stone were the men to " strike work, and in this I suffered very much loss." Here is a case from York, which happened to Messrs. Weatherley and Eymer, who are builders and con- tractors there. They state this : " We are at present *' erecting a new post office at Darlington, and about " three or four months ago sent from York some small " stone balusters which we had worked and turned " in York, the working being done by men in the " same union as those at Darlington. On the arrival " of those on the works at Darlington the men struck " work and would not start until they were removed " from 'the job. Our foreman remained working a " few days after the men struck, then the men " threatened to fine him, and frightened him so that " he had to cease work until the balusters were re- 1S425. " moved from the job. After the work had stood Mr. A. Maulu " four or five weeks we allowed the building to pro- " ceed without the balusters. The only objection the 1* May 1867. " men had to the balusters was that they were not " worked on the ground." I may say that in that case the masons seem to me to have taken a very ex- treme view of this worked-stone rule, more extreme than they usually have taken, because in many cases that I know of men except such little things as turned balusters from the operation of the rule, and those things are very often done by machinery. I have here another case from Messrs. Grindrod and Hargreaves, who are contractors at Liverpool. They are at present building a new Catholic church at Barrow-in-Furneas, in Lancashire : " In the course of the erection they re- " quired some moulded circular limestone bases or " plinths, to the number of 16. The stone was " ordered direct from the quarries to the works to be " worked there. On the foreman learning this he " interceded and expressed a wish that the bases should " be worked at the contractor's yard in Liverpool, " giving the following reasons, namely, the workmen " not having the kind of tools required to work the " peculiar kind of limestone would object to the out- " lay of, say 10*. or 12s. for about a week or ten days " work, and it was probable that they would not " require them again, as the limestone referred " to is rarely employed in that district. The " foreman's recommendation was taken and the order " was countermanded for the stone to be sent to " Liverpool and there worked by members of the " operative masons society, who are paid a higher " rate than the members at Barrow are. The bases " were sent to Barrow, and they lay on the works " two or three weeks before they were fixed upon " the walls, but the moment they had been fixed " the masons found out that one of their local rules " had been infringed upon ; a general meeting of the " masons in the town was called on the subject, and " the enclosed resolution was agreed upon." This is the actual letter that the masons sent : " Bowling " Green Inn, Greengate, Barrow-in-Furness, No- " vember 26th, 1866, Sir, I am directed by the Bar- " row lodge of operative stonemasons to inform you '• that sending worked stone into Barrow is a direct " violation of their local code of rules. According to " a resolution passed here to-night you are requested " to work the stone sent to the chapel here over " again (viz., the plinths) ; they have allowed you till " Monday next, December 3rd, to commence the " same. On behalf of the members of the Barrow " lodge, I remain yours respectfully, William " Gaudie." " On the receipt of the resolution in " Liverpool one of the firm immediately proceeded to " Barrow and there met a deputation of the work- " men ; they were told that working them over again " was an impossibility, that by so doing they would " interfere with the architect's design, which would " not be within the province of the contractors. " After some hard reasoning they agreed to waive " that point, but insisted on the time that it took to " work them being occupied again in standing over " them. The contractors could not listen to that " proposition, as it involved a considerable loss of " time and money; the deputation were then with- " drawing, saying that they had no further instruc- " tions in the matter, and intimated that a strike " very likely would be the consequence. The con- " tractors, in view of avoiding a strike, proposed " to allow them to be refixed on the walls. The depu- " tation promised to lay it before a meeting of the " members, when it was ultimately agreed to let the " matter rest on the consideration that the bases were " taken from their beds and refixed, and that the " contractors would promise not to introduce any " worked or dressed stone into Barrow again." That statement is signed by Messrs. Grindrod and Har- greaves. 3217. {Chairman.') When they say that the bases should be moved and refixed, that means that they should be just taken up and put down again ?-— Yea ; 130 TiiADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIPBNCE. Mr. A. Mault. 14 May 1867. that is to say, instead of putting the contractorB to the expense of reworking the stone it was simply resetting it. The next case is that of Mr. Israel Brooks, :i master mason of Guide Bridge near Ashton-under-Lyne. He writes, " In the month of April 1862, I received a " quantity of sawn base (about 201. worth) from Messrs. " Williamson and Sous' quarries, Kerridgc, near Mac- " clesfield. My men refused to fix it being polished, " as it was against the rules of their club, and struck " work accordingly. After standing out against what " I considered this injustice three weeks, I was forced " to submit to have the polished part defaced so that " they might polish it again by haod, and the men '•' declared after all this expense it ■\\-as not so good as " when it came from the quan-y." That is the evi- dence which I havn to give in regard to the masons. As far as the carpentei's and joiners are concerned, I have only heard of their attempting to do anj'thing like that once, and that was a notice that the master builders in Blackburn received from the carpenters and joiners on the 16th of November 1866, in which they gave them notice that they would not fix any machine- made work or mouldings that were worked outside of Blackburn on any job inside Blackburn, as they con- sidered that there were plenty of machinists in Slack- burn who could do the work just as well as people elsewhere. 3218. {Mr. Roebuck.) What was the result of that ? — The masters paid no attention to that, but I do not think that any strike has taken place. I will read the notice which the men gave : '" Gentlemen, at a special " meeting of our body held on the 14th instant, the " question of master builders and employers importing " machine-made work from other towns for jobs in " the neighbourhood of Blackburn was discussed, and " it was the opinion of that meeting that no advan- " tage could accrue neither to the masters nor men by " so doing, because we consider that there are both men " and machinery in Blackburn quite competent to " execute all kinds of work required to be done by " machinery as well and expeditiously as in any other " town, not only, but by so doing, that amount of work " would be done in Blackburn, thereby retaining the " amount of money so expended, of which we share in " proportion to the public at large. Also, we, as a body " meet together to support each other, cannot appre- " ciate the system when probably some of us might be " standing idle for the want of employment, at the same " time seeing work imported from other towns. Therc- " fore we kindly request you will abolish the system of " importing machine-made work and give the ma- " chinists and the public of Blackburn the benefit of " the cost of such like work, likewise allaying a " grievance which has been fostered amongst our mem- " bers for some time past. The resolution come to by " the meeting was, that at the expiration of one month " from the date of that meeting, all members belonging " to the society will cease to fix any machine-made " work that may be brought from other towns. Trusting " that no objection will be made on your part to the " favour we now ask, we beg to remain, gentlemen, " yours most respectfully, The Operative Carpenters " and Joiners." That is the end of my case as far as that point is concerned. 3219. {Earl of Lichfield.) Your association has nothing whatever to do with London apparently ? — Nothing whatever. 3220. {SirE. ^'./Tearf.) With regard to the question of hand-made bricks or machine-made bricks, have you any reason to suppose that there is any concert or agreement between the brickmakers and the brick- layers as to the use of a particular brick ? — Yes. 3221. What sort of agreement is it ; is it an under- standing that the bricklayers are not to lay bricks which do not come from a certain locality or which are not made in a certain way? — That is the under- standing. 3222. Is that common ? — It is rather common about Lancashire; I do not know that it is common any- where-else. . ' ■; ■■'-■ '■■■■- -^' ■.'•.. '. ; , -^ ■■ > 3223. It does not extend to LondoB: to your know- ledge ?— I do not think it does. 3224. The bricklayers refuse to lay bricks which are not made in a particular neighbourhood Z — Exactly so. 3225. And the object of that is to encourage the brickmakers of the district, and to give them the ;v(rork ? — Just so ; and further on in ray evidence I shall have to refer to some cases specially connected with these distiicts which the brickmakers so assign. In certain places, as I shall show you, they have come to an agreement among themselves, to map out the country into certain districts, and the bricks made in each of tho^e districts must be used within that district ; they are not to be exported to any other district. 3226. Are there any means of ascertaining what are the districts to which that nale respecting dressed stone and the refusal to admit dressed stone brought on to the premises applies, because, according to what I understood you to say, you do not assert that it applies in London ? — It does not apply in London, I know, -because the London builders do continually import stone ready worked, and I know quan-ies in which a great quantity of stone is prepared, besides those quarries which I have mentioned belonging to Mi'. Neill. 3227. Over what extent of countiT' does the rule apply? — I think everywhere else except London, , I never read a code of masons' rules in- my Hfe which did not include a worked stone rule. 3228. I understood you to refer to three or four cases where the objection to work not done locally had been made, as between York and Darlington, between Barrow and Liverpool, and again this last case with reference to Blackburn. Would not the result of the principle which was asserted in those last cases, if it were carried out, be that every stage of the work from the roughest to the finest must be done on the same siJot ? — Apparently it would. 3229. Whether there was any man fit to do the finest work or not ? — Yes. 3230. Each district would be isolated as it were ? — Yes, the material would have to be brought in the rough to each district, and the whole of the labour requu-ed would have to be put upon it in that district. 3231. Would not that be the establishment of the principle of protection in a very strong form, applied to a parish or a district .' — It would. 3232. {Mr. Roebuck.) Have you ever heard any objection made to bricks because they were so hard that they hurt the workmen's tools, and have you known the workmen therefore refuse to use them ?— I cannot say that I have. 3233. (Mr. Harrison.) Is this objection to use ma- chine-made stone exclusively confined to the union men or is it common to aU masons ? — ^As far as I know it is exclusively confined to the union men and to dis- tricts in which the union men ai-e so much in; the majority that they can control the other men. 3234. Do you consider that but for the operation of the union in objecting to it, this patent to which you have referted would be in very considerable use, ahd that much stone would be cut by means of it ? — ^Yes, I think it would be very extensively used. 3235. Do you know whether architects approve of the patent ? — I can of course only speak of individual architects, and I know that individual architects do approve of it. 3236. They would make no objection to the use of it ? — Just the opposite, especially for large stones, on account of the superior truth obtained by machinery. 3237. Ai-e these machines in very considerable' uSe in districts where the union is not' strong .'' — In the neighbourhood of the patentees they are in extensile use to supply districts where the stone can be used. ' 3238. Which patent aro you spealiing of? — Coulter and Harpin's. 3239. I thought you said that they Ji^d;jsoldvei*y few of their machiaes ?— They have sold comparatively few in their own district. They tried to come to jothdr disMctS 5 for^ ifetance^ they came to- the ' midlaud TRADES UNIONS, ETC. ^OMMISSION: — MINTJTES OF BVIDENGI, 131 counties, hid they did not sell a single machine, because they w^i'e met by the fafct that the men would not allow the use of them, and consequently what they have sold they have sold to the quarry masters of the immediate neighbourhood in which they live. ■ 3240. There is no objection to the use of machine- worked stone in London, I think ? — None at all, I think ; ' I never heai'd of any. 3241. A difficulty occurs to me, which I will ask you to explain ; you said in your evidence last week, which unfortunately I was prevented from hearing, but which I have read, that the masons who are in union are 17 per cent, of the whole number of masons in the country ; therefore there are 83 per cent, of the masons in the country who ai'e not members of the union ; then you say that the non-union men make no objection to the use of machine-made stone, that in certain districts no objection is made, and that Lon- don is one of them ; and then you say that some of the architects make no objection to it. How is it then that these machines are not in universal application, as far as concerns the labour of the 83 per cent, of the masons, and certainly in the whole of London ? — I believe that similar machines are in use in London. I know that in all the large London establishments there are steam stone-savdng machines, and I believe that to a certain extent (in fact I am quite sui'e as far as the marble work is concerned) there are steam moulding machines and so on, but as far as this particular pa- tent is concerned I do not think that it is in use in ^London. 3242. You are speaking of Coulter and Harpin's patent ? — Yes, I do not think that they have sold their machines in London ; why, I cannot say, except that very probably the larger masters here have got machines which ai-e perhaps just as good, but of a different "character. 3243. But the unions have made no particular objec- tion to Messrs. Coulter and Harpin's machines, I sup- pose, more than to any other machines ?— Not moie than to any others. 3244. Does not it seem to you that if Messrs. Coul- ter and Harpin's .machines would be in universal application but for the operation of the union, it is a singular fact that when the union oifers, and can offer, ho resistance to their application in London, you do not know of the use of those machines in London ? — ■ I am simply totally ignorant of it, because I do not know what machines the London builders do use ; I may be very wrong in saying that they have got none of these machines in London ; I know this, that be- fore this patent of Messrs. Coulter and Harpin's a great many of the large London builders hadmacliines, I'.Dd probably they may be satisfied with them, and that may explain why Messrs. Coulter and Harpin's ma- chines have not taken here, supposing that they have not ; I cannot say they have not. 3245. Then in fact there are other reasons for the non-use of Messrs. Coulter and Harpin's machines besides the objection made to them by the union which applies to particular districts only ? — I dare- say there are. 3246. You said, I think, that in the Burnley and Darlington rules there was an objection made to the use of machine-cut stone, are those the only local rules in which that distinct objection is taken ? — They are the only local rules in which I have noticed the objection take that particular form. LTsually in the case of sawn stone, so long as notliing more is done to it than the simple sawing of it, with regard to that class of stone which is used for land- in o-s after having been sawn the men treat it as stone which has been worked only on one side ; but I noticed that in those rules the rule I refer to was specially mentioned. 3247. This is the rule I find, " That no sawn stone " be introduced into the town or neighbourhood except " slabs for chimney-pieces and gravestones." Does that " sawn stone " mean stone cut by machinery of any kind ; does it apply to Coulter and Harpin's ma- chine, for instance ? — No, it cannot apply to Messrs. Coulter and Harpin's machine, because that does not Mr. A.Matdt saw the stone at all, it grinds it. 3248. Then there is nothing in these rules which 1 4 May 180 7. at all restricts the use of Messrs. Coulter and Harpin's machine ? — Perhaps not, but still the masters of Dar- lington could not introduce machine work. 3249. Have I misunderstood you ; I thought you said that there was in certain local rules of the union a distinct clause forbidding the introduction of ma- chinery, which prevented the patentees, Messrs. Coulter and Harpin, from making a general use of their patent, which would be universal but for that rule, but I do not find such a clause iu the rules before me ? — I said that in some districts the union men had a rule against the introduction of sawn stone, and I mentioned Burnley and Darlington. It was not in reference to the other point that I mentioned them, but I can give you a case actually iu point, if you desire it there also, and that is the case of Mr. Archibald Neill, at Bradford. He has stone quarries in the immediate neighbourhood of Bradford, where he is employing Messrs. Coulter and Harjiin's ma- chinery, and where he is preparing stone at a far less cost for other contractors than that at which he is allowed to prepare it for himself at his works in Bradford, owing to the operation of a rule at Brad- ford, forbidding him to import this worked stone into Bradford. 3250. This code of rules of Darlington I see is signed by 17 firms of employers. I suppose that those are nearly iho, whole of the employers of the district ? — Those are the principal emi^loyers, as far as masons are concerned, I should think. 3251. Tlien they have agreed to these rules in point of fact ? — They have agreed under the circumstances which I referred to in your absence. 3252. You spoke of a very grave case at Sheffield in connexion with the bricklayers in which there was a destruction of property in bricks by means of tar. Was there any evidence which brought that home to either the bricklayers' or the brickmakers' union? — None whatever, except the circumstantial evidence that prior to this outrage being committed the brickmakers had called Mr. Wade's attention to the fact that he was breaking this rule, and the further evidence that after this outrage had been committed the common talk of the neighbourhood regarded it as a natural consequence of the broken rule. 3253. Assigned it to which union ? — The brick- makers' union. 3254. You mention the case of bricklayers and brickmakers, but it is one case, is it not. The brick- layers themselves have no objection to machinery, it is solely in the interest of the brickmakers that they object to it, is it not ? — It must be in the interest of the brickmakers ; it is just the evidence of that con- nexion, to which one of the Commissioners referred, betvi^een the two, because, of course, it can make no difference to a bricklayer under ordinary circum- stances whether the brick which he is using is a machine-made brick or a haud-made brick. 3255. You never knew an objection made by a, bricklayer that machine-made bricks were more ditficult to work ? — No ; neither as being more difficult uor as being of a worse quality, and I have heard that • at Manchester tlie bricks which are made with Piatt's machines there are very much better than the hand-made bricks. 3256. Do you know that no objection to the use of machinery is taken except by or on behalf of the union men ? — I have never heard of it, except in connexion with unions. 3257. {Mr. Mathews.) I think you said that the exclusion of the machine-made bricks and the dressed stone would have the effect of raising the value to the public of the constructions in which they were em- ployed. Yes ? — I gave one case in particular where a, contractor himself calculated that it made a difference of 35 per cent. 3258. So that in point of fact the value of the con- R 2 132 TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION :— MINUTES OP EVIDENCE. Mr. A. Mault. structioii would be composed in part of an artificial ' price of labour, and the injury to the public would be 14 May 1867. measured by the enhanced cost of the construction — — which would result from that artificial price? — Yes. 3239. Supposing that the corn laws were to be re- enacted, and that restrictions were placed in the way of people having corn except such as was grown in this country, would not the working people consider that an intolerable hardship upon them ? — I sujjpose they would. 3260. So that they adopt one rule in reference to that from which advantage accrues to themselves, viz., the rule of an open market, while they adopt another rule, namely, an artificial price of labour, as respects the relation borne by themselves to the public ? — It seems so. 3261. {Sir D. Gooch.) I suppose that this limita- tion of bricks has only reference to internal work and that face bricks cannot be limited. If I were build- ing a house I might want a white brick or a blue brick, or bricks of all colours to face it. How does the society deal with that? — I cannot say ; but in the case which I gave, the limitation was specially with reference to the front bricks. 3262. In that case could not I have had, say red bricks brought in, supposing that those were not made in the district ? — I cannot say ; but I should suppose they would make red and white bricks in that district, though perhaps they cannot make blue bricks. But the operation of that rule would be what you indicate, if they carried it out. 3263. It would be the case as a rule, would it not, that all machine-prepared stone would be much better and much truer than ordinary hand-worked stone ? — It would depend upon what machinery was in use. I gave you one instance in which the men themselves confessed that after they had reworked the machine- worked stone which had been brought from the quarry, the work was of a worse quality than it was before. 3264. From the experience which you have had of machinery that would be naturally so, would it not ? — Yes, and especially in such cases as occur in turned work, which can be only very truly done by turning. 3265. {Lord ElcJio.) You have been asked a question with reference to the rules which you have put in, of the operative stonemasons of Darlington. One of their rules is against the introduction of stone sawn by machinery, and you were asked whether the employers had not assented to that rule. Do you know whether that was a willing assent ? — I know on the contrary that it was not ; that it was simply on account of the pressure which the union were able to bring to bear upon them that they agreed to accept it. 3266. It was an act of submission then on their part ? — Yes. 3267. You were asked about the machine of Messrs. Coulter and Harpin, but what you said with reference to th6 forbidding of machines in that particular dis- trict did not apply to Messrs. Coulter and Harpin's machine alone, but to all machines ? — Yes, it was a rule which existed before their patent existed in fact. 3268. You have said that these unions lay an em- bargo on manufactured goods in each district, and you have given instances in corroboration of that. Have the unions turned their attention at all to an embargo upon Foreign goods ? — Not that I am aware of, of course the goods that were refei'red to by me in my evidence would be stopped by them equally if they were foreign goods as if they were English goods from a diflTerent district. 3269. As a general rule they would do so ? — Yes, as a general rule ; and I should take it that under this notice of the men at Blackburn, if they had been able to carry it out, they would not have allowed their em- ployers to use any of that machine-made work that has been imported. 3270. So that supposing (I merely suppose the case) that there was a better description of brick made abroad and that it paid the builder to import that brick, he would be practically forbidden by these rules to import it because he could not use it when he got it ? — Exactly so. 3271. But you are not aware of such cases ? — No. 3272. Can you speak on the question whether foreign manufactured articles enter at all into the building trade of this country. We have heard that sashes of windows, doors, and other woodwork have been imported ? — Well, that work is not largely im- ported. Last year some was imported both into Hull and into London. I have heard that the work so im- ported is very fair work, but I do not think that it is largely used, that is to say, it is no great branch of trade yet, whatever it may be. 3273. Was thei'e any sale for what came ? — I think that there was a pretty ready sale for that which was imported into Hull, but I have understood that there was not in regard to that which was imported into London. 3274. Do you know at all to what that difference is to be attributed ; is it owing to a difference in quality or to a difficulty in using the material in consequence of any trade rules ? — I really cannot say. 3275. Have you seen any of the work yourself? — No, I have not. 3276. {Chairman.) Will you proceed to your next ]3oint ? — My next point is that trades unions endeavom* to confine the performance of certain work to certain arbitrarily defined classes. You will remember that I have ah'eady tried to show that they confine the performance of Avork to their own members. But they go beyond that and say that certain work shall only be done by certain classes of people, and that other classes of people shall not, under any circum- stances, do that work, not because they cannot do it, but because they do not belong to the class which they arbitrarily define as the right class for doing that particular kind of work. It is a rule that is very common among nearly the whole of the ti'ades unions. I have some of their rules here that will exemplify what I siiy. Here is the Leeds plasterers' rule which says : " Providing any labourer, bricklayer, mason, or " the like, commence any job by lathing, or any other '• portion being a part of the business of a plasterer, '• no member of this society will be allowed to work '■ on the said job ; any member breaking tliis rule will '■' be fined 1/., and one month will be allowed to pay " the fine, and if neglected will be liable to expulsion " from this society." The same rule I believe exists in the whole of the branch rules belonging to this same association. It exists everywhere that I have seen, and is so similar to that which I have read that 1 take it for granted it is really the same rule. 3277. Lathing is a sort of plasterers woik, is it not ? — Yes. 3278 . So at least those plasterers regarded it who made that rule ? — Yes, but in some pai'ts of the country lathing is done by labourers, while in other parts of the country it is not. For instance, in London lathing is done by men who do nothing else but lathing. In some parts of the country, as T have already pointed out, the trade of a plasterer is carried on in connexion with other trades, and a boy when he is apprenticed is apprenticed not simply to the trade of a plasterer but also to the other trade that is carried on in connexion with it. I pointed out that in Liver- pool plasterei's ancf slaters went together, and in Manchester plasterers and painters. And now I have a case at Scarborough where plasterers and bricldayers go together, and where a boy when he is apprenticed is apprenticed to the bricklaying and the plastering. A Mr. Peacock, a master at Scarborough, received this letter from the plasterers society : " Sir, In accordance " with a resolution passed at this meeting, I beg to " inform you that the operative plasterers ai-e bound not " to work with any bricklayers, or to cover any work of any description that has been previously commenced TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 1S3 " on by any person or persons but plasterers ; and also " beg to inform you, if you wish to finish your job " with plasterers, you must stop the bricklayers from " plastering ; and in case you wish to keep the brick- " layers, we give you to understand that they will have " to finish the job, for no plasterers will be allowed to " go on the job after Monday, 15th October. Our " motive is to cause no misunderstanding in the future. " A reply to this ou Monday evening will oblige the " Operative Plasterers of Scarboro', Plough Inn, St. " Thomas Street, Scarborough. P.S. — ^In case of " not receiving a reply, we shall consider you are in " favour of the bricklayers, and according to the reso- " lution, stop the plasterers from working with " bricklayers." The only notice that Mr. Peacock took of this was to hand it over to the bricklayers in his employment, who had also been brought up to the trade of plasterers, and the bricklayers issued a hand- bill, which I will put in, heiided " Monopoly." The master, Mr. Peacock, then received a letter which I have here and can produce, but which I will not read because it is a nonsensical letter, and I do not wish to say anything that is not actually to the point. The point of the case is this — that in Scarborough, where the plasterers and bricklayers are apprenticed together and learn both trades together, the plasterers tried to prevent the bricklayers from carrying on one part of that which they had been brought up to. I under- stand that to caiTy out this idea of the plasterers of limiting their business to themselves, a com- mittee of their union met on the 22nd of August 1865 a special committee of the labourers, and that some resolutions were then agreed to which 1 will put in. The resolutions were to the effect, that laboui-ers should not be allowed to do any kind of plasterers work, except what was re- quu'ed in whitewashing, and that the plasterer was not to interfere with the labourers in any -work that they chose to consider specially labourers work ; that is to say, a plasterer was not to help himself ; if if he wanted laths, or if he wanted plaster, he was not to fetch them himself, because by so doing he would keep a labourer out of work. Here is a case from Bolton, of a Mr. Joseph Booth, which shows the un- reasonable extent to which the arbitrary definition of classes is carried : " The plasterers struck work ou " the job of James Marsden and Sous, New Mill, " because I had two sons and two brothers pointing " windows, work that I had brought them up to, and " had to let them be idle, while there was plenty of " work for the plasterers without them pointing. I " I reasoned with the three delegates, and they agreed " that we should finish, that job having been contracted " for some eight or nine months before, but the next " day after all the men struck, and I was obliged to " send my own sons and brothers home before they " would commence work, which I thought was any- " thing but fair and reasonable. That was in the " beginning of Januai y of this year, and in the same " month and beginning of February I had to send " one plasterer to bed and point about 12 windows in, " and was obliged to send one labourer with him for " four full days, when any man could have got him " all he required in half a day. I was compelled to " let it be so, or leave the work." That is signed by Mr. Joseph Booth, and I will put it in. I should state in explanation of that, that in different pai'ts of the country this work of pointing is held by the brick- layers to be their special duty, and they would not allow it to be done by others. 3279. That is to say, pointing between the lines of the bricks ? — Yes, or pointing round the woodwork of the window. I say that in some parts of the country the bricklayers claim that as their work, and will not allow the plasterers to do it. At Bolton, howovoi-, the plasterers claim it as their work ; so that you see we cannot say exactly what a man's duty is in different parts of the country. Among the Manchester rules, the masters have, under compulsion, agreed to such a rule as this : " Rule 9. That no labourer, or otherwise " than a plasterer, shall be allowed to do plasterers work." I have a case which I referred to a minute Mr. A. Mault. or two ago from a Mr. Murdy, a master plasterer in Nottingham. He says: " Two years ago a respec- l* May 1867. " table man (who had formerly been in business as a " bricklayer and plasterer, but who had been reduced " in circumstances to obtain his livelihood as a " journeyman) came to me for employment. Feeling *" sorry for the man, and knowing him in better days, " I gave him employment. After he had been at " work a few days, the trade unionists in my employ " informed me that I must discharge this man, as " they had passed a resolution ' that as he professed to " be as much a bricklayer as a plasterer, he should '•' not be allowed to work as a plasterer,' and he might " go somewhere else and work as a bricklayer. I " remonstrated with them, but to no purpose. The " poor man tried all he knew to retain his place of " employment with me. He offered to join their " trade union and become one of their body if they " would allow him to work for his living ; he pleaded " to them that he had a wife and a large family " dependent upon him for bread, but it was no use ; " they were determined that he should throw him- " self out of work, or otherwise the whole body of " men would strike against him. The result was, " I had to come to the understanding that he should " leave my employment." Among the bricklayers, the same feeling exists. Here is a letter received by Mr. William Reynolds, from the bricklayers lodge at Sheffield, dated Sheffield, September 12, 1864. "To " Mr. Reynolds, — Dear sir, — I am authorized by our " lodge to state that all our members employed by " you are willing to turn out at the request of this " lodge, on account of your employing persons to " interfere with the work of bricklayers contrary to " our rules," and so on. 3280. There is not any specific offence named there, is there ? — The charge is that he is employing other persons besides bricklayers to do bricklayers' work, that is how I interpret it. While I was engaged in an arbitration case at Bolton last year, or at the com- mencement of this year, I was told by a master of the name of Mr. Day, -who is quite willing to come here and tell you the same, that during that same week some bricklayers had passed by one of his works and had heard some hammering of brickwork going on inside, and had looked inside, and had found a car- penter, whom he had sent to fix some joists, who was cutting the holes left in the brickwork to put the joists into a little larger, and because he had allowed this carpenter to do that, the bricldayers fined the master 21., and the master paid the fine. This is a case from Ashtou-under-Lyne exactly similai', only I have this in the writing of the gen deman who was concerned : " Mr. George Colbeck, a joiner and " builder of Ashton-under Lyne, in December 1865, " sent a joiner, a bricklayer, and two labourers to " make some alterations in an inhabited house ; a " door was to be removed half the width of itsell'. " The bricklayer built up the part lequiriug it. " The joiner, having to stand idly by while tlii;i " was doing, proceeded to pull out the few brickn " which had to be removed. The bricklayer struck " work and left tlie job. Some weeks after- " wai'ds Colbeck commenced a new job. A member " of the bricklayers' society went to his men and " stopped them. Colbeck made inquiry why his " works were stopped and the men withdrawn " without notice of any kind. He was informed that •' the bricklayers' union had fined him 21., and all " jobs at which Colbeck was employed would bo " stopped until he paid the fine. He remonstrated, " but to no purpose. He had infringed their rules " by pei-mitting a joiner to pull out bricks, which '•' must be done by a bricklayer, and must pay. He " paid." 3281. We have had cases mentioned to us in which masters have been called upon to pay the expenses of the meeting which imposed the fine in addition to the original flue imposed upon them ; have you known such cases ? — I have got cases like that in which that R 3 134 TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION : —MINUTES Off KVICENCE. Mr. A. Mault. ,14 May 1867. process was actually gone tlirough. T was going to state a case that came tinder my own per- sonal observation. Mr. Marriott, of Coventry, was restoring the parish church of Kenilworth. Part of the old stonework had to be cleaned dowii and the joints raked out and pointed. That is work which in our part of the country (I live near Coventry myself) the bricklayers are specially qualified for, because they have very great experience, and the masons very seldom have to do any such work as that in our neighbourhood. He accordingly employed two bricklayers to do this ^vork, and immediately he em- ployed them the masons struck. He asked the masons whether any of them who were on the work could do the work as well as the bricklayers were doing it, and with the exception of the one setter whom he happened to be employing then (the new stonework was very nearly aJl set), and who was so occupied that his time could not be spared, there was not a man on the ground who could do the work at all, because they had all been brought up as banker hands and not as setters ; and were not accustomed accordingly to the use of the trowel. 3282. {Mr. Mathews.) What do you mean by banker hands ? — Banker hands are mea who actually cut the stone — they put it on a bench which they call a banker. Certain men are brought up to that and not to setting at all ; other men are brought up to setting, but those men can usually turn their hand to the banker on occa- sion, but there are hundreds and thousands of men in the country who cannot set at all. Notwithstanding what I have stated, his men struck, and he was obliged at great expense to advertise for a setter purposely to come and do this work at Kenilworth church. Here is a rather similar ca=e from Sheffield, from Mr. George Wade, a contractor and builder there : " In the year " 1863 I built a rock-face wall for John Brown, Esq., " of Endcliffe Hall, near Sheffield. The following " summer Mr. Brown ordered me to ' tuck point ' the " wall, which is work unusual for masons to do. I set " two bricklayers to do it as required. When they " had worked at it about a week, I was told by the " masons then in my employ that if I did not stop the " two bricklayers from pointing the wall they (the " masons) would 'strike.' I complied with their " wishes, and after being told that sorne of my masons " would have to do it, I went and asked each man " singly whether he could do it or not, and each man " without exception said he could not, and some said " that if they could they would have to get new tools " such as they never had and never used, and before " they would do that they would leave my employ. " The work stood unfinished some months, and then I " told the masons that if they did not find me a man " who could and would do the pointing required, I " should put my bricklayers to finish it, because Mr. " Brown would wait no longer. They gave me per- " mission to do so, but when the bricklayers had " finished within a half a day's work for one man, the •' masons stopped them again, saying they could find " a man who could do it. The man came and was a day " and a half finishing the work and doing it badly." In another trade there was a case at Birmingham re- ferring to the labourers which came under my own personal knowledge. Messrs. Jeffrey and Pritchai'd, contractors there, were building a retaining wall along a brook side for the Midland Railway Company, and they employed, among others, a bricklayer who was served by his own son ; that is to say, he was accompanied on the work by his own son, a young lad of 13, 14, or 15 years of age (at all events he was under 18 years of age), who partly served him and partly others. When the work was at a very critical point, that is to say, when the foundation had been got out and the bricklayers were just ready to go down into the cutting, which was in a veiy ticklish condition, because there was a great deal of water and a great weight upon it, and the sides of the cutting had to be shored up, the labourers took that opportunity of sending their lodge secretary, a man of the name of Carroll, to Messrs. Jeffrey and Pritohard to state that they had enacted a rule that no boy should be exti^ ployed for labouring work who was under 18 years of age, and that consequently this boy, who was employed with his father, must be dismissed. Well, the work was in such a critical condition, for the pumps were hardly able to keep the water out of the work so as to enable the men to do it under any circumstances, that Messrs. Jeffrey, and Pritchard were obliged to give way, and consequently the boy was dismissed. I am glad to say that the bricklayers saw quite as much as Messrs. Jefirey and Pritchard the injustice of the course which was adopted, and directly the work was out of danger the bricklayers said that they would strike, and put the labourers out of employment until this boy was brought back again on to the work, and then the labourers gave way. 3283. {Sir E. W. Head.) So that one union -was used against the other ? — Yes, one union was used against the other, or rather one body of men against another ; that is my case as far as the exclusive per- formance of work is concerned. But perhaps the Commissioners will allow me to state that one object which I have in view in bringing this so prominently before them, is to show that the operation of this rule is in effect this, that a man who is now a labourer shall remain a labourer to the end of the chapter ; it has the efiect of preventing a master from en- couraging a handy intelligent labourer by putting a trowel into his hand, or putting a mallet and chisel into his hand, and getting him' on to be a skilled ar- tizan ; because directly he does such a thing as that, the men of the skilled trade to which he is advancing this other man immediately sti'ike against him ; con- sequently, a man who is now a labourer must, as I have just said, remain a labourer to the end of the chapter ; and we think that the operation of the rule is quite as much to the disadvantage of the man as it is to the disadvantage of the master. 3284. {Mr. Booth.) The labourer must remain a labourer although he may have shown special aptitude for this new kind of work to which he is set ? — Yes. 3285. And is likely therefore to distinguish himself in it ? — Yes. 3286. {Earl of Lichfield.) Let me ask you a ques- tion or two with reference to the fines. You have stated a case, at least so I understood it, in which a master was fined by the union ? — Yes. 3287. I suppose that you have heard of cases where the master has kept a union man on against the wishes of the society, and in that case has himself pflid the fine inflicted by the society upon the man ? — Yes, I think that I have mentioned some such cases. 3288. And in a case of that sort, if the society finds out that the master has paid that fine^ have you ever heard of the master being fined for that by the society ? — No. 3289. The men, however, are fined for that offence sometimes very heavily, and that in some cases falls upon the master ? — Very frequently. Later on I shall have occasion to show the Commission the man- ner in which the unions try to make instruments of the masters to coerce their fellow union men. 3290. I was going to ask you a question with reference to the arrears of contributions to the society. If men who are working for a master happen to be in arreai' in their weekly contributions to the funds of the society, have you ever heard a case in which the master has been compelled to advance the money to pay those arrears through a tlu-eat that the men would be taken from his employment if the arrears were not paid up ? — I will give you some definite cases of exactly that proceeding a little further on in my evi- dence. I am quite willing to enter into it at any time ; but my written documents here are arranged in one order and it would take more time probably to adopt any other order. 3291. {Mr. Merivale.) With a vievr to the general effect on labour, would it be better if this division of classes could be got rid of, if bricklayer, plasterer, and labourer could all be called upon to do whatever work was wanted at the moment ? — Yes, to a certain TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 135 extent, although, of course, a ilian to become fairly and properlv skilled must devote his energies to certain classes of work ; but I think that it ought to be left to that man to devote his energies to whatever class of work he chooses. I think, however, that man who chooses to take the use of the small trowel only, which is used for pointing, ought to be able to use it whether the material upon which he uses it is brick, or stone, or anything else. 3292. The division of classes, therefore, is founded on the necessity of the division of labour; on the necessity which requires that men should be skilled in their various ways ? — Yes. 3293. That being so, is it your opinion that if a bricklayer is asked to do plasterers' work, or a plasterer to do bricklayers' work, he should be entitled to say to the employer, no, that is not my proper work ? — Yes. 3294. Supposing that there are, say five or six, plasterers employed by a certain employer, and sup- posing he says to one of them : " I want you to do labourers' work," is it reasonable that the rest of those five or six should say, " No, he ought not to do it, and if he does we shall all leave your employ " ? — If the man himself is one of them I grant that it would be right for them to say that, but I thitik that it would be very wrong that those five or six should not only enter into such an arrangement among them- selves and carry out such a proceeding as that, but should caiTy it still further and say, " We will not " do so ourselves' nor will we allow anybody else to " do so." 3295. Let us go by steps. You admit that it would be right for the five or six to say in regard to one of their own number, " We will all strike if he does it " ? —Yes. 3296. Is not that the principle of the trades union ? — ^But the trades union goes on to say— neither will we do it ourselves, nor will we allow anybody else to do it. 3297. Why shoxild they be allowed to say, '' We " win not do it ourselves," and not allowed to go on to say, " We will not allow others to do it " ?-^Be- cause in the one case they are voluntarily sacrificing their own independence, while in the other case they are compulsorily making anbther person who does not agree with them in opinion fall into their particular views. 3298. Then your objection to trades unions begins only where compulsion is introduced ?-r-Yes. 3299. Up to that time you think that it id a legitimate organization of labour ? — I think it is rigtt for anybody of men to say, " We will not do work " except under such conditions, and will mutually " pledge ourselves not to do it except under such " conditions," but my notion is that trades unions get beyond their legitimate sphere when they profess to lay down the law not simply for themselves but for the masters and the non-union men also. 3300. Your objection then is not to the unions in themselves but to the unjust and tyrannical manner in which you consider they use their power? — Exactly so. 3301. {Mr. Roebuck.) If a plasterer thinks that he can do bricklayers' work, and I am willing to employ him as a bricklayer, do you consider that a ground why other men should strike ? — No, I do not. 3302. Is tjiat not the ground on which trades unions strike ? — Very often, and that is why I ob- ject to their action ; but I did not understand Mr. Meri vale's question to refer to that ; I' understood him to ask whether a plasterer, or three or four plasterers, who might be asked by a master to do bricklayers' work, would not have a perfect right to say, " No, that is not our work, and we will not do it." But if a man wa? brought up to both trades and could do eithei; brickwork or plasterers'. work, or even if he had not been brought up to bricklaying, but the master thought Inin ca.joabrp.bf doing it, the .'case wOuld bfe diflferent. .,„/ „.^ ^ '"'."''.. iSO^. Tl^ai is'tEe Very question I want to dsk yori. If the master chooses to employ him as a bricklayer, Mr. A. Mault. he having been formerly a plasterer, do you consider — • that a sufficient ground for five other men to say, " No, ^ ^ May 1 867. " we refuse to work while that man is employed as a " bricklayer " ? — I do not. 3304. In fact then you fancy that matter is a matter between that man and his master, and that nobody else has anything to do with it ? — Exactly so. 3305. {Mr. Harrison.) I am not sure that I quite understood, but I rather gathered that these cases of very oppressive interference with interchange of labour were on a somewhat small scale ; are there any of them embracing a great number of men ? — As far as the plasterers are concerned, their case embraces the whole of the union plasterers of the country. Wherever they are engaged they claim to do certain work, and claim to prevent all other people from doing that particular work. 3306. I am speaking now of those obviously un- reasonable restrictions where men object to others doing work which they are themselves confessedly unable to do, and I ask whether those cases apply to a few men on a small job, or whether you have known that such cases have been supported by the general union or by any considerable branch of it, and may fairly be considered to represent the policy of the union ? — As far as the plasterers are concerned, there is no doubt that it is the poHcy of the union, because it is expressed in their rules. If you refer to the par- ticular cases that I have given you, with the exception of that Case of the labourers where I daresay there were 300 or 400 men employed upon the job, they were cases in which but comparatively few men were involved. 3307. We have heard, I think, from nearly all the secretaries that it is quite an understood thing that as a general rule each of these large unions set their face against the employment of men who are not recognized members of their trade. That we understood; and there is no question about that being the general principle. What I wish to ask you is, whether taking- such a gross case of utterly unreasonable injustice as you have mentioned, you can fairly bring home any such cases to the general body of any union of plasterers. You say distinctly, do yoii, that that is a part of the policy of their society '?—^ And it is so generally a rule among the masons that it is evidently part of their pohcy, but I cannot give you any evidence of a strike having taken place under that rule which has been supported by the general funds. If you were to give one time I daresay I might trace out their actual connexion, but as far as the masons are concerned, the whole of their documents are secret documents ; and when I obtain possession of them I obtain possession of them in what they consider an underhand manner and what is really an underhand manner, and only very seldom indeed ; and it would be consequently very difficult for me to trace through the accounts any one particular case so as to bring it actually home to the union. 3308. With non-union men do you find any difficulty in putting chem alternately to aiiy kind of work which they are really capable of ? — No difficulty whatever. 3309. You are aware, of course, that in, I think, all the professions and iij a great many of the occupations of business, the general principle is laid down that the members refuse to countenance interference in their work by persons who are not recognized members. I suppose that some of those rules are stringent and apparently as unreasonable as almost any which you have brought forward ? — Some of them I believe are. '3310. {Mr. Mathews.) If you admit the establish- ment of a bad precedent in any particular case is that a justification for the establishment of another bad precedent in another case ? — No, I think not. 331 ii {Lord Mcho.) You said that ' it was impos'- 'feible for a labourer to rise from the class of labourers, ,is that so ? — It is so as^far as these rules can be carried out. ■' ' . ' •331;^. .That istp say, 'wrhere there is a union there is very^reaib-'tiifflctllty for any labourer iii a district R 4 13G TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Mr. A Mault. -^vhere that union is powerful rising above the class of " " labourers ? — Very great. 1 4 May 18G 7. 3313. It was stated in the evidence of a former witness that the course in such a case for the labourer who wished to rise out of his class into a higher class, was for him to go to some other part of the country where no union existed. Would that be the only way in which he could rise ? — I should think so ; and I have knov^u many cases in which that course has been iictually pursued. I have had men in my own employ- ment as laboiirers, who have left meand have come back to me after two or three years as bricklayers. 3314. They had gone and qualified as bricklayers in a district where there was no union ? — Yes. 3315. Have the labourers a union of their own? — Yes. 3316. Is there ever a strike of the labourers against the bricklayers, or against any of their rules ? — I have never heard of such a case. The strike is against the masters. 3317. (Mr. Harrison.) Have the labourers union ever formally objected to this action on the part of the bricklayers union ? — Not that I am aware of. On the contrary, I think that there is a very good under- standing between the labourers union and the brick- layers union, and I have already given some instances in which they have taken joint action for the support of each others rules. 3318. (Earl of Lichfield.) Do you mean by that that the labourers approved of that rule of the brick- layers? — No, I do not mean to say that ; but I mean to say that as far as that particular rule is concerned I have no evidence that the union labourers object to it. But in reference to something which Mr. Har- rison said, I was going on to say that I believed there was a very good understanding between the labourers union and the bricklayers union, as I have known cases in which the labourers have supported the brick- layers in a strike, for one of the bricklayers union laws, and vice versa, that the bricklayers and masons have supported the labourers union in a strike for the enforcement of a labourers union law. 3319. {Mr. Roebuck.) These two unions then have conspired together against the public ? — They have united for a common object. 3320. {Earl of Lichfield.) How do you account for the labourer approving of a rule of the bricklayers which, as you say, prevents that labourer ever be- coming more than a labourer ? — I really cannot account for it. As I have said, I do not know that the labourers approve of that particular rule, but I have never heard of any action that they have taken against it, and I cannot at all account for the friend- liness between the two unions under the existence of such a rule as that. 3321. {Mr. Harrison.) Have you known any case where the bricklayers' union have objected to this rule, which you say is common to all branches of the masons' union, prohibiting the employment of brick- layers on stonework ? — I do not know of any case. 3322. {Lord Elcho.) Which is the most powerful union of the t*o ? — The masons ; the masons is a single union, and the bricklayers have two unions. 3323. My question had reference to the union of the bricklayers as compared with the union of the la- bourers ? — The union of the bricklayers is a very great deal more powerful than the other. 3324. And is the most wealthy society of the two, I suppose ? — I should think so, though I have never seen the accounts of the labourers' union ; I know that in many cases the labourers follow the lead of the bricklayers entirely ; they strike when the brick- layers strike, and they refrain from striking when the bricklayers settle their grievance. 3325. In any question of dispute between these two societies, the labourers' society and the brick- layers' society, is it your impression that the labourers would have to succumb ? — Yes. 3326. So that an assent on the p art of the labourers' society to a rule on the part of the bricklayers' so- ciety, which rule is apparently hostile to the labovu-ers, would be somewhat like that assent of the employers, Avhich you have mentioned before, to a rule of the operatives at Darlington ? — It might be so. 3327. {Mr. Harrison.) Do you know what induce- ment the bricklayers have to give efiect to that rule of the Brickmakers' Union to which you have referred ? — Yes, the inducement is evidently this : that in the time of a bricklayers' strike the brickmakers should support them by refusing to make bricks for any master who is selling bricks to the masters against whom the strike is directed. 3328. {Mr. Roebuck.) Then that is a conspiracy of the two Unions against the public ? — It seems so. 3329. {Earl of Lichfield.) Bearing on the question of the arbitrary definition of work, I think you said that it applied to the plasterers throughout the country ? — Yes. 3330. But in a code of rules that has been agreed to at Wolverhampton one rule is, " that each master " shall have power to conduct his own business in the " matter of employment of any man he thinks fit on " any work he considers him capable of doing." Therefore in that case it does not apply ? — In that case the rule that you have read is a rule agreed to by masters and men, but what I have given to you are not the trade rules of the district but the lodge rules — that is to say, the rules of the union itself, and if that rule is faithfully carried out it overrides those lodge rules. 3331. Since these rules have been agreed to at Wolverhampton that rule has been acted upon which I have just read to you ? — I suppose it has, indeed I have no doubt it has. 3332. Is not that, as far as this particular society is concerned, a proof of the advantage to be derived from this system of arbitration with an umpire ? — I think it is a great proof of it, and of course that rule (which I also drafted) which you have read was for the very purpose of putting an end to the operation of the rule which I have referred to as being a lodge rule. 3332a. What is your next point ? — My next point is that the unions hamper and restrict trade by endeavouring to enforce unreasonable and foolish trade rules. In reference to that, the first point, I should wish to call the Commissioners' attention to is this, — You have heard in evidence from different parts of the country that different systems of reckoning time are in vogue in different districts, and that in London and in some other places time is reckoned and wages paid by the hour. It is the feeling of the builders of the country generally that it is very desirable that this system of payment by the hour should become universal. Before the agitation that has been caused by trade unions in reference to shortening the hours of labour arose, of course it was no matter how time was paid, whether by the day or by the week, or by the hour, because the week's work meant 60 hours, and the day's work meant 10 hours, and of course the hour's work was an hour's work. But now all over the country there is so very great a variation in the length of the day, and even in the same place there is so great a variation in the length of the day at different seasons of the year and during different days of the week, that the masters are greatly perplexed in the proper keeping of their accounts, and to a certain extent an injustice is done to the public. Of course the public do not like to lie under a sense of having an injustice done to them, and they have taken means to protect them- selves in this way, that as far as they can help it they will not have work done upon any of the short days, and I have known many cases in which builders have had to find Saturday's work for their men on their own premises, simply because other people would not have them on what they considered a short day. And beyond that a general feeling has arisen that it is very undesirable, apart from the influence of the season, to have work done during the winter, because during the winter the public can only get a short day's labour out of every TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 137 man who is sent to do their work, and the result naturally is that usually during summer we have had more work than we could get people to do, and that during the winter we have had more people to do work than we could find work for them to do ; and so the operation of the system has told quite as much against the workman as it has told against the master. The masters of the country saw that the only fair and proper way out of the difficulty was to pay the wages aud chai'ge the time that their men made by the hour, because, although the day differed during the week and during the year, the hour was always the same. But the men, and especially the masons, have talcen a most unreasonable prejudice against it. I never heard them advance anything like a satisfactory reason, and the only thing like a reason (it was more a prejudice than a reason) has been the idea that because the masters are very anxious for it there must be something contrary to the interest of the men in it. And I am sorry to bring that forward as a proof of the chai-acter of the intercourse that takes place between masters and men since the establish- ment of trades unions. I have heard the masons say deliberately that they thought that the masters must have something in the background, aud that there was some attempt going to be made by means of this pay- ment by the hour upon the privileges of the men. 3333. (3//-. Hughes.) Then you entirely ditfer from the evidence which was given by Mr. Piper and Mr. Smith ; they gave us evidence that the payment by the hour had been agreed to by the men ? — Yes, in London, but not in the country. 3334. Then your experience is that that which has been agreed to in London has been resisted in the country ? — Yes, I am very glad to have an oppor- tunity of repeating that in what I am about to say, I do not refer to London at all, and that we in the country would be very glad if we were in the same position as the masters in Loudon are. One of our arguments in favour of this hour system is, that the very trades which object to it in the country actually work under it and seem to woi'k peaceably and satisfactorily under it in London. To show how masters are put to most unreasonable inconvenience (to say nothing else) under this opposition to the hour system, I should like to read a rule which the men propose in order to obviate what they consider and what they see to be the injustice of paying for all days alike, and to allow the masters to charge for smaller portions than a day according to a fair scale. It is a rule which the men propose to the masters at Wolver- hampton, to adopt as far as the reckoning of time is concerned. 3335. {Earl of Lichfield.) Are you alluding to the masons ? — Yes, the stonemasons. They proposed this rule that I am about to read to the masters. The masters proposed to the men that all time should be reckoned and paid for by the hour, and that under the hour, instead of the masters taking advantage of the men, they would give the men the opportunity of commencing work at any hour they liked, so that a man need not necessarily lose a quarter of a day be- cause he has lost five minutes or a quarter of an hour in the morning. 3336. Before you go into that will you tell us whether there is a strike at this moment between the masons and the master builders of Wolverhampton ? — There is. 3337. And has that strike been caused by this rule that you are going to refer us to as proposed by them ? — More in reference to what is involved in this rule than anything else. The masters and men have agreed to the scale of wages, but the men positively refuse that that shall be reckoned by the hour. They insist that it shall be reckoned only by the week. The rule (and this is really a sample rule of some that I shall leave with the Commissioners) is this • — " That " during the summer months, for the first five days in " the week, quarter time shall be 9 o'clock, half time " half-past 11 o'clock, three-quarter time 3 o'clock. " On Saturdays quarter time shall be 20 minutes to 18425. " 8 o'clock, half time a quarter to 10 o'clock, three- Mr.A.Mault,- " quarter time 20 minutes past 11 o'clock. That '— " during the winter months, for the first five days in the l*_^y^"' " week, quarter time shall be 20 minutes to 10 o'clock, " half time a quarter to 12 o'clock, three-quarter time " 10 minutes to 3 o'clock. On Saturday quarter time " shall be 20 minutes past 8 o'clock, half time a " quarter past 10 o'clock, three-quarter time 20 " minutes to 12 o'clock." That is to say, the masters are expected to keep their books in accordance with such a complicated system as that. Some of their systems are still more complicated by the fact that Saturday is not the only short day, but that Monday as well is a shorter day than the others, and that in this rule there would have to be another set of clauses introduced defining what quarter time, half time, and three-quarter time was upon Monday, at different times of the year as well as upon other days of the week. All over the country the masons very per- sistently refuse, as far as they can, to have their time measured under any other system than this system that I have hinted at here, of days and quarter days, and under that they are quite prepared to sacri- fice the hour or two's work which a man must neces- sarily lose if he does not come exactly at the quarter time or half time, and cannot reckon his time until the next quarter time or the next half time comes round. To show still further how inexplicable this feeling on the part of the masons is, I need only refer to the fact that not only in London do the masons work, and apparently cheerfully work, under the hour system, but that in Scotland they do so also ; and one of the greatest strikes that ever took place in Scotland among the masons was many years ago in Glasgow, when the men actually struck for the hour system, and both there and at Edinburgh they now work under the hour system. 3338. Are we to understand that the strike now existing at Wolverhampton is in consequence of the masters not having agreed to that rule which you have read ? — I think that this rule in its very wording here had been withdrawn, but the strike only occurred on Saturday, and I have received a short note stating that it had occurred, and that the masons have struck out in the rules which they sent in their ultimatum to the masters all reference to payment by the hour. I do not think that this rule was embodied in their ultimatum, though I cannot say positively ; but this was the rule which was sent first, and I shall put in a great many masons' rules before the Commission which contain just such a rule as this. I only give this as a sample of the ordinary w y in which they work, but in reference to that strike I can say definitely that the strike is quite. as much or more on the question of the men's being paid by the hour as on anything else, because on the question of wages the masters and men came to an agreement in the early part of last week. 3339. And the masters conceded to the men a rise of from 30s., I think it is, to 32.s., or at any rate a rise ? — They conceded a rise. I do not know exactly the sum, but they did give a rise. 3340. And that was agreed to ? — It was agreed to on both sides. 3341. The strike has taken place in consequence of the masters not agreeing to some rule such as you have read ? — That is one of the points of it. There are one or two other points also from what I can gather, but with regard to the great stand that the masters are maldng (though perhaps I should not say this, because it as it were lets out their feeling on the matter, and they want to make a bargain on it of course), their feeling is that they would be all right if they could insure payment by the hour ; they could then understand exactly what the men wanted when they wanted either a rise of wages or a shortening of hours of labour. I believe that the masters would yield on the other points if they could only secure payment by the hour. And I should say this, that to meet the prejudices of the men the masters, in the rule which they proposed to the men, offered to pay the men by the week, and just simply stated what number S 138 TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — 3IINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Mr.A.Mault. of hours tlie week consisted of, and that the wages which they offered to the men amounted to so many 1 4 May 186 7. pence per hour. 3342. (Mr. Hughes.) When you say that this is a sample of the ordinary way in which the Unions act in your district, you of course except those places where the code is in force ? — But that code is not in force with reference to the masons, and I am speaking only of the masons ; under no circumstances have the masons accepted arbitration. If the Commissioners wish it I could very easily read one or two of the masons' rules. 3343. {Earl of Lichfield.) As a fact it comes to this, I think, that at Wolverhampton, taking the four trades connected with the building trade — the masons, the joiners, the bricklayers, and the plasterers — out of those four trades three have agreed to arbitration, and they are bound by a code of rules which are drawn up and fixed on the 1st of May every year, but the masons up to this time have declined to join in that system. That is so is it not ? — That is so. 3344. And you say that one reason for their refusing to join in that system is that they object to that rulo as to working by the hour, which is admitted by the other trades, the joiners, the plasterers, and the brick- layers ? — Yes. 3345. That you say is one reason for the masons in this case objecting to join in the system of arbitration ? — That is so. 3346. {Mr. Harrison.) Do not the masons in the Yorkshire towns work by the hour ? — In one York- shire town (it may be Bradford) I believe they work by the hour. In Leeds I am told that the joiners and bricklayers only work by the hour. 3347. {Earl of Lichfield.) The rules that are adopted in the building trade at Wolverhampton have to be fixed on the 1st of May every year?— They come into force then. 3348. And if any alteration is proposed on either side notice has to be given before the 1st of January ; that is so, is it not ? — That is so. 3349. This year, with regard to the three trades, the plasterers, the joiners, and the bricklayers, a question arose before the 1st of May between the men and the masters as to an application that the men had made for a rise in wages ; is that so ? — That is so. 3350. In consequence of the masters having pointed out to those three trades that the state of the trade would not justify a rise in wages, were the men satis- fied and wiU they continue at the same rate of wages as they have been receiving dm-ing the past year ? — Not simply on the representation of masters but upon an arbitration before an umpire ; the umpire decided that the masters had made out their case, and that the men had not made out theirs. But the men in all those three trades have accepted the decision of the ai'bitrator, and no rise has taken place. 3351. That point then was decided by the umpire ? — It was decided by the umpire. 3352. Under the arbitration clause ? — Yes. 3353. {Mr. Hughes.) And the men accepted it ? — Yes, the men accepted it and acted on it. 3354. {Mr. Roebuck^) Who was the umpire ? — Mr. Kettle. 3355. {Earl of Lichfield.) It comes to this, that those men continue from the 1st of May 1867 to the 1st of May 1868 at the rate of wages which they have been receiving during the past year ? — Yes. 3356. The masons also applied for a rise of wages, and that has been conceded by the masters ? — Yes. 3357. Does it not appear to you unfair that the masters should have given a rise of wages to the masons when they objected to a rise of wages for the other three trades in consequence of the state of trade not justifying that rise ? — It does on the face of it, but (though what I am going to say I am not quite sure about) it is my impression that as far as the masons were concerned they were not quite in the same position as the other trades were ; the other trades last year received an advance of wages, and my im- pression is that at that time the masons did not, and that consequently they were not in the same position as it were in the comparative amount of their wages. I am not quite sure upon that point, but if that im- pression is wrong I quite agree with you that it was unjust to the other men and very weak on the part of the masters to give way to a trade that would not accept arbitration, while they would not give way to others which did accept it. 3358. {Mr. Roebuck.) The case which the masters accepted and the men accepted was decided by arbi- tration, was it not ? — Yes. 3359. Therefore you cannot import the question o injustice into that case at all? — No, I do not ; but it seems to me to be like a premium offered to men not to accept arbitration. 3360. That is as regards the other men, but the question put to you was as regards the question which was submitted to arbitration and settled by arbitration. Into that question you cannot import the question of injustice at all, because arbitration settled it ? — Yes ; but I understood Lord Lichfield to ask whether there would not be injustice to those who had accepted arbitration in giving an advantage over them to those who had refused it. 3361. {Earl of Lichfield.) Would it not appear to you unfair that when the masons held out, they not having consented to this system of arbitration, the masters should give them a higher rate of wages after they had refused it to the three other trades, on the ground that the state of trade did not justify it ? — I quite agree in that. 3362. You are the secretary of the association of the masters who have agreed to these rules with the men ; it is a branch of your association ? — It is. The masons also have what we consider a very unrea- sonable objection (but it is not so universal an objec- tion as the other, it only exists in certain parts of the country) to work by artificial light under any circum- stances. As I have said, this objection does not extend to all districts, and last year the masters of Nottingham expected that it was not to extend to their district, because the men on the occasion of the agreement to certain trade rules agreed that in all shops where artificial light was provided they would work during the winter the same length of hours as they did during the summer. Under the operation of that rule the Nottingham masters put gas into aU their shops, but when the winter came on the men refused to work in the shops where artificial light was pro- vided, and they went so far as actually to have a general strike against it. Another case, which is very similar to some that I have mentioned before, has reference also to the masons. It occurred at Bradford with a large firm of contractors there, Messrs. J. and W. Beanland. They say, " We required some stone " bands to set in the centre of granite shafts. The " stone for these and for caps to the same columns " had to come through Leeds on their way to Brad- " ford ; and as the carvers' shop was at Leeds we had " them delivered there to work, but when the first " lot came on the works finished a strike of masons " ensued, and we not only had to send for the rest " undone, but had to set a mason to spend about two " days playing with those finished by the carvers " before this matter could be settled." Now, carving is not work which is done by masons at all ; it is a special branch of the trade done by men who are not masons in the ordinary sense of the word, but are paid at a much higher rate. In fact they are artists, and some of them very skilful artists indeed. In this case, as has been already stated, Messrs. Beanland had actually to allow men to stand over these carved blocks and pretend to work the moulded part of them during the time that they mentioned before they could set them, and for the future they had to bring their stone from the quarry (I believe Pateley Bridge quaiTy) through Leeds to then- works at Bradford, and partly work it there, then send it back to Leeds and have the carvuig done there, and then have it brought back again to Bradford to be set, before they were allowed TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION : — MINUIES OF EVIDENCE. 139 to set this stone at all upon the work they were engaged in. 3363. {Mr. Harrison.) When you speak of men standing over the blocks you mean not working, not doing anything at all ?— Not doing anything. I should explain that the oscasion which they had to send it backwards and forwards was this — ^they had largo contracts under the same architect, Mr. Gilbert Scott, going on at the same time both at Bradford and at Leeds, and it so happened that the establishment of their carvers, Messrs. Maw and Ingle — the people to whom they let carving — was at Leeds, and they had to play this game simply because the masons in Bradford refused to set any stone upon which any work what- ever had been done at Leeds. Of course the Commis- sioners have already received evidence of the indispo- sition that the men have to work overtime. This indisposition is very often carried to such a length as very seriously to interfere with the trade of masters. I have known a case in which they have refused to work on to clear away scaffolding from a market-place, though they knew perfectly well that the space was wanted, and that the master would very likely get into trouble with the town authorities for not clearing it away. In regard to another point in connexion with the same question they are also very unreasonable in many places — namely, in refe- rence to what is called walking time. The masters all over the country acknowledge that when a man is asked to walk any distance to his work that walking forms part of the day's labour, and they are willing to take their share of the payment of it, and consequently the usual regulation in the country (but it is not so in London, for the masters pay no walking time here) is that the men walk one way in their own time and the other way in the master's time. In many places they have turned and twisted this rule very much to the injury of the masters. For instance, they have in many places intei-preted it that every person who is employed on any job that is at a distance from the head-quarters of the master shall be allowed walkmg time whether he requires it or not. Here is an actual case, which I may give as an illustration : this is from Messrs. McCann and Everal, contractors, at Malvern, who are contracting to do the masonry for the new County Asylum at Powick. They say, " We have a " contract in hiind at the County Asylum, at Powick, " where masons were employed who lived or lodged in " the neighbourhood. Other masons from Worcester " (four miles distant) applied on the job for work, and " were set on ; these latter sent a deputation to us to " demand walking time, which as far as they were con- " cerned was conceded, but they then required that the " men who were living near the work should have " walking time also ; that is, that they should not com- " mence work until the Worcester men arrived. This " we felt we could not grant, and we were soon informed " that if we did not yield to this demand all the masons " on our several works wonld be withdrawn. This " has been done, and the works have now been at a " standstill for more than a fortnight." 3364. {Mr. Mathews.) What is the date of that ? —The 29th of March 1867. 3365. {Earl of Lichjield.) That is a case where men from the town of Worcester were employed together with men who were brought there, and lodging in the neighbourhood ? — ^Yes, or lived in the neighbourhood. 3366. Would you be very much surprised to hear of a case where the men were brought from a distance and were living close to the work, and where no men were employed from the neighbouring town, but where the master stiU had to pay for the time that would be required by the men to walk from the town to that work ? — Well, I cannot say that I should be surprised at anything of that kind. 3367. {Mr. Hughes.) That which you have just read is, of course, the masters' account of the reason of this strike ? — I gave it as such. 3368. Is there any other reason alleged by the men for the strike ? — Not that I am aware of. 3369. It was simply in consequence of this walking time ? — This is the only account that I have heard of Mr. A. Mault. it at all. Another matter in connexion with this sub- ject is the habit that the men have in a very great l* May 1867. many towns of setting boundaries from which this walking time shall be reckoned, taking some point in every direction as regards the town. They fix upon some spot arid require that the men shall be there at the same time that the other men are in the shops, and that they shall commence their walking time from that point. They carry this out in a very unreasonable manner in very many towns. They absolutely require the men to be at one or the other of these points, although in getting to the point they may have to actually pass the place where they are going to be at work. That is actually the case at Darlington, and I shall put in many rules which make it appear that the same is the case in many other places. As far as Darlington is concerned, I know that that is done there regularly every day still. The men have a certain starting place, and they must go there and be there at a certain time, although they have to pass the actual work where they are to be employed. In reference to both these matters, of course it is evident on the face of them that they are a great restriction of trade, but perhaps the Commissioners will allow me to mention one particular point in which it acts so, namely, that it places town masters at a very unfair disadvantap'e in regard to country masters as regards all this work to be done in the country. A country master has not only to pay actually less rates of wages, but he has in his favour this additional charge which men place upon their masters in town, by making them pay extra wages actually, though called walking time, to the country labourers or country artisans who are employed side by side with the town artisans on these different works. 3370. {Chairman.) I do not quite follow you ? — A master, if he is a country master, gets his work done simply, but if he is a town master he has not only to pay increased rates of wages to his town men whom he takes into the country, but he is obliged also to alloiv the country men whom he engages on the work to waste part of their time until the town men arrive on the job, so that I say that he is placed in a very unfair position as regards his competing with the country master for work. 3371. Does that fall within the general principle that work to be done must not be done within too short a space of time ? — I do not know that it does that, but it makes it very difficult for a master who lives in a town to get work in competition with the master who lives in the country. 3372. I do not understand what purpose it answers, but as I understand the country workmen employed by a town master must stand still till the town work- men have come up ? — Just so. 3373. What effect has that except hindering the country workmen from doing work when they might do it, and thereby making the work last over a longer time ? — It has that effect undoubtedly. 3373a. Will you proceed, if you please ? — To give another instance of the way in which the masons interfere with the masters in the conduct of their business, in many districts they claim to have a voice in the rating of the wages of all men employed. For instance, at Sheffield, this is the rule : " No waller or " builder of stone shall be paid less than 33*. per " week, when considered a skilled workman, neither " shall an employer or foreman be allowed individually " to judge a man as to his qualification. But a meeting " shall be called of all the members on the job, who '■ together with the employer or foreman shall decide " the question. All members known to violate this " rule shall be fined at the discretion of the lodge." The same rule applies at Bristol, and the masons there say that it is a general rule of their society ; for Messrs. Beaven and Sons, who are at present building a large hotel at Bristol, where three or four strikes have oc- cun-ed have received this notice : — " Operative Masons' " Society, St. John's Porter House, Bristol, Dec. " 8th, 1866. — Messrs. Beaven and Sons. Gentlemen, " I am instructed by the committee to inform you S 2 140 TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Mr. A, Mault. " that the masons who ai-e -vvoi-ldng in your employ . " under the current rate of wages are for the future 14 May 1867. « to have their wages fixed by the foreman and the " men in conjunction with yourselves. That is the " rule of the masons' society, and one rule must be " adhered to as well iis another. At a general meet- " ing of the masons at Bristol held last Thursday " evening, December the 6th, it was unanimously " resolved that the committee should communicate " with you on the matter, and the wastes of the men " to be fixed as above slated. You will please attend " to the above and get the matter settled at once. " On behalf of the committee, I remain yours, &c. — '' James Wornell, Secretary." 3374. {Earl of Lichfield.) With regard to wallers, are wallers considered masons in all these cases ? — In this case they mean what in my part of the country we should call setters ; but, apart from the setters, in every part of the country there is a class of men who are called wallers or rough wallers, who do the rough rubble work of the couutry. 3375. Are they considered by the society's rules as masons ? — No, they are not. 3376. Then the rule as to the minimum rate of wages does not apply to them ? — It does not apply to them. 3377. {Mr. Hughes.) I thought you read out a rule that wallers were to have 33s. a week ? — Yes. 3378. Then it docs apply in tliat case ? — I meant that the masons' general rule as to the minimum rate of wages does not apply to the class that I designated as wallers in the second instance ; but in this par- ticular case these people who at Bristol are called wallers are what we should call setters, and are recognized by the Masons' Union as masons ; in fact, they are paid 3d. or Ad. a day more than the ordinary run of masons. 3379. Do they belong to the Masons' Union ? — Yes, they are masons, and they work at the banker when they are not setting. 3380. In other districts do the masons make rules for the wallers ? — Not for the wallers, according to my idea of the meaning of the term " wallers." 3381. You do not know that in other districts the masons' rules fix the wages for the wallers ? — I do not. I know many districts where they do not recognize the wallers as union men. Among the plasterers there are also some very curious rules which have the efiect of interfering unduly between master and man. For instance, amongst the Bradford plasterers' rules the 22nd rule is this : " That no " member be allowed to be at the shop or any job " more than 10 minutes before the time to start work " and not to leave his shop or start work before the " specified time, under a penalty of Is." Another rule, rule 27 is : " That no member of this society be " allowed to work for any firm consisting of more " than two masters, unless every j^artner's name is " publicly stated in full." 3382. {Chairman.) What does that mean? — I cannot really say what it does mean, but it has some meaning; and that strike which has been so often re- ferred to, the strike at Mr. Howroyd's, really took place under that rule, because the men held (and I do not know that they held wrongly) that the sons of Mr. Howroyd were in partnership with their father ; but their names were not put upon the signboard in front of the premises, and consequently the men said that their names must either be put up on the signboard or they must join their society. 3383. {Mr. Hughes.) Is Bradford in your district ? —Yes. 3384. Is this one of the rules in the Bradford Masters' Association : — " Eule 10. Should a strike of " the workmen of any member of this association " take place, it is hereby agreed and understood that " such workmen are not employed by any member of ." this association during such strike" ? — It may be so, I cannot say ; all that we have to do with local associations is to give them support in connexion with objects that are consonant with our rules, not theirs. 3385. But if you give them support and they are in alliance with you I do not think you can say that you ai'e not responsible foi' their action ? — We only give them support when they have accommodated themselves to our rules. 3386. {Mr. Harrison.) Is not the efiect of your evidence to hold the general association of masons liable for these little acts of oppression which go on in diflferent parts of the country, and respecting which not one word appears on their rules ? — Yes ; but if you desi)-e it I can read evidence to show that the masons' society does actually interfere in these cases. 3387. {Mr. Hughes.) I have heie a book on which I find printed this, " General Builders Association," which, I apprehend, is your association ? — Yes. 3388. I find also, " Bury branch rules," and I find one rule, for instance, to this effect : " That no member " of the branch association be allowed to let or sublet " the whole or any portion of any work or works to " any employer of labour who is not a properly " affiliated member of this society." Those rules are passed with your sanction, I suppose ? — ^No ; we have nothing to do with that. If a strike were to occur in connexion with such a rule as that we should have nothing to do with it. 3389. You are now bringing up what has been done in certain places by certain masons living there. You are aware that in the general code of the Masons' Association there are no rules such as you speak of, but in that respect they are in just the same position as your own association ? — I am not aware of that. 3390. Is it not exactly the same thing on both sides ? — Not at all. 3391. Will you explain why not ? — I will explain that. As far as the masons are concerned the masons have a set of objects that are embodied in their rules, and for the carrying out of those objects they allow their members to strike ; and when their members do strike they support them, and the costs of supporting the members who are out on strike under such circum- stances is entered into their accounts, and we can trace it, and they are all called legal strikes. But if there are other objects similar to those as to which I have given evidence which any local lodge of the masons choose to take the responsibility of striking about that local lodge has the power of appealing to a general vote of the society as to whether it shall be supported or not, and if the general vote of the society is given that those men shall be supported in this matter which they have taken on their own responsibility the expense of supporting that strike is placed under the head of illegal strikes ; and I find in their accounts that very large sums of money have been expended on these so- called illegal strikes ; and we find that go where we will for masons, when any one of these strikes is on the masons of the locality to which we go are per- fectly aware of the strike existing, and they make common cause with the men of the town in which the strike does exist. 3392. That is, putting it in other words, that when they approve they support their branches ; and I suppose it is just the same with you. When you approve you support your branches ; is not that so ? — No, because we never deviate from the rule which we have laid down. We say that we will support no association whatever until they have oflTered to the men to submit the matter in dispute to arbitration and the men have refused. 3393. Have you ever had that tested ? — Yes. 3394. In regard to that Kidderminster dispute where the masters refused to accept arbitration, the men having oflTered to abide by it, have they put the case before you ? — They have not put the case before me, and I have written to them after hearing of it from you to state that I was surprised at the course they had taken, and they very well know that we should not support them in it. 3395. Will you tell us any instance in which your society has enforced that rule ? — This year a strike TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION : — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 141 occurred at Blackpool. I believe it is still in existence. They sent to me a list of the names of the men on strike, and asked me to publish it under that rule which you read the other day. I at once wrote back to know the whole of the circumstances of the strike, as to whether they had referred the matter to arbitra- tion, and I found that they had not, and consequently I refused to have anything to do with it. 3396. {Mr. Harrison.) Your Genersil Builders' Association does not object to receive as one of its affiliated branches this Bury branch, of which I have the printed rules in my hand ? — They do not object to receive any branch whatever that will ac- commodate itself to the rules which they publish. 3397. The Bury branch of the Builders Association have printed their rules, and the 15th rule is : " That " no member of the branch association be allowed to " let or sublet the whole or any portion of any work or " works to any employer of labour who is not a properly " affiliated member of this society." Now, I ask you, has your general association objected to receive the Bury branch as part of its organization whilst that rule remains in ? — They have not, because if you wUl read our rules there is one which sets forth distinctly that we will not interfere in the local affairs of any branch except at the invitation of that branch. If they were to ask us what our opinion is about that rule we should give them, I have no doubt, exactly the same opinion as you would, namely, that it is a monstrously unfair and impolitic rule. , 3398. Does not your association exist for the pur- pose of affording mutual support to a number of branch associations in the country ; some of which certainly have, and all of which may have, such rules as that which I have just read? — ^No, not so generally as you put it. It is established for the purpose of giving them support under certain parliculax circumstances, and for certain particular objects, but we cannot inter- fere ; we do not allow ourselves to interfere in any- thing beyond the definite objects for which the asso- ciation is established. 3399. And I ask, does not the General Masons' Union permit its local branches to make such local rules as they think fit, just in the same way ? — No. 3400. What is the difference ? — That before any local branch can make any rules those rules must be referred to the central committee and published in the fortnightly return of the masons, and approved by a majority of the votes of the whole of the masons in the country. 3401. Then the local rules, such as those of the Bury Branch Builders' Association, are not transmitted to the central committee of the Builders Association, of which you are the secretary ? — They are not. I have nothing whatever to do with them. 3402. Then it comes to this, that you afford all the benefits of your association to a number of local asso- ciations without ever looking into their rules or satis- fying yourselves whether they are just or unjust ? — We do not afford them our support in reference to those unjust rules. We afford them support in refe- rence to certain points, exactly as the police of the country afford support to the rogues of the country, as far as they go on with a respectable and honest busi- ness ; and we hold ourselves no more responsible for the foolish and unreasonable and wrong rules of these people, whom we support on certain other points on which we think them right, than the police of the country hold themselves responsible for the goings on in other respects of some people to whom they afford support. 3403. {Earl of Lichfield.') You say that you know nothing about those rules, but do you object to give us your opinion of that rule, and state to us the grounds upon which you think that that rule has been adopted ? — ^I have no doubt that it has been adopted on the same ground upon which a great many trades union rules have been adopted, namely, with this view, if not actually to coerce members of the trade in the town who are not members of the association to join the association, at least to offer a kind of premium to those who will join the association by the expectation that Mr. A. Mault. the work in the town will be limited to those who have joined the association. I see no other reason. 14 May 1867. 3404. Do you suppose that that rule has been passed with reference to any of the operations of the trades unions ?— I do not know. I should say that that association, as far as that rule goes, is a trade union too. 3405. When was it adopted ?— I really cannot say ; but I can say this in reference to those rules, that the Bury branch asked me to draft them rules, and I did draft rules for them, but they contained nothing of that sort. 3406. You have drawn this distinction, that the rules of the branch in one case according to your account must be agreed to by the majority of the whole society ; while in the other case the rules of the branch are not even known to the central association represented by you ? — They are not necessarily-known to them. 3407. They are in no way responsible for them, and they will in no way assist their members in enforcing rules which are not consistent with the rules of the central society ? — That is so. 3408. {Mr. Hughes.) But if in the case in question they had offered to go to arbitration you would have helped them ? — No ; because I have said that in the matter of wages we would have nothing whatever to do ; the general committee have shut that out alto- gether. But in other matters every question that comes up is discussed on its own merits^ and if it is a dispute of general importance, or if it involves a principle of general importance, the association will take it up, provided that the men have refused arbi- tration. 3409. And provided that it does not relate to wages ? — Yes, and a great many other things. 3410. You have struck out the whole of the wages question ? — We have struck out the whole of the wages question. 3411. {Mr. Harrison.) Piece work is not included, I suppose ? — If the dispute was a matter of piece work that matter is not excluded. 3412. {Mr. Hughes.) Or overtime ? — Or overtime. 3413. But overtime is a matter of wages ? — It is ; but as to the direct amount to be paid we say that the masters of the place must know a great deal more of it than any one central authority. 3414. But supposing there to be a dispute between masters and men as to piece work in any particular town, and the masters had offered to submit it to arbi- tration, your association would support the masters ? — ^Probably it would ; such a case has not arisen, but probably it would. 3415. {Mr. Harrison.) It is not bound to do so ? — No, it is not bound to do so, but in such a case as that I have no doubt it would. There is another case, however, and I should say that more strikes really take place in reference to this point than almost any other, and that is the kind of notice that should be given for an alteration. If the men of any town were to break through, a rule in which they had agreed with their masters to give them three or six months' notice, what- ever it was, before they would ask for an advance of wages, and were to take advantage of a master by telling him one Saturday night that on the next Satur- day, unless he paid them an additional rate of wages, they would strike, and the master were to resist, I have no doubt that on that question, although wages were involved in it, whether the master were right or wrong on the wages question, the general association would support the local association. I have another case in reference to unreasonable rules among the plasterers. 3416. (Chairman.) That is to say unreasonable usage, not expressed in rules I suppose ? — In ^ this case I have the original documents ; it is a continua- tion of that case which I referred to about a master in Bolton being asked to discharge his apprentices rather than discharge a member of the society. The letter that I have received from the manager of the S 3 142 TRADES UNIONS, ETC, COMMISSION: — 3IINDTES OF EVIDENCE. Mr. A. Mault. U May 1867< works is this : — " About two months ago we had to " reduce by two our number of plasterers engaged " upon a job in Bolton, thus leaving two apprentices " and one man with two labourers on the job. In a " few days, however, after the discharge of these two " men, a deputation of two men from the Bolton " branch of the National Association of Operative " Plasterers waited upon our manager, Mr. Wadeson, " at the office in Bolton, to know if he would dis- " charge our two apprentices, who, with one man, " were still at work upon the job from which the two " men had been discharged. No reason whatever " being given yrhj this singular request should be " complied with, he (Mr. Wadeson), after referring " to the code of rules supplied to us by the union, " and not finding any rule to the effect that an " employer having journeymen and apprentices " engaged upon a job, and finding it necessary after " a time to reduce that number by the discharge of " his two apprentices, leaving the journeymen (how- " ever incompetent) in indisturbed possession — I say, " finding no rule to that effect — he very naturally " refused to comply. We then hear no more of the " matter until we find the joiners' work in a sutfi- " ciently forward state to warrant us in resuming " operations, and upon doing so we send men for that " purpose, who, however, soon return to say that the " job is on strike, and they will be paid to keep away. " Upon making further inquiry, I find that Mr. C. " Williams, General Secretary to the National Asso- " ciation of Operative Plasterers Executive, Liverpool, " had been to instruct our man in charge of the work " to the following effect, viz., that he must not work " with any men on that job in Bolton unless such " men be paid Manchester rate of wages, which in " summer is 4s. per week more than Bolton rate. " And in addition to Mr. Williams's instructions, we " receive, after his visit to our man, the following " original document from the Manchester branch of " the National Association of which Mr. Williams is " the general secretary." That notice is this : — " Sir, I am instructed to inform you, in consequence " of some misunderstanding of late, now rectified, " between the Bolton and Manchester brethren of the " above association, respecting the employ of Messrs. " Lomas — that all plasterers who may be engaged " and employed at Bolton for Messrs. Lomas will " have to receive Manchester wages and usages, ex- " cepting lodging and travelling expenses, in aocor- " dance with our National Association laws. — I am, " sir, yours respectfully, Wm. Quirk, Secretary, " 29, Boond Street, Salford. Mr. Wateson." That of course means that because Messrs. Lomas hap- pened to have their head ofiice in Manchester, although they have a branch ofiice in Bolton, they are to do no work in Bolton unless they pay Manchester wages in Bolton. It is in fact to shut them out from employing any Bolton men whatever. There are other rules which act as great restrictions. Among the brickmakers, for instance, they try to limit the size of bricks all over the country to one standard. 3417. Is not the regular size 9 inches by 4^ by 3 ? — As they put it it is by the number of cubic inches ; usually 150 cubic inches. 3418. Do you mean that your grievance is that the society claim the brick to be 9 inches by 4-| by 3 ? — Our grievance is that the society try in any way whatever to limit it. 3419. {Mr. Hughes.) Is not that a very good thing ? — No, I think not. 3420. {Chairman.) That is the grievance ? — That is our grievance, and it is really a grievance, for this reason, that wo have often to do work in continuation of work which has been some time done. We are required to bond in with it by the architect, but we are met by the operative's union, which says, " You " shall not have any size bricks made whatever except " the size that is fixed by our standard." 3421. What do the brickmakers get by having a brick only 9 inches in length and refusing to have one of 10 inches in length ? — I cannot say, because special size bricks are usually paid for at a special price. 3422. {Mr. Mathews.) Is not the size the same size that was stipulated for under the old Excise Laws, 9 inches by 4^ by 3 ? — I think the Excise put it as you have put it, but the men do not, they put it by the cubical contents of the brick. But even then I am not putting the whole case ; they state that this size that they put down shall be the size of the moulds, not the size of the bricks when finished. 3423. I want to ascertain first whether it was not the old Excise rule ? — There was a certain size pre- scribed by that. 3424. Was not the prescribing of a certain size on the part of the Excise considered a great hardship on the building trades ? — It was. 3425. If that is the case, what reason is there for prescribing the size now ? — I can give no reason. 3426. Are there not many parts of a building where bricks of double the size would answer the purpose better ? — Of course there is a limitation beyond which a master does not find it to his interest to increase the size of the brick. If a brick takes two hands to lay, for instance, that is not to the interest of the master. 3427. I happen to know that it is the case in par- ticular works, that the cost of making and laying the bricks is very nearly the same while the size is double ; do you know of such cases ? — I know that for special works it is necessary that you should have a special size of brick made. 3428. So that in point of fact any interference by the workmen arbitrarily prescribing the size of the brick is to the inconvenience and the damage of the building trade ? — .Yes, that is why I raised the ques- ' tion at all. In some parts of the country the brick- makers insist that if the master comes upon the brick yard and takes an active part in the management of his own business he shall subscribe to the funds of the union. That is one of the rules of the Lancashire and Cheshire Union. I think that the association extends to Yorkshire, but any way it is one of the rules of the Lancashire and Cheshire Operative Brickmakers Union. I have got here one of their notices, signed and sent to the masters, the last clause of which is this : " And you must, if taking an active part on your " brick ground, contribute to this society, and you are " not to employ any non-society men in casting clay." 3429. In case the master brickmakers refuse to subscribe to that rule, what is the result ? — The result is that the men will not work for them. 3430. Has it the effect, then, of compelling the master to subscribe to the union ? — Yes. 3431. {Mr. Hughes.) Is that a good or a bad effect ? — A veiy bad effect ; the compulsory enlistment of the masters into the union can only have a bad effect. 3432. You say it can only have — do you know that it has r — I know that the masters themselves think it a great grievance. 3433. You cannot give us any particular instance in these districts in which it has worked badly ? — Of course I cannot do that ; but I can tell you that every gentleman who received that notice from the men which I have just read, looked upon it as a veiy great hardship indeed. 3434. {Mr. Mathews.) As a general rule do you consider that any rule which prescribes to a master an arbitrary concession to any demand made upon him is to his disadvantage ? — Of course. 3435. And in point of fact is tyrannical ?. — Yes. 3436. {Earl of Lichfield.) You do not think that the fact of an act being a good act in itself justifies a person in compelling another to do it ? — No. I refen-ed some time ago to the very arbitrary manner in which these men have mapped out the country into districts, and I promised a case in point. Messrs. Thomas Bates & Co., ai-e builders and brickmakers in Droyls- den, which is fom- miles from Manchester, and two miles from Ashton-under-Lyne, and has a population of about 9,000. They state, " Our brickyard is situated " on the bank of a canal that runs through the town- " ship, and the operative brickmakers of Manchester TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION : — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 143 ■" have thought fit to call the. canal the boundary line " of their district, and we are forbidden to sell or use " any of the bricks over that line, and it so happens, " that the only part of our townships where bricks are *' likely to be required in our day is on the other side " of this so-called boundary. We have now in stock " about 500,000 bricks in addition to a plant worth " 300/., which under existing circumstances is so " much dead capital. The whole of the bricks have " been made by union men, and according to union " prices, but in the so-called Ashton-under-Lyne dis- " trict, and they must be used either there or not at " all ; consequently we have been obliged to give up " the works and discharge the men." 3437. {Mr. Mathews.) In a former part of your evidence you alluded to the fact of the union fining the masters not only in the brickmakers trade but in other trades ; and if the masters refuse to pay that fine, the men are called out, so that in fact the master has to measure the amount of fine that he is willing to pay by the iuconvenience which attaches to him in case of his refusing to pay the fine at all ; is that the case ? — I think it is if I apprehend you rightly ; that is to say, the master has to elect whether he will undergo the payment of this fine or wiU take his chance of the detriment that will accrue to him fi'om not paying. 3438. And I think the fine is 21. ? — In the cases which I have mentioned it is. 3439. But if the union had chosen to fine the master 20/. he would have been equally obliged to pay the 20/. with the 21. provided the 20/. was less than the pecuniary inconvenience which he would have suffered by resisting the fine ? — ^Yes ; I can mention a case in point in which a master did pay considerably over 20/. In the case of the boundaries in Glasgow the Society of Plasterers there have a rule that beyond a certain boundary men should be on what are called country wages, that is to say that extra wages should be paid to them on account of their being sent out into the country to counterbalance their extra ex- penses. A master employed some men who were just over this boundary, and as these men had not to walk very far, he agreed with them to pay them town wages and not country wages as they were not entitled to country wages, except according to the strict letter of this law. But because he did that, the society imposed a fine upon him in the first instance, and then struck, after they had imposed the fine, and they would not withdraw the strike until he had paid the whole of the expenses, which amounted in that case to 40/. The result was that he paid that sum. 3440. Then the efiect is that these unions assume the right of imposing a penalty upon a master equi- valent to the penal obligations of a statute ? — Yes. 3441. {Mr. Harrison) But how do you explain it that a master who is subject to that species of fine does not employ the 90 per cent, of the workmen who strongly object to all this ? — I explain it in this way, that 10, or 15, or 20 per cent, (in the case of the plas- terers it is considerably more) who are thoroughly united for the attainment of any object are likely to attain it as against the rest who are not united at all, and have no common object, or no common means of pursuing the object, and who consequently, are really taken in detail. 3442. But the employers are associated ? — Yes, but as far as the men are concerned, the employers cannot protect the men from the influence which the united portion of them can bring to bear upon the disunited portion. 3443. {Mr. Hughes.) Why should not the masters use these ^§ths of the labourers, why should not they unite them, and why should not they make them able to fight the unions ? — I sincerely hope that they will do something towards that, but at present they have not done it. We have to deal with the thing as we find it now, and you wLU remember that we are still quite a young association. 3444. {Mr Harrison.) Do I rightly understand you to say this, that the masters who are associated in a general organization, and in branch associations, Mr. A. Mault. aud -whose interest is the same as that of the 90 per cent, of the workmen who are not in union, those ^'* ^^^ ^^*^* two classes together are not so strong as the 10 per ' cent, who are in union ? — They are not so strong as regards the protecting of the non-unionists from the unionists. The intercourse of master and man is comparatively speaking an occasional intercourse, the intercourse of man and man is a continual intercourse, and if five men in a shop of 50, unite and determine upon a particular course, and the rest of the men are disimited, both as regards this course and all other courses, the chances are that the influence of those five men will not be represented by the ratio between their number and the entire number. 3445. {Mr. Hughes.) But can you see how that could have lasted for these many years, unless the 90 per cent, had actually felt that the union was fighting their battle ? — Yes, I confess I can see it, but I do not know that my opinion on the subject is worth much. 3446. {Earl of Lichfield.) May I ask you whether your evidence does not refer to places where the unions are much stronger than 10 per cent, of the total num- ber of workmen ? — Undoubtedly. 3447. And although that is the average in the places you speak of, the unions are very much stronger than is represented by that average ? — That is the case. 3448. {Mr. Merivale.) If you suppose that a body of workmen amounting on an average to not more than 10 per cent, are able effectually to control, and to control for evil, the other 90 per cent, of the men and their employers too, how do you propose to remedy such a state of things ? — I am afraid that it would take too long to enter upon that question at this stage of my evidence. 3449. {Earl of Lichfield.) In the case of Wolver- hampton a higher rate of wages has been conceded to the masons after it had been refused to the three other trades. If the masons belonging to the Union in that district had not exceeded 17 per cent, of the total number employed, would that rise of wages have been conceded by the masters in that case ? — If the 17 per cent, had not used any what we call unfair influence upon the rest of them, I do not think it would have been conceded. As I have said, my opinion as to the manner in which the unionists have gained all this influence, irrespective of their intercourse, is perhaps not worth much ; but still, as it is my opinion, I may as well state it. I think that the secret of the power which these unionists have gained is the influence, both morally and physical, which they bring to bear upon the non-unionists at all times in which they differ in opinion. 3450. {Mr. Booth.) To go back to the brickmakers, I should like to ask you whether this is the same case that you have been referring to. A Manchester paper has been sent to me, which contains this state- ment : " There exists in Manchester a combination " between the bricklayers and the brickmakers of " Manchester to exclude all bricks not made within a " radius of four miles of Manchester. This system " of exclusion is carried on with the greatest method. " They have paid agents, and every cart of bricks " coming into Manchester is watched, and if it is " found that the bricks have come from without the " prescribed boundary, the bricklayers at once refuse " to work. Then every carter is threatened, and, in " short, every system that can be adopted and put " into practice, right or wrong, is carried out, so that " the brickmasters whose works lie within the " shortest possible limit of the prescribed boundary " are prevented sending bricks to Manchester what- " ever may be their quality, and no matter what may " be their price," — is that the case to which you have been referring ? — The case to which I have referred is undoubtedly part of the general statement that is there made. These people are just outside that four-mile boundary ; in fact their brick-yard is situated upon the very canal that forms the four-milo boundary at that part. 144 TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Mr. A. Mault. 14 May 1867. 3451. You have reason to think that that statement is well founded ? — I know that that statement is founded on fact. 3452. {Earl of Lichfield.) How do you account foi- the bricklayers and the brickmakers combining in a case like that if that statement is correct, because the exclusion can only affect the brickmakers ? — Yes, but it is as a means of strengthening both the one society and the other. If the brickmakers are on strike against the masters the bricklayers are most useful allies, because they at once refuse to set any bricks that the masters may buy from other yards where the strike does not exist. 3453. And do you know as a fact that the brick- makers in some cases decline to supply bricks to employers upon whose work there has been an infringement of the society's rules with reference to the employment of bricklayers ? — I can give you further on particular instances of that. 3454. {Mr. Merivale.) Do the brickmasters in the district assist the bricklayers at all in the combina- tion ? — No, I do not know that they actively assist, but they passively submit. I have a case or two in reference to another rule which the bricklayers in different parts of Lancashire especially have, namely, the rule that whenever a townmaster goes out to do any work one half of the men employed on that work must belong to the town from which the master goes, and that if the number is an uneven number, then the odd man must also belong to the town. The way in v/hich that is carried out is shown in a note which I have here, dated the 9th of April 1867, from Elizabeth Street, Cheetham, Manchester, and which is signed by the person actually involved in it — JMr. William Wildsmith. He says : " I am a master " bricklayer in Manchester. In November 1866 I " had the building of the Bury railway station, " and at that time the building trade was very " brisk in Manchester, and I used every means in " in my power to get men from Manchester to do the " work (in accordance with the rules of the Brick- " layers Society), but I could not succeed. I applied " to the men's club for them, but could get no assis- " tance. I therefore told my foreman to engage any •' bricklayer who might apply for work, provided he " belonged to the Bricklayer Society, but I specially " warned him not to offend the men in this respect. " Eleven men were thus engaged, when on the 17th •' of November two delegates from the Bricklayers " Society at Manchester came upon the job, and iu- " formed me that as I was a master bricklayer from " Manchester, I must employ as many men from " Manchester as I did from elsewhere, that is to say, " if I employed one man from Bury (where the work ■' was), I must employ on the same job one man from " Manchester. If I employed six men from Bury, I " must employ six men from Manchester, and if I '■ wanted 13 men, seven of them must come from " Manchester. In vain I pleaded that men could not " be had from Manchester ; these delegates told me •' distinctly that if I could not get Manchester men " the job must stop until I could; notwithstanding " the work was being pressed for every day. These " two delegates then read to me the laws of their " society under which they were acting, and con- '•■ eluded by asking me for their day's wages, amounting " to Is. each, and 3s. each for first-class railway fare " from Manchester for coming to give me what they " called their orders. I protested against this demand, " when these gentlemen told my foreman (in my pre- " sencc) that if he commenced working more on that " job or any other job for me until I had complied with " their demands in full, he would do so at his peril. " Consequently my work was stopped. I went to the " men's club-room on the 19th November 1866 to know " my fate, when I was told to comply with their laws, " and pay the sum of 20s. costs or all my other work " would be stopped on the following morning, and " that if such did occur I should have to pay all my " men full wages for all lost time (as though they had " been working) before I should be allowed to com- " mence business again. Under these circumstances I " was compelled to comply with their demands made of " me in order that I might carry on ray other work, " and further in order to prevent the contract of the " Bury station work being taken from me by delay, I " had to take men from my other jobs in Manchester " to work at Bury, at the very time that a large " number of bricklayers were out of work in Bury and " neighbourhood." The same rule applies at Livei-- pool as I said before. 3455. {Mr. Harrison.) In what trade ? — In the bricklayers trade. Among the Manchester rules that have been agreed to between the masters and men under the influence of pressure, there is a rule against the use of moulded bricks on any work ; of course having the intention of giving work to the bricklayers to cut the brick instead of its being moulded while in a soft state of clay. 3456. {Mr Hughes.) Referring to the rule which you were just speaking of, what do you suppose to be the object of that rule as to half of the men employed on a work being taken fi'om the town ? — I think it is for the purpose of carrying out that plan of raising wages which I referred to before as actually existing from the practice of large builders, especially large London builders going into the country. The result would be, that these men from Manchester who paid higher wages than the Bury men, would import higher wages into Bury, and afterwards the result would be, that the wages would be permanently raised. The Commissioners have repeatedly asked different witnesses in regard to the two-hand rule among bricklayers. I confess that in my own busi- ness I never met with any case in which that rule was actually in force, though I have often heard brick- layers speak about it, but since the evidence was published of one or two of the witnesses here, I have heard from a gentleman at Ashton, whose name I can give, that he, just to test it, asked one of his brick- layers to use both his hands, and the man at once told him that he could not, because if he did he would be fined by his club. And there is a Mr. Stone, a contractor at Newton-in-le- Willows, near Warrington, who has in his employment a man who was fined two years ago 10s. for using two hands to set a brick. I simply mention that to show that there is really in some parts of the country an opinion among the men themselves, if there is nothing else, that such a rule exists, and that consequently, so far as it goes, it prevents the men from working as they otherwise would. 3457. {Mr. Harrison.) It is not the proper way of working, is it ? — In some cases it is the proper way of working, but of course no contractor would ever ask his men to work with two hands if it were not. 3458. In that case which yovi have mentioned, he asked the man to do it as a test ? — Yes, but in many cases, for instance in thick work, after the two faces have been got up, and the whole of the inside has to be simply filled in, if a barrow of mortar were tipped down and spread about, and the men were to pick up bricks as fast as they could with both hands, and rub them well iu, the work would be just as well done, in fact better, than if they were to put them in one by one. 3459. {Mr. MatJieios.) And in grouted work that applies ? — Yes, in grouted work too. 3460. {Mr. Harrison.) Mr. Coulson and Mr. Howell told us that they had often done it under such circumstances, and that it was the proper way ? — ^Yes ; I only mention this as something that I have picked up in my inquiries, and which bears out the notion that that rule has some force. The only point that I wish now to make under this head is, that in many parts of the country the labourers have very foolish trade rules which act in this way. For instance, in many parts of the country (I can specify Heywood in Lancashire as one) the labourers have a rule that bricks shall not be taken to any work in anything except a hod ; that however easy it might TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 145 be to wheel the bricks in a -wheelbarrow, the bricks shall not be packed in a barrow. I know a case of the kind at Birmingham that caused a strike ; the master was doing some heavy work at the waterworks at the canal side, ho put some planks across from the boat and set some labourers to wheel tlie briclis from the boat right down to the place where they were to be used, but the labourers struck against it and said that they must be all unloaded in the ordinary way and stacked on tlie canal side and then carried by hod down to tlie works. Tliat is the whole of my case as far as those rules are concerned, and in fact as far as that general heading is concerned. 3461. 1 am not sure whether you rightly under- The witness stood a question which I put to you earlier in your jf^. yi. MauU. evidence. I did not ask you whether the Darlington rule had any reference to that particular machine of 14 May 1867. Coulter and Harpin's, but whether the paragraph about sawn stone had reference to every kind of machine made stone ? — I cannot interpret the rule any further than it goes. I do not think it has that meaning. 3462. Are there any rules which distinctly forbid the employing of machine-worked stone or machine- cut stone, because I cannot find them? — I do not know tliat I can give them to yon in writing, but I can give yon the fact of the prevention of the intro- duction of stone worked by machinery, withdrew. Adjourned to Tuesday next at 11 o'clock. 1. Park Prospect, Westminster, Tuesday, 21st May 1867. Present The Right Hon. Sir William Eele. The Eight Hon. the Eakl of Lichfield. LoKD Elcho, M.P. The Right Hon. Sir Edmund Walker Head, Bart., K.C.B. Sir Daniel GtOOCh, Bart., M.P. Herman Merivale, Esq., C.B. .Tames Booth, Esq., C.B. Thomas Hughes, Esq., M.P. Frederic Harrison, Esq. The Eight Hon. SIR WILLIAM ERLE in the Chair. Mr. John McDonald examined. 3463. {Chairman.) You are pi'esident of the Glas- gow Master Brickbuilders Association, I believe ? — ■ Yes. 3464. Has your society anyt'ning to do with stone building ? — No. 3465. Have you been an employer for any number of years ? — Sixteen fully. 3466. And before you were an employer were you a workman ? — ^Yes. 3467. Have you had experience of trades unions, and do you know their orgimization and tendency ? — - To some extent. 3468. Will you point out to the Commission what, from your observation, has been the tendency of trades unions ? — I may say at the outset that I have had a kind of outline of my evidence prepared, and my first statement is that their tendency is to establish a monopoly in labour. In the first place they act in that way by limiting the number of apprentices which a master might employ. That is a grievance of which we have had to complain for a considerable time in Glasgow, and considerable efforts have been made to have all restrictions on that matter removed. I may refer here to a report of the Master Brickbuilders Association published in November 1865, and with the leave of the Commissioners I wUl read the follow- ing extract from it : — " Your committee cannot close this report without " referring to the apprentice question, which has occa- '•' sioned considerable annoyance to several of the mas- " ters during the past year. For several years prior " to June last there was no restriction, each firm Iseing " at liberty to act in the matter as they might deem " right, but in the early part of last summer the " Operative Society took the liberty of legislating on " the question, and of restricting each employer or " firm to five. This the masters regarded as unwar- " rantable encroachment on their rights as employers, " and measures were adopted for having it removed. " Accordingly a deputation of four of your committee " met with the operatives in their hall, London " Street, on the evening of the 5th October last, when " the subject was discussed in a very friendly manner, " the best of feeling being evinced on both sides. The " result was that a letter has since been received from •' the operatives, intimating that the restriction had " been extended from five to seven. Your committee " do not regard a large number of apprentices as " being desirable or profitable, but they are very 18425. " decidedly of opinion lliat this is a matter the settle- " ment of whicli exclusively belongs to the employer " himself, a matter with which no other party, " nuicli less the operatives, have got anything to do. " Your committee would therefore Strongly recom- " mend that further efibrts be made to have all such " restrictions removed, and to impress upon the men " the propriety of confining the attention of their " society to matters which belong to themselves." 3469. (Earl of Liclifield.) It is not the General Builders Association of which Mr. Mault iS secretary that you are now referring to ? — No. 3470. It is merely a local association of builders ? — Yes ; a local association. I think that the trades of Glasgow have no connexion with any General Asso- ciation. I might have stated that our mode of carry- ing on business is somewhat different from that followed in this country ; with us each department is generally by itself, that is to say, joiners work is done by itself and is a trade by itself, and it is the same with masons and brickbuilders and other trades. 3471. {Chair7na7i.) That is to say, in Glasgow you subdivide your lines of work more than in England ? —Yes. 3472. Is there any advantage in that, because I take it that in the north you always have a reason for what you do ?— We think that when a man is con- fined to one department of work he is likely to be more efficient, and that by having the work divided and then confined to their own departments, the work is likely to be done at more moderate terms. 3473. Will you explain the organization of your association ; do you have members proposed and then are they elected after a certain probation, two weeks or so, and then do they subscribe ? — We have no restriction as to admission, but all who approve of the object of the association, and who pay a certain amount of money, and of course conform to the rules, are admitted. 3474. What are the objects which the association proposes to itself? — The objects are thus stated — " The objects of the association shall be the formation " and establishment of certain rules to be observed " by the members in the payment of wages to those " in their employment including apprentices, journey- " men,, and labom-ers ; in particular fixing the rate " of wages to be paid, and mutual covinsel in the " carrying on of their business." 3475. {Earl of Lichfield) Does your association T Mr. J. Mil Donald. 21 May 1807. 146 TBADB8 TJNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Mr.J. McDonald. 21 May 1867. attempt to regulate the rate of wages ?-^I dp not know ithat I could say either yes or no to that question directly. < ■ 1 3476. How about tule 9 ? — That refers to the fact that the members of the association are bound to adhere to all resolutions passed at general meetings. They are bound to adhere to all these rules, and resolutions passed at general meetings are equally liinding. 3477. Rule 9 says, " Each member of the asso- "' elation shall abide by and conform to such rules, :" regulations, and arrangements as may be agreed to " at any general meeting of the association ; members " of the association shall not in any instance nor under " any pretext pay more wages to those in their em- " ployment, nor give anything in lieu thereof, than " shall have been agreed to by the association nor " shall any member knowingly allow his employers " or any of them directly or indirectly to supplement " the wages he pays to those in his employment " ? — Yes, that is one of the rules. 3478. Do you not call that regulating the rate of wages ? — That is agreeing to abide by the wages fixed. 3479. (Chairman.) Supposing that a member does , not abide by the fixed rate of wagfes, what is done to him ? — He is fined 51. 3480. (Earl of Lichfield.') That- is according to rule 11 ? — Yes. 3480a. What is the meaning of the word employer near to the end of rule 9, where it says — " Nor shall " any member knowingly allow his employers, or any " of them, directly or indirectly, to supplement the " wages he pays to those in his employment ? " — The word employer there means the proprietor, the person for whom the work is being done. When work is urgent and hands scarce proprietors have frequently offered, and sometimes paid to the men at their work, 2s. or 3*. per week above the rate paid by the masters. The design of this was to increase the hands, to get more men, that the work might be advanced with greater speed. The effect of this has been either to raise the TVages generally or to produce discontent among the men. I had a case of this kind last sum- mer, wherein the proprietor paid 3«. per week to each "tsricklayer employed at his work. The object of the clause referred to in rule 9 is to prevent this. 3481. Is not all that attempting to regulate the rate of wages ? — 'Perhaps it should be called by that name. S482. \Mr. Merivale.) Will you look af rule 2 in which these words occur " in particular fixing the rate " of wages to be paid." There the object is distinctly specified, I think ? — ^Yes ; the design of the association is to try to make its members act harmoniously together. I should have stated at the outset that it is mainly defensive, and had it not been necessary to meet an association akeady in existence, it would not have existed ; that is to say, this association would not have been formed. My conviction is (and I have good grounds for the conviction, I believe) that we would have had no association had it not been for the purpose of self defence, and I think that can be said as regards all the other associations, for the other trades of Glasgow have associations also. 3483. {Sir E. W. Head.) In short, if the workmen do combine to say " you shall not pay below a certain rate of wages," the musters combine to say " you shall not pay above it ?" — Yes. 3484. You represent it as a defensive association, caused by action on the other side ? — ^Altogether. 3485. Was this association of yours formed subse- quently to the existence of the union ? — Yes ; this association has not existed more than seven years, and the other assoctation is as old as I recollect, or nearly so. 3486. But it does attempt to regulate the rate of wages, with regard to the maximum, just as mlich as the other associations attempt to regulate it with re- gard to the minimum ?— Yes, I suppose so ; I will explam'-that. Last year, had any of the employers given more than the current rate of wageS it wpnli have had the effect of raising wages in the case of all, because hands were not to be had and work was very plentiful ; that rule was made specially to guard against that. 3487. To guard against what ? — The demand for labour was greater than the supply, and when that is the case, in the event of one employer paying more than another, the result of that is that the others will lose some of their hands or will have to pay more wages. 3488. But when the demand for labour is greater than the supply, those are the circumstances, are they not, under which you would say a rise of wages was natural ? — ^Yes, but I may say that a rise of wages did take place ; the wages have risen considerably, in fact. 3489. Is not one of the complaints against trades unions, on the part of men, that they tend to prevent the action of those natural laws of supply and de- mand ? — Yes. 3490. But your association does just the same thing ? — Just thesame thing, and I am for having them all abolished ■; I should be glad if that were the result of this Commission. 3491. {Earl of Lichfield.) You see. very little., dis- tinction in short between the objects of your associa- tion and those of the association of men under your employ ?— -As far as the wages are concerned, and indeed as far as the genetal objects are concerned. 3492. {Mr. Booth.) Except that your association has been adopted in the way of self-defence ? — Altogether that. 3493. {SirE.W. Head.) As touching the question of apprenticeship, what are the regulations which it has been endeavoured to enforce in Glasgow with reference to limiting the number of apprentices ? — Seven is the extent just now. 3494. That is for one employer ? — One employer or firm may employ seven apprentices. 3495. {Sir D. Gooch.) Without reference to the number of men employed ? — Without reference to anything. 3496. {Mr. Booth.) Is that an aiTangement which has been proposed by the men and acceeded to by' the masters ? — The men without consulting the masters agreed to restrict the number to five. That was done some years ago. The masters remonstrated against that, and the men then extended the number to seven. The masters are still remonstrating, but it is a matter undecided, that is to say, so far as the masters a:re concerned ; they have had to consent to that, but they have not done so willingly. 3497. The masters insist that there should be no limit ? — No limit. 3498. But making the best terms you can with the union you have assented to the number seven ? — We have siibmitted rather. My next point is, that the tendency of trades unions is to establish monopoly in this respect, that they compel each apprentice to pay 21. as a fine or entry money on joining the trade. 3499. {Sir D. Gooch.) That is very common, is it not, without reference to trades unions. The appren- tice generally has to pay for his footing in some form or other ? — Not in Glasgow. 3500. ( Chairman.) The amount is paid to a union as I understand you. What rmion do^s the apprentice pay to ? — The workman's union, {handing in a copy of the rules of the Glasgow and Suburhs Brichlayers Operative Society). 3501. Which is the rule that makes him pay that sum? — Rule 9. The articles of that society were agreed to in 1858. The society was founded in 1850 and the rules were revised in 1858. I have another set of rules of a more recent date. 3502. Having the same objects I suppose ? — Yes. , 3503. {Earl of lAchfield.) When was your associa- tion established ? — The Employers Association was established in February 1860. Those are the original rules {handing in a copy of the same), but there' has been some change since that, and the rules before you are of a more recent date than 1860'. 1 have a letter hei'e from a Blaster builder Mr, Robert Corbet bearing trades; UNIONS, ETC. tiOMMISSION .-—MINUTES OF EVIDENCIi. 147 on the point of the apprentices,' aild with, the I'eave !o'f the Commissioners I will read it. <' JFordnfiuk Street, ". Glasgow, II th May 1867. Mr. John McDonald. " Dear sir,> — The following may be of some service in " jonv examination before the Eoyal Commissioners " now inquiring into the working of trades unions. In " tlie month of April 1864, my sou in order to acquire '/..the trade, paid to the Operative Bricklayers Union ■;' of Glasgow the sum of 1/. sterling as an apprentice '.' fee, the sons of bricklayers, members being by '* the rules of the union admitted on the payment '* of 11. sterling. Subsequently it was discovered ^5 that although I was a bricklayer I was not a member '! of the union, and he was in consequence compelled " to pay a.seeond pound, 21. being the sum exacted from " all apprentices who are not sons of members of the " union. In May 1866, and for a considerable time " previous, my son was required in the counting- " house, and of course not working at the trade. In " these circumstances, at the above date, I employed " a young man as an apprentice, but on the ground «* .that he was one more than the complement allowed " by the union my men refused to work unless he or •' my son was withdrawn, and that although my son " had not been working at the trade for several months, " and had no immediate prospect of resuming it. To '■ prevent my men from withdrawing or stopping " Work he bad to write to the union stating that in •' the mean time he agreed to withdraw his name from "my list of apprentices. Thi.s being done my men " continued to work without furher annoyance on the " apprentice question." In this case the men. did not say that they were going to strike, they simply indi- cated in an indirect manner that they were going to leave. They had got the impression, I suppose, that it was tigainst the law to strike against a person being employed, and they did not say that they were going to do that, but just simply dropped offi 3504. (Sir E. W. Head.) That case is simply an in- stanee of enforcing the rule of limiting the number of apprentices ? — Yes, and of enforcing the payment. 3505. {Chairman.) As I understand that master builder paid the entrance money for his son, then he sent his son into the counting-house and took on some- body else as apprentice, but the operatives did not let that man have the benefit of the former payment ? — No. 3oOf). They made him pay 21. more ? — Yes, they made him pay 21. more. The main point of the matter is that the son was compelled to withdraw from being an apprentice, although he was not wQrkirig at the time. My next proposition is that trades unions have a tendency to- establish a monopoly in labour by requiring each apprentice before his apprenticeship be completed to join the union which he may do by paying to the union 2*. Qd. ; but should he refuse or neglect to do this before the time be out, he is com- pelled to pay a second fine of 21. and thus constitute himself a member of the union; or leave the district. 3507. {Sir D. Gooch.) The2;. which he pays in the first instance goes in lieu of the 21. which he would havepaid at the end of his time had he not made the first payment ? — Yes ; should he neglect to pay this 2*; Gd. he has to pay a second 21. Here is the rule I now refer to, rule 10 of the Bricklayers Society: — '•' That any apprentice who commences the trade of " bricklayer with any master bricklayer after the " e;spiration of six months must be regularly bound, " and finding it to be for his benefit to enter this " society (which must be on or before the last year of " his apprenticeship) he may be admitted a memher " by paying the sum of 2*. 6d. as entry money, and " regularly keep up his accounts afterwards ; and if " he may not be disposed to enter till he has run above " one month in the last year of his apprenticeship, '' he must in that case be subject to the full entry " money of 21. sterling." 3508. {Eart of Lichfield.) That rule dnly refers to members of the society, I suppose ? — It refers to ap- prentices, and they are not held to be members of the society-till their time be out. ' >: i 3509.. {Sir.D. Gpoch,) It, ihey ^,6 ispps. ofmem- Mr J. bers of the 'society they pay 1/. only ?— Yes, . McD^ld. 3510. {Sir E. W. Head.) But they are. in the. same position as the others who pay 21, ?— Quite. ' i ., 21 May 1867. 3511. {Chairman.) Do I rightly understand that •"^^^"^ if the young man repents of his bargain they give him all the money back, again ? — I^o, not after being six mouths at the trade. 3512. Although at the end of that time he may say, " I repent my choice," they do not give him all his money back again ?— No ; my fourth proposition IS that trades unions establish a mppopoly in labour, by limiting the exercise of the trade to members :of the union. Employers are not at liberty to employ any who are not members of the union without th« written consent of the secretary of the union. If you look at rule 6 of the Bricklayers' Society you will see that it says this : " No member of this society shall " serve any master bricklayer who employs any " bricklayers that are not members of this society ; " and in the event of any such persons refusing to " desist, when properly warned of their error, apdthe " advantages of this society most explicitly . made " known to them, then, in that event, the whole of " the members in said master's employment. Must " withdraw directly and come upon the box, . after " having duly warned the preses and secretary of " the same." In connexion with. that I will read the next rule, as it goes to make provision for those who come out, as it is termed, upon strike. " Any member " of this society who may be thrown out of employ- " ment in consequence of strictly observing ,thies& re- " gulations, and after he had made regular application " through the preses to the society, and cannot procure " work, shall be entitled to and will receive the sum " of lOs. Qd. per week as long as he is unemployed, " and as long as the funds amount to 30^. sterlings " and so long as they are not reduced below 201. " sterling." In confirmation of my statement on this point, I have a letter here from an employer, which.I will read: " 9, McFarlane Street, Glasgow, 11th " May 1867. Mr. McDonald. Dear sir,— The fol- " lowing might be of some use to the Eoyal Oom- " mission, now inquiring into the working of trades " unions. During the spring of 1864 the trade was '•' very brisk in Glasgow ; I, as well as many other " of the employers, could not get enough of hands to " execute the work required to be done. During the " previous winter I had built an addition to the " works of Messrs. Marshall and Wylie, of this city ; " the surface of the walls being affected by the " weather required to be repointed. The bricklayers " being so scarce, and as the pointing could be. done " cheaper by slaters, Messrs. Marshall and Wylie and " I arranged to employ slaters ; this was done, and " in consequence of this, my men called on me on the " Saturday night and stated they were instructed by " their association not to resume work on Monday ; " I consented to dismiss the slaters. On Monday " morning I called at the work where the slaters " were employed and stopped them, but before they " left the ground Mr. Marshall saw. them and re- " quested them to complete » part of the waU, to " allow him to get some strawberries planted in his " garden, and then stop. The slaters did this, but " before it was completed one of my men saw the '•' slaters still at work ; he reported the matter, and " the result was that my entire men refused to work " and did not work any more that day. The slaters " stopped when they had completed the part pointed " out by Mr. Marshall, and my men resumed work " on the Tuesday. They charged me, however, with " Monday, and insisted that I would require to pay " them a full day for it — the day they were on strike ; " this I refused to do, and in consequence they struck " a second time, after working to pay-day. I had " not a man for six weeks ; I went to Ireland and " elsewhere to try and get men, but when they knew " it was a struck squad they refused to come. At " the end of this time, and after being very much in- " convenienoed and my employers very much incon- T 2 148 TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Mr. J. McDonald. Jl May 1867. " venienced also, I was compelled to give in and pay " them for the day they were on strike against the sla- " tars. All this took place when trade was very good " and when there was no dispute about wages." That is from Mr. Robert Gilchrist. My next proposition is, that as the result of trades unions before iiny men can work at the trade, no matter what their qualiflcatious may be, or however great the demand for their labour, they must pay to the union 21. 3513. {Mr. Booth.) Is it usual for the men under those circumstances to call upon the employer to pny that fine for them. Supposing, for instance, a work- man is ready to work for you, but that he is not a member of the union, and will not bo allowed to work unless he has paid 21. in order to become a member of the union ; does he in that case call upon you as his employer to pay that 21.? — I am going presently to give some instances on that point. I will in the first place read the rule ; it is the third rule, " That this " society be composed of journeymen bricklayers, ;md " that each entrant pays the sum of 21. sterling as " entry money." (I need not read further on that point.) That is required of all. As I have already stated, however great the demand may be, or however well qualified to work, men are not employed and cannot be employed without the payment of this sum. In the spring of 1860 trade was vei-y good, so good indeed that there were not near hands enough in Glasgow to execute the work required to be done. At that time I went to Belfast and brought back 10 men with me. I had to pay their passage and othei' expenses, and wages from the time that I engaged them, and to pay into the society for each man 21. It was understood that these men would pay me back again. Of course it is considered that the men pay the money themselves, but in case of that kind usually the employer has to advance it, and frequently is very glad to get men even if he has to do that. On the occasion in question I paid 21. for each of those men, and I think that there was only one of them who re- mained with me to icfund the money. My entire ex- penses in bringing these men over, taking all things in, were above 20^. That was in the spiing of 1860. Last year we were pretty much in the same circumstances. I think they have recently modified the matter a little by not insisting that the 21. be paid at once. I think that now they h^ve agreed to allow it to be taken by instalments. Last year I think I employed five men who came from this country. Englishmen, but in each case they had to go to the -secretary and get a line from him before my men 'would Avork with them. Having got that line they were allowed to work up to the first Saturday night, and then they had to appear before the union, and being able to satisfy the union that they were regular tradesmen, I suppose they were allowed to work on condition that they paid the money. That is how the matter stands now ; it is not necessary that I should read out of the rules further, I presume, in reference to that matter. 3514. (Chairman.) Your rules on both sides are singularly explicit, there is no possibility of mistaking them ? — They are very explicit. Then the next point I come to is, that the tendency of trades unions is to deprive the deserving workman of the reward of his skill and industry. He is deprived of liberty of action, and subject to terrorism should he not conform to the rules of the union. The unions produce that effect first by imposing heavy fines on those who violate either the rules or resolutions come to at general meetings, or oppose their findings. Rule 10 of the Operative Bricklayers Society is as follows : — • " That it be expressly understood that no member " of this society takes piece work or make any en- " gagement with any master bricklayer, either directly " or indirectly, under a penalty to be considered at " first general meeting." That will be found to be rule 5 in the smaller book, which contains an earlier edition of the rules. Of course the penalty is not stated, but according to this rule it is to be considered at the first general meeting. 1 had a little experience in that when I was a workman. That is now a con- siderable time ago, but I may state that a strike took place in Glasgow, which lasted for four months. (I will refer to this afterwards to prove another point, but what I want to bring out just now is the severity of the fine.) I was at that time a workman, and the" individual with whom I was working was paying all that the association required, but he joined with the other employers, against some of whom a strike had taken place, and the men were all turned out — or what is termed locked out. The strike lasted for 16 weeks. At the end of that time it was settled and work was resumed, but they had not wrought more than a week when a strike took place again. The second strike took place thus — Two men, whom I knew, did not strike but wrought on with their employer. One of these men had pretty strongly opposed the strike on several occasions when the m.atter came up. The second strike did not last more than a week, and these two men who had not struck work the second time, but who had wrought on vnth their employer, were held to have violated the rules of the union, and there- fore of course no member of the union would work with ihem. 3515. Where is the rule v/hich says that when there is a resolution to strike the man that con- tinues to work shall be fined at discretion. The rules are wonderfully explicit in most things, but I do not see any rule to the effect that whenever there is a strike the man that will not strike will be fined at dis- cretion ? — I do not think that they have any rule to that; effect. 3516. It is not at all likely that they have, but it is so in practice you, say ? — Yes. I am stating what I know to be the fact, what came under my own observation, and what I was pretty much concerned in. The two men I am speaking of wrought on, but the employer v/as needing hands. By-and-bye they went up to try and gee a settlement with the union, that is to say, in the course of a few weeks it was proposed by one of the members of the union to settle with one of the two men on the payment of a 30s. fine, but the other man who had used his voice in opposing the strike they would not settle with at all, and I very well recollect the expi'ession used in reference to him. The words were these : '■ We shall wring the bowels out of him ;" the import or design of that was that they would just starve him. He had spoken against tlie strike during its operation, and that was the ex- pression used, instead of fining him as the other man was fined, that is to say, they w(juld not fine him at all, but just let him go abroad. 3517. That was the meaning of the expression then, and not personal injury ? — No, it was not personal injmy that was intended, except what would arise from a man's not being able to obtain employment. That was the design ; it was expected that his em- ployer would be under the necessity of putting him away in order that he might get men, and hence this man would not get employment. 3518. {Mr. Harrison.) What is the date of this cir- cumstance ? — It took place in the spring of 1846 ; the , strike had been during the preceding winter. It turned out however that his employer did not put him away, and that after a few weeks work he was by some means or other requested to go to the meeting, and seek to get a settlement and the result was that he was fined 31. and once more admitted to the union. That came under my own observation. 3519. {Mr. Booth.) The special complaint against him being that he had to some extent resisted the strike ? — He had wrought when the other men were on strike. The two men who had wrought were equally guilty as far as that was concerned, but one of them had spoken against the strike, and the other had said nothing. The one was fined 30s. and admitted, but the other was threatened with not being admitted at all, and afterwards was fined 3^. 3520. {SirE. W.Head.) Was that done by a vote of the workmen in general or was it done by the au- thorities of the union ? — It was done by a vote of a large meeting, and I was present on the occasion. TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 149 My next point is, that trades unions act in tlie way I have described by prohibiting piece worli and pre- venting their members from making engagements whereby a skilful and industrious workman might better his position. Rule 10, whicli has been read aheady, bears upon that. No employer can even keep a manager or a foreman who is not required to be a member of the union. ,3521. {Chairman.) Piece work, in your notion, keeps down a skilled and industrious worliman ? — ^Yes ; it has this effect. Usually one workman esteems him- self as good as another, and perhaps sometliing better, but while the employer may feel disposed to pay one workman different from others, he does not feel at liberty to do that, for if he does it the sure result will be that he will have to pay them all that sum. If it is discovered that one workman is getting more than another, immediately the others will either leave or have more. There is not any rule, however, to that effect ; it comes out in the working more than as resulting from any rule. Then, of course, the unions are very explicit in requiring that no member of their union take piece work, and that no member of their union make any engagement. 3522. (Sir D. Gooch.) Engagement for time you mean ? — ^Yes. 3523. {Chairman.) He may make no contract for a week ? — No, nor for a day. 3524i He must be free to go at any hour ? — Yes ; and that has a tendency to prevent men of energy and industry from bettering themselves. 3525. {Mr. Harrison.) What is it that has that tendency ? — -The fact that they are not at liberty to make engagements for a week or any time and that they are not at liberty to take piece work. 3526. {Sir D. Gooch.) How often are these men paid then- wages ? — Every two weeks. 3527. ( Chairman.) By the hour ? — No, they are paid by the day; 1 will bring that out by and by. 3528. {SirK W. Head.) That ninth rule of the masters' association does not, I suppose, prevent tlie masters from paying piece work ? — -I do not know ; the idea of paying in that ivay, I think, has not been before them at all. 3529. That rule says, " Members of the association " shall not in any instance, nor under any pretext, " pay more wages to those in their employment, nor " give anything in lieu thereof than shall have been " agreed to by the association." Now, suppose that a master wished to employ a skilful workman by piece work for the execution of a particular job, could he con- sistently with that rule do it without going and calling a meeting of the association ? — I am not quite sure. 3530. If that be so, is not this rule of the masters as great a restraint upon piece work as the rule of the • men ? — I do not think that it refers to piece work at aU. 3531. But you admit that there is an ambiguity about it ? — ^I think it is ambiguous, but I am perfectly satis- fied that the compilers of it had not the slighest idea of piece work before them when it was compiled. 3532. Perhaps you think that piece work having been abolished before these rules were framed by the rules of the union could not have been contemplated by that ninth rule ? — The design of 'these rules is to try to prevent one member from doing what the others are not doing. 3533. {Mr. Merivale.) The words at the end are, " nor shall any member knoviringly allow his em- " ployers, or any of them, directly or indirectly to " supplement the wages he pays to those in his em- " ployment." Is not that directed against extra wages being paid to men of superior industry and energy ? — Clearly. 3534. {Sir D. Gooch.) I suppose that has reference to a member secretly supplementing a man's wages ? — Not to his doing it secretly ; in the case which I have already referred to it was done publicly and known, and attempts were made to induce the pro- prietor to desist from it. My third proposition under this head is, that trades unions fix in an arbitrary manner the time the men are to work, aud how the day is to be divided, without reference to the interests of the employer or the injustice of the matter in- volved. Formerly we were in the habit of working 60 hours in the week ; in 1864 the union resolved to work to half -past 2 on Saturday ; in 1865 they resolved to stop at 2 ; and in 1866 they resolved to stop at 12 on the Saturday. These resolutions were all come to, and tJiese matters fixed, without con- sulting the employers in any instance. 3535. {Mr. Booth.) Were the men at that time paid by the hour ?— No, paid by the quarter day ; I was just going to state that the mode of dividing the day IS bv quarters. They have hitherto refused to be paid Mr. J. McDonald. 21 May 1867, is by by the hour ; that is a matter in regard to which' the masters have had considerable complaints. 'j;hey think that the mode of dividing the day into quarters is not fair ; for example, our workmen must either have a quarter day or nothing. Strictly speaking, 21 hours would be a quarter day, 10 hours being the full day ; but if they wrought an hour aud a half they would claim a quarter for it, or if they only wrought an hour they would get nothing for it. 3536. {Sir D. Gooch.) That is an understanding, not a rule ? — It is an understanding, there is no rule to that effect. 3537. It is a sort of give and take understanding ? — It seems so. The employers have been using their influence to get that rectified, and to induce the workmen to woili by the hour. I have some papers here which show that. A deputation of (he employers waited on the workmen some time prior to April last (I cannot give the date). The object of the deputa- tion was to get the workmen's union to remove the restrictions in regard to apprentices, and to get a better division of the day so that the men would bo paid for what they actually did, and that the employers would not be required to pay foi- more than was actually done. The result of that was that the work- men's union sent a letter stating upon what conditions they would work by the hour. They had in a previous letter, I think, pointedly refused to remove the restric- tions on the apprentices ; and here are some rules which they propose themselves, bearing the signature of their secretarj-, dated 15, London Street, Olasgov,', 3rd April 1867. " Working Ilules of the Glusgovf " Opei'ative Bricklayers Association. First, that we " be paid by the hour, and 7c?. per ho'ir for the usual " time of working in summer and winter, and all " overtime wrouglit after that be paid time and a " half, aud when necessitated to work on Sabbath, we " bo paid double time. Second, in travelling from job " to job there will be a reasonable time to do so " allowed by the employer. Third, in the event of " any member being late in the'imorning not exceeding " 15 minutes, such time not to be deducted. Fourth, " that we be paid for nothing less than half an " hour and nothing less deducted. Fifth, in going " to a country job, the fare going and returning, like- " wise the time occupied in travelling, also in looking " for lodgings after arriving, to be paid by the " employer. Sixth, if stopped by a shower for a short " time, that it be not deducted from the pay. Seventh, " in the event of being knocked off work for want of " material, &c., to be paid in full up to first meal ' " hour or stopping time ; and, if working in the " countiy and thrown idle from the above causes, shall " remain on the job until ordered by his employer or " representative to return home, and sliall receive his " full pay until he arrives in Glai^gow." 3538. {Chairman.) There is nothing, out of the way is there, in these rules, that with respect to going and returning the men are to have an allowance of time for that, and so on. The men have proposed these rules on their own motion ? — No, this has arisen from a desire on the part of the employers to have the day divided differently, in fact to pay the men by the hour, and in accepting payment by the hour it is on these terms that the men accept it. 3539. {Sir D. Gooch.) Is that Id. an increased pay ? — A slightly increased pay. After reading these T 3 150 T,EAI>ES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF BVIDBNPBif Mr. J. rules I was going to read the proposal submitted by, McDonald, the employers. ^J 3540. {Mr. Harrison.) Had we not better have 2 1 May 186 7. ^j^^^ ^^^ -^^^^ actually agreed to ?— But the whole thing has been rejected. 3541. ( Chairman.) I do not see that there is anything in this that is characteristic in the way of the contest between the employers and workmen. There must be a settlement, so much wages to be paid on the one side and so much time and labour to be given on the other side, but these associations are trafficing each with a perfect knowledge of their own interest and each fight- ing for the line that is most for their own interest ? — The object for which I am bringing this forward is this, to show the arbitrary nature of the working of the union. The union propose these .is the terms on which they would be paid by the hour. Then the employers draw out, (it is in the shape of a printed form and will be very easily understood by the Com- missioners,) what in ordinary circumstances might have been deemed very satisfactory. I was also going to read another letter from the workmen declining this proposal of the masters pointedly. 3542. {Earl of Lichfield.) Did this attempt to draw up rules for the guidance of the masters and the men originate with the masters ? — It originated with the masters with a view of having the day divided so that they might pay them by the hour. 3543. And the document that you have just been referring to is a counter proposition on the part of the men, is it not ? — Not a counter proposition, but the terms on which the men will accept the masters proposal to pay by the hour. 3544. {Sir E. W. Head.) You think this important, as being the history of an abortive negotiation between the men and the masters and in which you lay the blame on the union ? — Yes. 3545. {Earl of Lichfield.) Your case is this, that an attempt to draw up a code of rules for the guidance of employers and employed failed through the un- reasonable demands of the men ? — Yes. 3546. Without going through in detail all the points, cannot you tell us the principal points upon which the negotiation went off? — The masters agreed to pay the cuiTent wages by the hour, or a sum amounting to some few shillings in the year more than what the current wages are, but they did not agree to bind themselves not to deduct anything if a man lost time by a shower or by stopping in the morjiing ; in fact the masters proceeded upon the principle that the men be paid for what they work and no more and to the full extent of the current wages. They acceded to the wishes of the men in all other points. 3547. {Sir D. Gooch.) Would not that practically reduce the mens' wages. If the men are now getting paid for the time when there is a shower, would not paying them by the hour really reduce their wages ? — No ; because men could work it up when the weather was fair again. 3548. {Earl of Lichfield.) What was the increase proposed by the masters ? — Only a few shillings in the year ; within 20^. 3649. But the men objected to the hour system ? — Except they got an advantage. 3550. They consented then on condition that they got an advantage ? — On those conditions which I was just now reading. The masters proposed 6\d. for the summer months and Id. for the winter months. The current wages just now are 5s. 6d. per day. , 3551. {Sir D. Gooch.) Per day of 10 hours?— Yes. 3552. {Chairman.) And what for Saturday? — ■ Haifa day, the half of that amount. Putting the 7d. and the 6^d. together, I think it amounts to some 16s. a year more than the 5s. 6d. a day would amount to. The result of all is that I have a letter here from the men's union rejecting the whole thing. 3553. {Earl of Lichfield.) Perhaps you will give us the grounds of their objection ? — They do not give any grounds ; I think I may read the letter, as it is very short. 3554. .{iSir.D. Grdaeh.) .This, is tlieir pejply t0;tjii^ printed document made by the masters which you have put before us ? — Yes. " 41, Nahurn Street, Glasgow, " 9th May, 1867, — Dear sir, — ^I received, your note of " the ] st of May along with the. parcel containing " the employers' documents. I have been instructed " to inform you that the operatives, after due de- " liberation on the employers proposals, have come tq " the conclusion that they will abide by the 7d. per " hour for summer and winter, and the rules sub- " mitred to your association on the 4th of April last, " and in the event of not receiving an answer on or " before Thursday the 16th May, we will continue to " be paid by the quarter day as heretofore in ac- " cordauce with our yearly settlement of the wage " question, &c."-^That is signed on behalf of the Operatives Society, " William C. Hamilton, Secretary." 3555. {Chairman.) The workmen said, " Give us 7d. all the year round ?" — Yes, and they asked to be paid for 1 5 minutes in the morning that they do not work. 3556. That is to say, that they ask that no work- man shall be found fault with for being 15 minutes too late ? — That is the meaning of it and that once established, 15 minutes past the present time of be- ginning would become the real time of beginning. 3557. {Mr. Booth.) Your objection seems to be that there is a union insisting upon these terms ; if these terms had been asked by the individual werkmen you would not think them unreasonable ? — Except that just now we think that the trade does not war- rant a rise ; ' all the rest we consider fair. We con- sider the whole thing reasonable enough, excepting with respect to the men that are 15 minutes late in the morning, and not deducting if they are stopped. We wanted to be distinctly understood that they are to be paid for what they work. Trade is not now by any means so good as it was, and we think that the wages paid just now are enough. 3558. If unreasonable terms are proposed by the workmen you would reject them, but you cannot re- ject unreasonable tei-ms so easily if proposed by the union ? — I ^m not able to distinguish properly the difference : we have not such a thing as terms pro- posed b}^ the individual workmen. 3559. Then your objection simply is that they propose terms which you do not think reasonable ? — Quite so. 3560. {Earl of Lichfield.) Your association ap- pears to coiisist of the different trades connected with the building trade in Glasgow ; first of all there are the brickbuilders, as you call them. The term is new to us, and it seems to be a different state of things with you from what exists in this country ; what are the other trades connected with the building 'trad^ in Glasgow ? — Joiners, masons, slaters, plasterers, plumbers, and painters. 3561. {Sir E. JV. Head.) Are they all included in your association ? — No. 3562. {Earl of Lichfield.) Supposing that yqu brickbuilders are working for a contractor upoii a large building, of course carpenters and plasterers are employed upon the same work ; do the inembers, of your society object in any way* to working witli plasterers, or carpenters, or other employers who are not members of your society ? — No, no objection is made. 3563. Does yom- association, or do the member^ of your association, in any way interfere with the free- dom of action of persons in your trade who are not members of your associatiQij ? — Not except with re- gard to bi-icklayers ; we do not interfere with masons, or joiners, or slaters, or any other department. 3564. Take the case of it, ,brickbuilder, as you call him ; do you in any way interfere with a brickbuildet who is not a member of your association, or can you,- representing the Brickbuilders Association, say that your association in no way mterferes with persons who are following the trade of ; brickbuilders and who are not members of your association ? — We do nol^ TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OP EVIDElSfCE. 151 and we have no power to do so in the slightest degree. 8565. {Mr, Harrison.) You do not hesitate to take contracts in conjunction with them ? — No, there has never been anything of that kind so far as I am aware ; I do not insist upon reading through this paper, which I began just now ; I think, however, that had the paper been read it would ha^-e brought out very distinctly the injurious eflfects of the unions, and shown that very frequently the unions do things that reasonable men would shrink from doing. 3566. You will perhaps put in the papers yon refer to ? — Yes. 3567. {Sir D. Gooch.) Has there been any sug. gestio"!! bf arbitration in this case ? — Yes, but on the part of , the men arbitration has been at all times declined, positively and decidedly. 3568. Are the masters willing to accept arbitration ? — Very wiUing ; they have proposed it and urged it. 3569-. {Earl Lichfield.) It was not proposed in the code of rules that you put in, was it ? — The last rule refers to arbitration, it is not in reference to the set- tlement of these rule themselves, but it is in reference to any dispute, should any dispute afterwards arise. 3570. '■ In the event of any misunderstanding '■ arising as to the meaning of any of the preceding " rules such differences shall be settled by the secre- " taries and chairman of the Master and Operative '• Bricklayers associations, who in the event of dis- " agreeing sliall appoint an oversiuan, whose decision " shall be final and binding on both parties " ? — That is the masters proposal, but it is not in the men's pro- posal. 3571. What does the word '• oversman " mean? — An umpire to decide the matter by arbitration. 3572. {Mr. Harrison.) What is the object of rule 10 in the rules of your association — the rule about foremen ? — To prevent an employer from paying a man, under the pretence that he is a foreman, more wages than are current. Foremen are usuallj' paid higher, and an employer might say that he had several foremen, and have them all working at one job, and the design of that rule is that if he has them he shall pay them the same rate as the others. 3573. This set of rules binds the members not to pay any workman higher than the current price ? — Yes. 3574. Beyond the one foreman ? — Beyond the fore- man. An employer may have more than one foreman; but they must be at difl'erent places. 3573. Do you consider that the rules of your asso- ciation are within the law — are legal ? — ^I do not know ; I do not think that that question has been at all enter- tained. 3576. You have never attempted to enforce tliem ? —No. 3577- I see that rule 12 begins in this way : " The " chairman and the secretary for the time being, jointly or severally, shall be entitled to sue and defend all actions at the instance of or against the " association, and in particular to institute and carry " out to a conclusion all legal measures that may be " needful for the recovery of the penalties which " may be incurred in terms of the preceding article." Have you, ever attempted to enforce that ? — Never. 3578. Have ypu had any opinion on the question whether those rules could be enforced ? — No. I think the rules were drawn up by a legal gentleman. I think they are the product of a lawyer. 3579. You think that notwithstanding the rule by which the inembers bind one another not to pay higher than the current rate of wages, and not to pay any particular workman more than the. current rate of wages, and simil9,r rules, your rules are not within the riile of law as to restraint of trade ? — I could not give an opinion, upon that point. 3580., rttini, -you stated just now that tlie, state of trade with you was very good, aiid that vvage'^had to , a certain e^'tpnt risen, in^^ed,\^a jnuch ig.mentioned in the circular .Taefore ine.' T>o you think that during that tiirie'wages would have risen*stiirhigher,Tjut" for the existence of your association and its rules ? — I Mr, J. think they would. McDonald. 3581. We have heard a good deal from previous witnesses with respect to the introduction of machine ^' -"^^^^ ^®®''» made bricks, have you any difficulties of that kind in Glasgow ? — None. 3582. Are machine made bricks in use there ? — Nearly exclusively. 3583. Then the Association of Bricklayers of Glasgow makes no objection to that ? — No objection ; they have been trying to get them all made the same size, but they make no objection as to how they are produced. 3584. {Sir E. W. Head.) They make some objection as to the size of the bricks, you say ? — ^Yes, recently, that is to say, within the last 12 months there has been some objection of that sort. 3585. On the part of the working bricklayers ? — Yes ; and there is a combination amongst the brick- makers, I do not mean the workmen, but the master brick makers, to have the bricks all made the same size ; at least most of the master brickmakers have combined with that object, and ,the workmen's brick- layers union has attempted to assist them in carrying that out. That is all the interference that th^re has been in that respect. 3586. {Mr. Harrison.) The Master Brickmakers Association has combined with the Operative Brick- layers Association, as I understand you, to fix, the: size of the bricks ? — Yes ; or rather the operatives have agreed to assist the others in having that object carried out. 3587. With regard to apprentices, I see that your circular objects to the restrictions which the unions make with respect to apprentices. From your expe- rience, do you think that there should be any rules as to the number of apprentices, or as to the number of years which an apprentice ought to serve ? — I think that so far as matters of that kind are concerned they should be betwixt the parties themselves, that is to say, the employer and the apprentice. 3588. Quite open ? — Yes, quite open ; that there should be no i-estriction and no fixed laws. My opinion most decidedly is that every man should keep to his own sphere, and occupy his own place, and not attempt to infringe on the liberty of another. 3589. {Mr. Hughes.) Do you mean to say that you think it would be desirable that the masters should be at liberty to employ any number of boys they liked ? —I do. 3590. In doing any work ; that in fact there should be no limit, because your answer as to apprentices amounts to that ? — Yes, that is my opinion very decidedly, and my reson for it is this, that no master can with advantage to himself or with advantage to his employer employ a large number of apprentices, if he does he will soon put himself out of the trade ; I think that an evil of that kind if it does occur will very soon cure itself. 3591. But has it not occurred to your knowledge that there has been a great substitution of boys' labour for men's labour ?^Not in our trade. 3592. Because you have been stopped by the unions, but in others has it not been so ? — I am not aware of it in other trades. For example, there is no restriction amongst the masons. 3593. Have you not heard of disputes having arisen in coal mines on that subject, of the amount of boys labour substituted for men's labour, that is a great subject of dispute there, is it not ? — I am not aware of it. I know that the masons have no restrictions as to the number of boys, and that the joiners have no restriction, and I never heard any complaint of tqo many apprentices being employed in those cases. 3594. ( Mr. Booth.) You think that the employer js the person to judge of the number of apprentices that he should employ ? — Yes ; I think that no union or combination of workmen gliould have the settlement of that . question, , ,, 3595. ' (iKr' Hughes.) Npt even,in conference ,\vi^h their' employers? — No, not even in conference with T4 152 TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Mi: J. their employers ; it is a matter tliat exclusively McDonald, belongs to the employer. I proceed to my next pro- position which is that trades unions restrict the enter- al i[ay 1867. p^.jgg ^f (.ho employer by tlieir captious and arbitrary action, and in many if not in most cases the employer has no alternative but to submit. The uncertain action of the union has the teiidency of preventing the employers from undertaking contracts. I believe that that is pretty general. Here is a letter that I wish to put in {producing it) in suppoi't of the statement that I have now made, that the uncertain action of the union has the tendency of preventing employes from undertaking contracts. " Has the tendency," I say, I do not say that it does that positively, but that it has that tendency. I should say that this case which I am about to read arises not from the brick- layers but from the plasterers, but the matter has been put into my hands that I might lay it before the Commission. " Trades unions case of interference. " Messrs. Henry Monteith and Co., Turkey red dyers " and calico printers, Glasgow, had a building iji " course of erection during the summer of 1866, being " aui addition to the house of one of their managers at " the works situated at Barrowfield. They entered " into a contract for the plaster work of said building " with Mr. Roger Beaton, plasterer, 691, Gallowgate, " who in the middle of the job became unable to " finish it, leaving one week's pay due to his workmen " who continued to hang about the building during " the following week without, however, performing " any work. In these circumstances Messrs. Henry " Monteith and Co. applied to the sheriff for authority " to have the plaster work completed when his lord- " ship granted a warrant to Mr. James Caird, plasterer, " 80, Stope Street, Glasgow, to finish the work, in " terms of the application. Mr. David Page, Bridjre- " ton, inspector over said building, appointed by " Messrs. Monteith and Co., now discovered that by " the rules of the Operative Plasterers Union, Mr. " Caird's workmen would not be allowed to proceed " with the woi'k, until not only the week's wuges due " by Mr. Beaton to his men were paid, but that pay- " ment also must l)e made for the weak that Mr. " Beaton's men wont iibout idle. On behalf of Messrs. " Monteith and Co., H. , Page represented to the " committee of the Plastttors Union the injustice of " such a claim, but they remained inflexibile, declar- " iug that they would not allow the job to be com- " pleted until these demands were complied with. " In order to secure the completion of the work " within a reasonable period, Messrs. Monteith and " Co, had no alternative hut to pay these unjust " demands when Mr. Caird's workmen were per- " mitted to pi'ocecd with the work." I have the original document signed by David Page, manager to Henry Monteith and Company ; and also by Henry Monteith and Company and James Caird, the gentleman who undertook to complete the work. I have already stated the trades unions interfere with the employers by their captious and arbitrary action. I think that their action with reference to managers and foremen veiy forcibly proves that point. The employers regard it as very hard that an employer cannot claim even one man- whom they can call their own, but that, in the event of a strike or any dispute taking place, tlie union can compel his foreman to withdraw and leave the work ; that is the general practice, and rules 10 and 11 of the union confirm that statement. I suppose that I need not occupy time by reading those rules. My next proposition is, that strikes frequently entail great loss and inconve- nience upon employers and much loss and suffering upon the operatives engaged in them, and very fre- quently when the object is gained the victors are but little if anything the better ; and strikes are for the most part brought about by the most worthless class of the operatives. My experience goes to confirm this statement very much. The strike that I have already referred to was on this ground : as already stated with us the day is divided by quarters, not by hours ; when the winter came in some of the em- ployers were in the habit of dividing it by thirds, and some by quarters. The effect of dividing it by thirds was this, that if a man slept until breakfast time he lost a third instead of a quarter. The men re- garded this as rather a grievance, and the union resolved (at that time I was a member of it my- self) that all the employers should be compelled to pay by tlie quarter day during the winter as well as the summer, so that those s quads (" squad" is the terra in Scotland employed to represent what " shop " means here,) that were paid by thirds were all struck, and then those that were paid by quarters were locked out. That was the way in which that- strike began, which lasted for four months. I said then, and I have the same opinion still, that it would not have made half a crown difference in the year to a steady man ; a man who was industrious and steady would not have been two and sixpence either the better or the worse for being paid by thirds or quarters, yet on that point a strike took place, which as I say lasted for four months, and to better themselves the work- men agi'ecd to take contracts themselves, they con- stituted their president their representative for taking contracts, and the result was that they squandered their funds, and the society was broken up. That was the strike I referred to before in respect to the in- justice of the fine imposed upon those workmen who had refused to strike a second time. 3596. {Mr. Harriso7i.) If the point was entirely trivial why did the employers insist upon it ? — That was just the point. Who was to be the master was the question. Had there been no union there woulS. have been no dispute. I do not say that the employers were justified in insisting upon that, but they com- bined, and the whole thing was the result of the union. 3597. {Mr. Hughes.) They were agreed to fight on any issue ? — Yes. Very frequently strikes take place from very trifling things. 3598. {Mr. Harrison.) You are bringing that case forward to prove the unreasonable nature of both unions, are you not ? — Yes of both unions ; indeed the unreasonableness, and as I think the nndesirableness of udions of all kinds ; and my experience for a lengthened period confirms my statement that unions are not by any means beneficial, but on the contrary injurious. I;ast winter we had a strike amongst the masons in Glasgow. Yf e have amongst the masons those termed builders and those termed hewers. The builders are thought to be more exposed to the weather and more liable to have then" time broken, and they resolved to have \d. an hour more wages. That was at the beginning of last winter. They made a demand for it ; it was refused, and a strike took place, a strike of both builders and hewers. I suppose the hewers will be ten to one of the builders, that is to say, that for every one builder we have, we will have at least ten hewers. In that case the hewers were not asking more, but simply the builders asking a farthing an hour more. As I say, that was refused, and both builders and hewers struck. The strike lasted for I think nine weeks during last winter, and the men in the end had to give in. I have been led to under- stand, however, before I left home recently that trade has so improved this spring that the men have got all that they were asking without any strike. That shows I think the absurdity of strikes, and how frequently they take place on points that due consideration would have prevented. 3599. {Mr. Hughes.) But do you think that the men would have got any advance but for that strike in the winter ? — Yes. 3600. Why do you think so ? — Because trade is good, and it is trade that regulates wages, and not strikes. The point I want to bring out is that strikes frequently take place on very insufficient grounds, and that fre- quently the parties who gain are largely losers after all. 3601. {Sir E. W. Head.) Do I rightly understand that the hewers, as you call them, in this strike belonged to the same tmion as the builders ? — Yes ; I had a letter put into my hand this morning from a fellow employer TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 15 3 in Glasgow, bearing upon tlie same point in regard to joiners. It is as follows : " In January 1866 we were " commencing a large job at Dalmarnock paper " works, where we had joiners employed. VVe " contracted for the work which •was to continue " for a long time, and we did so on the faith of " the rules made by masters and workmen and " then acted upon being strictly adhered to." (I may explain here that the masters and workmen among the joiners had agreed previously to that that beyond a certain distance, beyond three miles, the wages were to be increased. That had been mutually agreed to.) " We had not long commenced when the " workmen made a demand for the country rate, which " added 3s. a week to each man's wages. The rule in " force in regard to this was that the rise was to take " effect when workmen were sent beyond three miles " from the master's principal workshop. Convinced that " the distance wr.s within the rule, and in a sti'aight " hne on the map, it was little over two miles, we " refused to pay the country wage, and the men, " supported by the union, struck work. We offered " if they would name any well-known surveyor to " abide by the distance he would make, but the union " refused the proposal, and said they were satisfied by " our men's own measurement, and the men would not " commence work. Not satisfied with this we employed " one of the most eminent surveyors in Glasgow, who " made the distance only 172 lineal yards less than " thi'ee miles (measuring by the shortest road for " walking), "and sent his certificate to the union. We " paid the smweyor's fee, and thought we were entitled " to be refunded this, seeing the workmen were in the " wrong ; but they would not, and employed another " party (not a regular surveyor), who still made the " distance a little under three miles. After that the " workmen returned to their job on the old terms, but " not a word to this day from the union of the " unnecessary trouble and expense to which we were " put ; in every case we have come in contact with " the union we have generally found their acting most " selfish and unreasonable, and consider if each " employer and his workmen were allowed to deal free " of the interference of third parties, it would be much " better for all concerned." That is dated Glasgow, 18th May 1867. The next point which I submit is, that the trades unions tend to promote a feeling of antagonism between employers and their workmen by lessening the intercourse and confidence which ought to exist between employers and employed. That I think is very apparent to those who have been taking part Ln these matters, or who have been at all observant of them. If men wiU, irrespective of each other's interest, dogmatically decide on matters deeply affecting each other's interest, and refuse to have the matter referred to arbitration, the direct tendency of that is to produce alienation. Of course the same result would be produced to a large extent by the men bringing the actions of the masters under review at their meetings, and passing a sentence from which there is no appeal. Trade unions also act in the way I have described by usurping the control and direction of matters which exclusively belong to the employers. That I think has been already substantiated in regard to the apprentices and in regard to the employment of foremen. There is another point that I think of very great importance to be brought out, namely, that the rise in wages which has taken place is not the result of trades unions and their actions. It seems to me that there are very mistaken notions abroad on this matter. Some people seem to think that the rise of wages that has taken place throughout the country is to be accounted for by the existence of unions. I think that that is quite a mistake. I hold in my hand a statement in regard to the wages paid to our own men since 1853. Tou will see by the rules put into your hands that the union has existed since 1850, and of course the trade has during all that period been under the influence of the union, as far as it was possible for it to be. Now in June 1853 (I take June in each year as the month for all my figures) the wages we paid to our men were 18425. 4s. 6d. per day ; in June 1854, 4s. 8d. per day ; in June 1855, 4s. 4d. per day ; in June 1856, 4s., 8d. pea- day ; in June 1857, 4s. 8d. per day ; in June 1858, 4s. 2d. per day; in June 1859, 4s. 6c?. per day ; in June 1860, os. per day; in June 1861, 5s. per day ; in June 1862, 4s. 8d. per day ; in June 1863, 4s. 8d. per day ; in Jime 1864, 5s. per day ; in June 1865, 5s. 3d. per day ; and in June 1866, 5s. 6d. per day. That is the rate of wages that has been paid to our workmen during the years that I have mentioned, and I think that it clearly demonstrates that the union could not have raised the wages or they would not have gone down on some occasions as they did, and that the rise is not to be accounted for by the men being united. I may say that I do not know any association anywhere that has the strength possessed by the one which I refer to, for where the number is not very large the combination is more perfect. I have another letter here which I think of some unportancc from a large fire-briclc manufacturer in Glasgow : — "May 13th, 1867. Dear sir, refeiTing to " our conversation on Friday last, I find the make and " produce of fire bricks has increased say within a " radius of 10 miles round Glasgow within 10 years, " from 50,000 daily make to 100,000 daily. At the " present time there is an annual export from the west " of Scotland of about 3,000,000 of fire bricks. Of " these about 2,000,000 go to the continent of Europe, " and about 800,000 to Valparaiso ; the balance to " various British colonies ; only a veiy few to the " United States. The wages during that time have " advanced from 15s. in 1857 to 20s. weekly at present. " There is no union among the men, nor has there been " any strike. The hom's are according to the ability " of the workmen ; many of them work only nine hours, " others nine or 10 hours. They have to make only " 2,000 bricks daily, then their day's work is done. " If more is wanted more money is paid, so that some " men make 25s. to 28s. weekly, and even 30s., work- " ing only 10 hours daily. The hands are not pleaty, " nor are they very scarce. The cairiers-off come to " be mouldeis in two or three yeais. Yours truly, " John Hueel." The point which I wish to bring out here is that notwithstanding the fact that there is no union amongst brickmakers in Scotland, at least in and around Glasgow, the wages in that department have risen upon an average from 15s. to 20s. per week, and that applies both to fire brick and to common brick. There is no union amongst the brickmakers whatever. In the case of the bricklayers (where there is a union) the wages in 1860 were 5s., and in 1866 5s. 6d., but in the case of the brickmakers, as I have already pointed out, the wages have within that period risen much higher, showing, I think, that it is not trades unions that we are dependent oli for a rise of wages. Then I think that we are entitled, from what has preceded, to claim that while friendly societies rightly conducted may be beneficial to working men, trades unions so called are injurious, — ^injurious to the pubhc, injurious to the employers, and injurious to the men themselves, and that if by healthful legislative enactment their action could be modified or abolished, it would be a great boon to the working men them- selves, as well as to the community at large. I think that both my evidence and my experience go to confirm to a very large extent my statement, that it would be much better for the men ; it would be better for them in regard to their wages, that is to say, their wages would be equally good, if not better ; and I think it would be better for them in a moral point of view, and better for the employers, and better for the community, were there no such things as trades unions. I might have occupied the time of the Commission for a con- siderable period, in detailing the hardships which have resulted from strikes,, families having been brought into misery, or into circumstances which it required years for them to get out of, and then frequently when the objects of strike is gained, the gain after all is nothing. A strike of a few weeks entails a loss to such an extent, that even supposing that the thing desired is gained, many months do not make it up. That is the conclusion to which I have come. U Mr. J. McDovald, 21 May 1867. 154 TKADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION : — 'MINUTES OP EVIDENCE. Mr. J. 3602. {Chairman.) That is the result you mean to McDonald, which you have been led by the experience which you have had ? — Yes. 21 May 1867. 3qo3_ (;)/,. Booth.) According to your experience ■ do the unions stand in the way of the more skilful and more industrious workmen obtaining increased re- muneration corresponding to their merits ? — Most decidedly. I believe that just now our men, with few exceptions, are paid alike. There are cases where parties are very inefficient, and where that is evident and marked, it is not insisted that they shall be paid the current wages ; but there are many cases where I am perfectly satisfied that had there been no union there would have been a considerable difference in the wages. I myself felt frequently constrained to make a difference in the wages of certain men, but I thought that it would have the effect of bringing all my men up to the higher level, and tliat consideration prevented me. 3604. Do you think that that has the effect of re- pressing the skill and industry of the workmen ? — I do. 3605. Is the work of the men slower than it used to_ be bfifore the unions were so prevalent ? — The amount of work done I think depends more on the state of the trade than on the union. 3606. But do you think that the workmen them- selves are slower now than they used to be before unions were so prevalent ? — I think that that depends altogether on the state of trade. I know that when trade is good and hands scarce, workmen do not do near the amount that they will do if trade is slack. 360.7. (Chairman.) Do you mean that, counting the bricks by the hour, or counting them by the day, when trade is slack they will lay many, but when trade is brisk they will lay few ? — I mean that more work is done by the one individual in dull times than is done in brisk times. When men know that their services are valuable, they are more careless, whereas when they know that their sei'vices are not so essential they are more careful. 3608. The fear of being discharged operates then ? —Yes. 3609. {Earl of Lichfield.) With reference to your association, it appears that a certain number of masters in Glasgow have combined together and agreed to do their work upon certain condicions and under certain rules, and they have so combined, as they say, to protect themselves against what they consider the unreasonable demands and action generally of the trades' union ; that is so, is it not? — Yes. 3610. The masters' associations, as far as you know, are not by any means so strong as the men's associa- tion ? — They are not ; the men have the power of controlling each other ; a power that the masters have not. 3611. Therefore they do not exercise so much influence over the trade generally as the men's unions do ? — T think that the masters' association exercises almost no influence over the trade. 3612. Have you any reason to doubt that if the masters' unions became sufficiently strong they would have the effect ultimately of imposing quite as great restrictions upon trade generally as you say the men's unions have done ? — That is my belief ; it is just in human nature. 3613. One of the witnesses, Mr. Mault, the secre- tary of the master builders in this country, has stated that he considers that the action of the unions has tended to check competition between the masters themselves ; now, is not the action taken by the masters in the case of the association which you re- present a strong proof of that, inasmuch as they agree among themselves not to employ men above a certain rate of wages ? — I do not know that that has such an influence on competition ; I think with us competition is still very keen. 3614. Not between your own masters, is' it ? — Is it competition for rnen, or what is the competition now referred to ? 3615. I understand that the members of your assbr elation agree arnong themselves not to give more than a certain fixed rate of wages ? — Exactly so ; that is agreed. 3616. If carried to its full extent would not that come to this, that it would stop all competition what- ever for men if this association of masters were sufficiently strong ? — Yes; I thought at first it was competition for work that you were refen'ing to. As to competition arising from increase of wages it stops that altogether. 3617. Do you think that if these associations of masters become sufficiently strong they would in all respects impose just as great restrictions upon the trade generally as the men's unions do ?— In some respects they would. 3618. Do you think that they would have the power to do so ? — I do not think that they can acquire that power by any means. 3619. Do you doubt that they would if they could ? — My impression is that the wages would very likely be reduced considerably below what they are if the masters could do it ; but I am not aware that they would affect the trade in any other way. We all know that if an attempt is made to impose something on one side a reaction is apt to take place 6n the other side, and that is just the tendency with em- ployers as well as with workmen, the one is apt to provoke the other. 3620. In short, do not you think that carried to their full extent these associations of masters might prove fully as injurious to the trade generally, as in your opinion in some cases trades' unions among the men have proved ? — It might come to that, but I do not know that it would. 3621. Do you see any reason why it should not ? — I do not very well see how it could. 3622. {Mr. Booth.) Do you think that trade would go on better if there were neither unions of workmen nor of employers ? — I do. 3623. {Mr. Merivale.) You have given very strong reasons for supposing that trades' unions can- not ultimately raise the rate of wages, but let me ask you this question : is not the meaning of a thriving trade this, that the business for the time pays some- thing beyond the ordinary rate of profit and the current price of labour ? — Yes. 3624. Supposing that there were no unions either of masters or of men, who do you think would get that surplus, that " something beyond ? " — I think that that must be regulated by the state of trade. 3625. I am supposing a thriving state of trade, a surplus beyond the ordinary profit and the current rate of wages, and I ask, who do you think would get that surplus ? — ^The men ; my belief is that had that state of things existed in Glasgow last year or before that time it would have been in favour of the men. 3626. Will you state why you think so ? — Because there were not enough hands to do the work, and if there had been no union of men and consequently no union of the masters, the men would have got the ad\antage of that. I have seen wages raised in that way repeatedly before the masters were united. 3627. {Mr. Booth.) Where there is a brisk trade there is an extra demand for labour, and consequently higher wages ? — Quite so. 3628. {Mr. Harrison.) I will just call your atten- tion to a paragraph in this very excellently written letter from the secretary of your society, Mr. Thomson : " The masters readily, admit that workmen are per^ " fectly entitled to combine together for mutual counsel " and support, and when thus combined they are " perfectly entitled to make rules and regulations for " themselves ; to regulate the affairs of their own " society. This is the unalienable right of all working " men of whatever class, and with it employers have " no right to interfere. But, while the right to com- " bine and the right to regulate said combination is " at once and cheerfully conceded, they have no right " to make laws knd pass resolutions affecting or con- " trolling their employers or others outside of their " association." That represents, does it not, the TRAPES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 155 .general efi'ect of the policy whicli ypu recommend ? — Yes. 3629. I suppose when you say " entitled to m"?.ke " rules and regulations for themselves " that means rules and regulations respecting the mode in which they will work ? — No, it means what I have in view when I say that while friendly societies rightly con- ducted may be beneficial to working men trades' unions so-called are injurious. I think that it is the right of workmen to combine to support each other in friendly societies, but that whenever they go beyond the bounds of assisting each other by pecuniary aid and otherwise in that respect, and attempt to legislate or make rules on points respecting their employers or others outside of themselves, they go beyond their sphere. 3630. Supposing that they make rules and regula- tions respecting themselves, respecting their own manner of working ? — They cannot do that without affecting someone else ; that is the difficulty. 3631. You mean this then, that you do not concede to the workmen the right to agree amongst themselves as to the mode in which they shall work ? — May I ask what you mean by the " mode ? " 3632. As to the wages, or the hours, or other con- ditions under which they shall work? — I think men are entitled to judge for themselves as to the length of time ihey should work and as to the rate at which they should be paid, but that being a matter affecting other parties, I do not concede tliat they have the right to decide dogmatically without the concurrence of the other party. They may have the right which arises from physical organization, but that right is controlled and regulated by law in other cases, and rightly so. 3633. You do not allow that workmen have a right to combine in order to agree amongst themselves at what rates of wages, for what hours, and under what conditions they shall work ? — As to the right my -belief is that it would be better if they would not do it, and that they have no right to fix dogmatically any one point affecting the rights of others without consulting them. That is the ground which I take. 3634. This is put forward officially by your society and you adopt this statement : " This is the unalien- " able right of all working men of whatever class, and " with it employers have no right to interfere." I ask, is there included in that " unalienable right," with which you do not wish to interfere, the right to com- bine to fix the rate of wages at which they are prepared to work ? — I do not think so ; because it is eLsewhere stated that the fixing of wages is a matter that is mutual, and that they have no right to fix it dogmati- cally without the consent of the others. You will see these words in that letter, " All this will apply with " as much force to employers as to employed." 3635. When it goes on to say, " Employers may " form themselves into a society and make laws to " regulate their own movements," do you mean to say that that does not include the right to make laws as to the mode in which they shall hire their men and the rates of wages they shall pay them ? — Here is a sen- tence that in part answers that question, "For example, " if the operatives society have the right to say how many apprentices a firm shall employ, may they not " in like manner say how many labourers, how many "journeymen, how many clerks, how many horses " and carts ; in a word, may fthey not on the same " principle say how much work a firm shall undertake " and at what rate it shall \fB executed." This letter put out by our secretary in the name of our society goes upon the supposition that the one has no right to interfere with the other, and that when matters come to affect both mutually they should be settled by mutual agreement. 3636. My question is simply whether this letter is put out. recognizing the right of trades' unions or not? — Not trades' unions as atpreseut constituted. I was going to say that the employers of other depart- ments connected with the building trades in Glasgow are all combined, and as far as I can understand their combinations they are all simply defensive, that is to say, if it was not to meet a combination on the part of the workmen there would not be a combination amongst themselves. 1 hold in my hand a copy of the rules of the master joiners, and also a copy of the rules of the master masons, if the Commissioners wish to see them. 3637. {Mr. Hughes.) In the instances which you were giving of the captiousness and the unreasonable- ness of trades' unions you gave us that case of Monteith and Company, in which a man required that wages due should be paid before other workmen went on with the job ; do you consider that unjust or unreasonable, the man's wages were due, as I understand ? — Yes, but due by whom ? The man's employer had failed. 3638. There is one point on which I should like to know what your experience is. You told us that the hewers and builders both turned out in the late masons' strike in Glasgow ? — Yes. 3639. Is it your experience that the men in the different branches of the same trade stand by one another even where it is to the disadvantage of one of the branches ? — I think not. I think that with the exception possibly of pecuniary aid there has been no assistance, and I am not aware that there has been even that to any great extent. 3640. Then the case you mentioned you consider a solitary instance ? — No, they are all one association. 3641. But diffeient branches ? — Yes ; they are builders and hewers, but they are all called masons. 3642. But you told us that both the builders and the hewers struck, although the question only affected the builders and did not affect the hewers ? — Quite so. 3643. Although it did not affect the hewers, the hewers turned out to enforce the demand of the builders? ■ — Yes. 3644. I only ask whether it is your experience tha,t that is an exceptional case, or whether it is the rule that the different branches not intimately connected do back one another in that way ? — The men in question are all members of the same association, and the association agree that the building part i>f it shall have a rise of wages, the employers refu.'ie to give that, and the union.* instruct their men to strike. That is the state of matters ; they are not distinct bodies, and therefore that case i> difTerent from the masons and the bricklayers,or the joiners and the bricklayers helping one another. So far as I know the joiners have not in any instance struck to support the masons, nor have the masons in any instance struck to support the joiners. 364.5. When you spoke of the rise of wages you said that you thought they would have risen as much with- out the unions. Do you know of voluntary offers of the masters to raise wages ? — Frequently ; and Dad the masters not been combined, in our case within the last three years wages would have been higher. 3646. During the last three years they have risen, you say in 1864 they were 5s., in 1865 5s. Zil., and 1866 5s. 6d?— Yes, 3647. How did those rises take place ? — The work- men's unions fixed the amount, and the masters at once acceded without any demur. 3648. But the demand came from the men ? — Yes, from the union. 3649. So that in those three years the rise was in consequence of applications fi'om the men ? — Yes. 3650. And was not a voluntary rise on the part of the masters ? — No. Still had there not been a union amongst the employers my. belief is that wages would have been higher. 3651. {Sir D. Gooeh.) Trade was very brisk then, as I undeistand you? — Trade was very good j there were not hands to do the work. 3652.. {F.arl oj Lichfield.) That is to say some of the members of your association might have been induced to offer higher wages to men to tempt them to come on their work ? — Yes. As I have already stated I think one of my employers offered 3*. a week extra to the men, and he tried to use his infiuence with me to U2 Mr. J. McDonald. 21 May 1867. 156 TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION : — MINUTES OP EVIDENCE. Mr. J. take some step. Had I not been bound up like the McDonald, others I should probably have made some offer, and I " -was not an exception, others were just as ill off, in 21 May 18(S7. ^^^^ „,Qgt of them were. 36,33. You sajr that after the strike in Glasgow, when the men endeavoured to t;ike contracts them- selves and squandered their funds, the union was broken np ? — Yes. 3654. Has it been reconstituted ? — Yes. 3655. Then the break up has not lasted long ? — Xo, it only lasted two or three years. 3656. {Chairman.) The account of the violence .shown towards the non-unionist workmeii by the unionists in 1838 is very terrific according to the evidence given before that Commission. In your time has there been any terrific violence used ?— None, so far as I am av/are. 3657. {Lord Elcho.) What is the proportion in your district of unionists to non-unionists ? — So far as I know in the line to which I belong I v/ould say that there are 99 to 100 connected with the union. 3658. That is in bricklaying ? — Yes, in bricklaying. It will be seen by the evidence which I have given in regard to apprentices that the matter is so arranged that they are brought into the union before their time be complete, and it in fact follows as a matter of course that they are all union men by the time they are journeymen. Though they get in at a certain period for 2s. 6d., delaying that it is 21., and that is a spur to bring them in in time. 3659. {3Ir. Harrison..') Do they remain in ? — Yes ; there is not work to be had if they do not. 3660. Are there no non-union bricklayers who can find work ? — There may be a few, but no regular employer, as far as I know, keeps non-union men. There may be a few very small emphjyers that have non-union men, but I do not know one individual myself who is not a member of the union. 3661. {Lord Elcko.) Can you speak at all as to the proportions in any other of the building trades between union and non-union men ? — I think that they are nearly all connected with unions, but I cannot speak so positively there. I think that the proportion is not by any means so large as with us, but I cannot say decidedly. 3662. {3Ir. Hvc/hes.) Do you agree with Mr. Manlt's evidence that on the whole not above a tenth of the men would be in union ? — That does not apply to Glasgow. 3663. {Earl of Lichfield, to Mr. Mault.) Your evidence applies to the country at large, does it not ? — Yes, throughout the country. 3664. {Mr Hughes, to Mr. Mault.) Throughout Great Britain ? — Throughout Great Britain. ( Witness.) I think that as far as Glasgow is con- cerned, taking in all the departments of trade, there will be little short of 80 per cent, connected with the unions. 3665. {Lord Elcho.) The labourers have unions, too, have they not ? — The labourers have unions, too. 3666. Does the same proportion hold good there ? — No, not by any means. With regard to those connected with the building trade I should say that there are somewhere between 80 and 90 per cent, connected with the unions. But if you take in labourers generally I should say that there are not a tenth of them, generally speaking, connected with the unions. 3667. You have arrived at your estimate, taking in agricultural labourers, I suppose ? — No, not taking in agricultural labourers, but labourers at foundries, iron- works, and places of that kind. 3668. It has been said here that there is a difficulty in a bricklayer's labourer becoming a bricklayer. Is there any difficulty in his rising in Glasgow? — He would be just admitted on the same fooling as any other person. You could only take him on as an apprentice and pay 2/. for him, and in that way make him serve a regular five years' apprenticeship. 3669. The union would not make him go out of Glasgow to qualify as a bricklayer ? — No ; if he pays the 21. and serves the five years it does not matter where he comes from. 3670. {Mr. Hughes.) As you think that masters ought to be able to take any number of apprentices or boys, will you tell us who ought to teach them their work ? — :The teaching which they get is the result, I think, more of practice than anything else. 3671. But they would be put under men to teach them their work ? — No, not under men. They work among men, but not under men. The men may direct and ought, I think, to direct a boy as to what he should do, but he has generally, I think, to acquire any know- ledge that he gets by experience and observation, accom- panied, of course, by instinictions from his employer 3672. {Mr. Booth.) That is an affair between the master and the apprentice ? — Quite so. 3373. {Mr. LIughes.) The employer cannot instruct him, I presume, because he is not on the work .'' — He is not always on it. It must be remembered that in Glasgow (and I suppose throughout Scotland generally) each employer is a practical tradesman, whereas in this country men do employ bricklayers, I think, who are not practical workmen themselves, and cannot teach. In this country, therefore, a boy going to the trade must either get it from a journeyman or acquire it by his oviii experience. But in Glasgow it is different, because, generally speak- ing, there the employers are practical men who can work themselves. 3674. {Mr. Harrison.) Do they teach the appren- tices themselves r — Yes ; it is a very common thing for the employer to go forward and just take the trowel out of the young man's hand and tell him what to do. 3675. {Lxird Elcho.) But where an employer em- ploys isersons to do work, whether they are apprentices or qualified workmen, it is for the purpose of getting that work done, and it is for him to judge, is it not, whether the persons whom he employs are fit to do the work or not ? — Yes, I think so. 3676. He should be left free in your opinion to employ what description of labour he thinks fit ? — That is my belief. 3677. {Mr. Hughes.) But if he chooses to employ 20 apprentices he cannot teach 20 apprentices ? — I have explained previously that that is a thing that cannot be done ; it is .in impossibility. A man that puts on 20 apprentices wUl soon put himself out of the trade altogether. 3678. {I^ord Elcho.) It is an evil that will cure itself, you say ? — Quite so, and very soon. Perhaps I may be allowed to say here, that there is a letter which I have omitted to read which confirms what I said in reference to the> alleged nature of trades' unions, and which bears also iipon the question of wages. The letter is as follows :—" 48, St. Enoch Square, Glas- ' gow, 13th May 1867.— Mr. Jolin McDonald.— Dear " Su-, — The following information may be of some " service to the Royal Commission now makino- " inquiries relative to trades' unions. On the 20th " February last I sent a bricklayer from here to " Bristol ; he left on the Wednesday afternoon, and " arrived in Bristol on Satm-day forenoon following, " in all three days and nights. For this he charged " Wednesday, 2| days ; Thm'sday, 2| days ; Friday, " 2| days; Saturday, one day; in all 91- days, " amounting to 9} days, at 5s. 6d. per day, town " '^vages - - 2 10 10^ " 9^ days at Is. per day allowance for " work being more than 3 miles from " Cross of Glasgow - - 9 3 " Allowance for 3 nights, at Is. each - 3 li "3 3 In all 3Z. 3s. \^d. for the three days going to the work in addition to the steamboat fare. In return- ing to Glasgow he left Bristol on the Wednesday afternoon, and (in consequence of stress of weather) did not an-ive in Glasgow tiU the following Tues- day morning, for this his charge was as follows : — Wednesday, 2f days ; Thursday, 2| dai days; Saturday, 2 days; Sunday, 03 ,% days ; Friday, 4| days ; TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION: — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 157 « Monday, 2 days ; Tuesday, 2 days ; in all 19 days, " amounting to 19 days at town wages " 5s. 6d. - - - - 5 4 6 «' 19 days allowance for being more than " 3 miles from town, at Is. - - 19 " AUowanee for six nights and one Sab- " bath, at 1,?. - - - 7 ■6 10 6 " In all 61. 10s. 6d. for the six days in addition to " the steamboat fare. I refused as a matter of course to pay such an exorbitant charge. The matter was brought up before the operatives' union, and I received a letter from the secretary intimating that the charge was quite reasonable, and would require to be paid. The case was then laid before the Masters' Association, and by them I was instructed to pay 2 days for each day whilst travelling at country wages, but no night money. The amount was taken under protest, and it is very doubtful whether it can be counted on as settled, as we may yet have to pay the full amount claimed. Yours truly, J. Thomson, for Allan and Mann." Mr. J. McDonald. 21 May 1867. The witness withdrew. Mr. Alfred Mault further examined. Mr. A. Mault. 3679. Chairman.) Will you proceed with your evidence from the point at which you left oiF? — Before I do that, perhaps you will allow me to explain with reference to some questions which liave been put to Mr. Macdon.ald, that I said at the time when I men- tioned the proportion between society and non-society men, that I obtained the information from every source that I could, and every source that was at my command was a union source. I added up the whole of the numbers of all the unions that I could hear of in any part of the country, and I allowed for unions which I knew existed in London among some operatives, and I arrived at the total of the union men from those sources. I know certain towns in whicli there is hardly a non-unionist, that is to say certain towns are too hot for a non-union man. 3680. {Mi: Hughes.) In other great towns there are shops that are full of non-unionists, I suppose ? — Perhaps that is hardly the case in any great towns, but it is the case in some towns. 3681. (Chairman.) What is your next proposition ? — I have got to the end of the first great division of my subject, and my second division is — that what may be considered as the legitimate purposes of trades' unions are sought to be obtained by unfair and im- proper means. In the first place their organization as friendly and assurance societies is upon the most unsound basis, and must eventually end in ruin. My point in reference to this is that advantage is taken as it were, of the general sympathy that must exist everywhere, and especially among working men, towards any means that enable them to provide against the inevitable rainy day, and certain other objects are, as it were, superimposed upon these perfectly legitimate objects of the unions. The industrious and provident workman who enters a trade union simply for the purpose of providing against the rainy day finds out that he has committed himself to a course of action that he does not altogether approve of ; but though he has entered the society under the idea that he was entering a friendly society he is bound to go on, because all the savings of many years are very likely invested in his society. 3682. {Lord Elcho.) Do you believe that many enter into these trades' unions upon the belief that they are simply benefit societies ?— To a gi-eat extent. 3683. Do you say that from your own knowledge ? — From my own knowledge. 3684. How acquired ? — During the course of my own experience as a builder. 3685. When I asked how acquired I mean, have men complained to you personally that they have found themselves in that position ? — I will state the actual circumstances in which they have complained. When men who have been at work for me for a long course of years have found themselves involved in a strike, perhaps against myself, their own feeling to me has \)een a feeling of friendliness and respect, and, as far as^the actual question at issue was concerned, they would lake my side rather than take the side of the union ; but they have said, " We have paid into this 'union for so many years ; if we go against the •' union we shall be struck off the books, and we shall " have no superannuation ; we shall have no sick " benefit ; in fact, we shall lose what amounts to the " savings of years, and the only savings that we have " made." 3686. That answer of yours points to tlie fact of men expressing a regret at certain results of the union, but it does not show, does it, that they entered the union believing it to be a benefit society ? — No, I did not wish to convey that impression. The impression I wished to convey was this, that the great end for which they joined the union was the benevolent side of the operation of the union, that is to say, that they might receive a share of the benefits. 3687. And that was the hold which the union had upon them ; that they did not wish to sacrifice the money which they had subscribed for benefit purposes by resisting the law of the union in reference to some strike ? — Exactly so. The Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners, in their general circular, say, .among other things, " The social character of the " amalgamation may be described as follows : Tool " benefit to any amount of loss, or 5Z. when a member " six months ; donation benefit when out of employ- " ment for 12 weeks, 10s. per week ; ditto for 12 " weeks, 6s. per week ; for leaving employment satis- " factory to branch or executive council " (which, of course, really means when out on strike) " 15s. per " week ; sick benefit for 26 weeks, 12s. per week, " or so long as illness continue, 6s. per week ; acci- " dent benefit, lOOZ. ; emigration benefit, Ql. ; super- " annuation benefit for life, if a member 25 years, 8s. " per week ; superannuation benefit for life, if a " member 18 years, 7s. per week, and superannuation " benefit for life, if a member \2 years, 5s. per week ; " funeral benefit, 12/., or when a member six months, " 3/. 10s. ; entrance fee, 7s. Qd. under 25 years of " age, increasing to 25s. up to 40 years of age, above " which no member can be admitted ; contributions, " Is. per week, but members are exempt from contri- " butions when receiving benefits. From the above " it will be observed that by paying our members 10s. '•' per week when out of employment they are enabled " to maintain their dignity as honest and industrious " artisans, receiving, not as a loan or gift, but as a " right, that which by prudence and forethought they " have provided in a time of prosperity for a time " of misfortune and adversity ; and, by thus buying " up our own surplus labour, it is a means of prevent- " ing those grievous conflicts between masters and " workmen which is too often the result of an over- " stocked labour market. It will also be seen that " when our members, through old age or incapacity, " are no longer able to toil for their bread, they are " not cast adrift to live on the benevolence of their " friends or seek refuge in a workhouse (which, unfor- " tuuatelyis the case with every other society in con- " nexion with our trade), but as compensation for " their past efforts in the interests of their fellow- " workmen they receive a superannuation benefit of " 8s. per week for the remainder of their lives." 3688. {Sir D. Gooch.) What are you reading from ? A circular issued by Mr. Applegarth, as the secre- tary to the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners, to the operative carpenters and joiners of the United Kingdon. I wish specially to call the attention of the Commission to this last paragraph :— " One of « the greatest difficulties that trade societies have U3 158 TRADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION :-^MIJTUTES OF ETIDENCE. Mr. A. Mault. 21 May 1867. " hitherto had to contend with, and one under which " many are now labouring, is the absence of power " to punish defaulters. This error has been wisely " avoided by the promoters of this society by judi- " ciously framing our rules, enabling us to deposit them " with John Tidd Pratt, Esq., the Registrar Generiil, " which gives our members the full protection of the " law, but does not, either directly or indirectly, " control or interfere with any attempt we may at " any time think expedient to make to advance the " interests of the trade." Of course I need not say to tlie Commissioners that although the rules of the amalgamated society have been deposited with Mr. Tidd Pratt under the Act 18 and 19* Victoria, chapter 63, section 44, they have not been certified by him, because when I first received this circular I of course was rather surprispd that Mr. Tidd Pratt should certify rules that provided for such benefits as the result of such payments. I wrote to Mr. Tidd Pratt, and he gave me this explanation : that although he was bound to receive everv set of rules deposited with him he by no means certified them, in fact that in such a case as that it was manifestly impossible that he could certify tJiem. 3689. ( J/r. Hughes.) Have you ever known the benefits promised by trades' unioTis not paid ; have you known any union break down in that respect ? — I have not personally known it, benause of course 1 have never been in any union, but I have heard of it, I may sa}', from many workmen who have paid into i^ cieties which imniediately on the superannuation benefit coming into force failed. Last week I was told of a case in the city in which I live of an old man who for many years had paid into a trade benefit society of this nature, and when he at last was incapable of work (which happened about four weeks ago), he went on to the box, as the men call it, and at the end of the third week the box was exhausted and the man at present is thrown upon the world. 3690. (Lord Elcho.) Have you known instances of men who subscribed to these trades societies consisting of two objects, benefit and frades purposes, who have lost their benefit subscriptions in consequence of being turned out of the union on some trade question ? — -I have known such cases. 3691. That might occur under the present consti- tution of these societies ? — Undoubtedly it might occur. As I have already stated, though the rules of the amalgamated society to which I have been referring have been deposited with Mr. Tidd Pratt under the Act, they have not been certified by him, and I need hardly point out how manifestly insufficient a fixed payment of \s. per week, whatever the age, is to secure the benefit specified. It would be utterly insuflacieut in the most favc curable cane. Taking for my guide the tables in the appendix to the 12th report of the Eegistrar Geuei-al, I find that a young man aged 20 who pays 21. 12s. per annum until he is 50 will be then entitled to an annuity of IIZ. per annum, or, de- ducting the ordinary expenses of the management of a friendly society, to one of 91. This amalga- mated society would give him one of 20/. 16s., besides, it may be, benefits to many times that value during the years elapsing between 20 and 50, and besides an inevitable funeral payment of 121. To put it in another way : a young man ought never to lose a tool, never be out of employment, never sick, and pay 2*. 4rf. per week from the time he was 20 to the time he was 50, to secure the superannuation benefit alone. This is of course the most favourable case for the society, and the insulficiency of the sub- scription is more and more palpable the older a man is at hi« entrance. If the unfair method of having an uniform scale of subscription for all ages is to be adhered to, I have no hesitation in saying that 'its weekly amount should be at least 5s. instead of \s. 3692. Since preparing that statement I was looking at Nieson's vital statistics, and I find that according to the experience of the Manchester Unity of Odd Fel- lows the payment of a man aged 32, to secure a funeral benefit of 12Z. and a sick benefit of 12s. per week, ought to be quite as much as this amalgamated society asks from its various members, not simply for that but for everything else. The misfortune is that until the time that these superannuation benefits begin to be paid, from the very nature of things the balance in hand belonging to these trades' unions will get larger and larger, and consequently the chances are that the society will get larger and larger ; and if there is any- thing in the calculations of such eminent actuaries as Nieson or Dr. Farr, as published in the Registrar General's report, I need not point out how inevitably these societies must come to ruin, and there is no doubt that the longer they last before that inevitable consummation occurs the more wide-spread the ruin will be. 3692fl!. {Earl of Lichfield.) Is your calculation founded upon the payment of Is. a week ? — The calculations of the amalgamated society are. 3693. And it is upon those that you have based yours ? — I base mine upon the same payment, and the result is, that it would be quite insufficient to meet superannuation benefit alone. 3694. Do you mean superannuation, sick benefit, and burial funds ? — No, superannuation alone ; they ought to pay very nearly two and a half times as much as they .are paying now in the most favourable of all cases, that is to say, in the case of a young man who enters at 20, and would have to pay the longest to the society. Of course every year after 20 this insuffi- ciency would get larger and larger. I say that if the unfair principle of making people of all ages pay one and the same sum, with only a slight difference in the entrance fee is to obtain, the payment, instead of being Is. ought to be 5s. per week. 3695. {Mr. Hughes.) How long do you think- it would take to discover the fallacy of these payments? ■ — I should think 30 or 40 years. 3696. You do not think that it would show under 20 ? — I should not think that it would show in 20 years, because for the first 20 years the society is, as it were, growing, and there would be an accession of new memberswhich wouldquite counterbalance thefew payments that would have to be made on the superan- nuation account; but when any great body, as the whole of the survivors of the original members, of the society got upon the superannuation benefit then it would begin to tell. 3697. The superannuation benefit I think is kept quite distinct from the others r — No ; and you will find that up to this time no payments have been made under that head. I was going to say that in relation to the other trades' union connected with the carpenters, the ' General Union,' their benefit scheme seems founded upon almost more insecure a basis than that of the amalgamated society, because they say, '• For the weekly contribution of " 8e?. a member receives 14s. per week in case of " strike ; two-thirds value for tools stolen ; full value " for tools destroyed by fire ; 9s. weekly in sickness; " a weekly allowance of 8s. wnile out of employment " or travelling in search of employment ; a super- " ann uati on benefit ; 10/. donation for deceased meiti- " her ; 4/. on the decease of a member's wife." I cannot enter into the same figures with reference to this society because they do not state what their superannuation benefit is, and I do not know. They simply say that there is a superannuation benefit, but they found their scheme on a weekly payment of Sid., as distinguished from the Is. of the amalgamated society. 3698. {Earl of Lichfield.) What is the payment of the stonemasons ? — I do not think that the stone- masons have a superannuation benefit. 3699. But what is tlieir contribution weekly ? — They have two scales, but, as I cannot remember them, I would rather not give evidence as to them. There is no likelihood of any greater strain coming upon them at any time in the future than exists at present. That is all that I have got to say in reference to that point. 3700. {Mr. Hughes.) You do not say that there .TRADES UNIONS, ETC. OOMMISSION : — MINUTES OP EVIDENCE. 159 has been any case, either in tbe an^algamated carpen- ters «r in any of the societies on which the amalga- mated' carpenters is founded, where there has been a break down in the benefits ?-~-No, I do not say there has, but I think that the time has not yet come. I think we ought to judge of these things exactly as we judge of any ordinary assurance society, and that if you were to put the books of the amalgamated ■ engineers into any actuary's hands and ask him to value their liability and their assets, I do not believe that the case would turn out to be anything else than this, that they are, as far as their liabilities are con- cerned, in a state of bankruptcy. My case is this, that putting aside the trade benefits that these socie- ties promise, and applying the whole of their funds simply to assurance benefits in one form or other, they are very unsound, and that, consequently, if you add the trade benefits which they offer they must be still more unsound. 3701. (Mr. Harrison.) Is not the real contribution 1*. a week, and the liability to such levies as may be necessary ? — Yes, I believe that that is it, but of course that does not put the case any better, because if the statement that I have made be anything like correct, that it would take a present payment of 5s. per week for them safely to promise all that they do promise, then what must the levy be when there are all the arrears to make up at the time when the society gets into difficulties. 3702. In making your calculations in this matter you have taken into account I suppose the very great numbers of members who cease to pay, and to continue members as compared with insurance societies ? — I do not think that the societies themselves would like me to take that into account at all, because it simply means, as I take it, that this insurance benefit which is promised is a hold which a society has upon its mem- bers to keep them right in trade matters, and if they do not keep right they forfeit that benefit. 3703. (Mr. Hughes.) Mr. Macdonald was just now saying that he was in the imion and is now a master. Is it not a fact that a very great number of masters and foremen were once subscribing members but are so no longer ? — I daresay that may be the fact, but it cannot aff^ect the result that I have arrived at ; that is to say, they cannot exist in sufficient numbers to affect it. I do not believe that they are four or five times as nume- rous as the members who remain, and I take it that they ought to be four or five times as numerous as the members who remain before the society would be safe ; at all events they ought to be greatly more numerous. If they pay 1*. per week instead of paying 5s. per week I say that the result must be somewhat like what I have said. 3704. ( Chairman.) The deficiency you suppose there win be may be made up by a levy, may it not ? — I think that in the nature of things it cannot be made up by a levy. 3705. If the members are wealthy enough it may, may it not ? — Is it at all likely that a voluntary society would go on existing when the members who are what you may call the paying members have got to pay five or six times as much as they calculated that they would have to pay, simply for the purpose of fulfilling the promises made to a previous generation of payers ? 3706. Your next point, I see is, that the action taken by the unions in reference to wages and time is unfair and unjust ? — Yes. I hold that however proper it maybe for men to combine in unions to secure high wages and short working time the action taken by the unions in reference to these matters is unfair and unjust, because I liold that the price of any description of labour in any locaUty does not now depend upon its value as ascertained by a general reference to supply and demand and the cir- cumstances of the country generally or the particular loca- hty, but simply upon the unions estimate of the chances of siTCcessfuliy conducting a strike in any given locality. I mean that at present th? unions select a place where a demand exists and they take care to stop the supply. They interfere with the action of the law that would and should regulate wages by taking an extreme case of 21 May 1867 demand and taking care that there shall be no flow of Mr. A. Maulu labour where it is most demanded ; because they by their picquets and by other means will stop that natural flow towards the place where the demand exists. I quite agree that it is right that under the circumstances which were mentioned by the last witness, of a very brisk trade and a great demand, such as he represents to have existed at various times in Glasgow, the men should have taken advantage of that to get an increased rate of wages ; but in this country the action of the unions is not only to take advantage of that but to take an unfair advantage of it in this way : they strike at a place where there is a great demand, they put picquets round it to keep aJl people off who would go to supply that demand, and consequently they very unnaturally influence the demand of the district, because they say to the masters, " You shall pay us " exactly what we ask because we wiH allow nobody " else to come and do the work for you unless you do " employ us." 3707. {Mr. Harrison.) What is the natural flow of labour ? — The natural flow of labour is the result of the fact that men get to know where labour is plentiful and go there. 3708. It means men wishing to enter into a con- tract ? — ^Yes, the personal contract which takes place between master and men. 3709. What else is the action of the union except desiring to enter into a contract ? — The action of the imion is this, to prevent the master from entering into a contract with any other person than themselves, or such few 6f their members as they choose to select. They say in effect to the master, as far as the contract is concerned, you shall contract with us upon our own terms, because we will prevent anybody else from con- tracting with you upon any terms whatever. 3710. How prevent anybody else ? — By surrounding the works with picquets and by advertising in the public papers. 3711. Forcibly tuterfering, do you mean? — Very frequently forcibly ; if quiet means are not sufficient they very seldom hesitate to go on to force. 3712. You mean to say, do you, that as a rule em- ployers in want of labour are prevented from getting it by unionists withholding by violence men seeking labour ? — I do not mean simply by personal violence, but I mean, if I may use the expression, by moral violence as well, that is to say, they influence the men by the natural feehng that men do not like to be made marked objects of, and they do notUke to be interfered with even in a manner that does not amount to actual violence any more than they like to be interfered with in the way of actual violence. 3713. What is the natural law which you say regu- lates wages ? — I believe that the natural law is the law of supply and demand. 3714. Does that mean something different from this, men thinking it their interest to do a certain thing ? — No, it is a result of that, because if a man is out of work he thinks it is his interest to get work, and when he has to try and find out where he can get work he makes inquiry as to where work is wanted, and he goes to that place. 3715. You say this then, that if a number of men, hearing that there is a want of employment at a certain town, go to seek it, that is the result of a natural law, but if those men think it for their interest not to go to that town, that is not the result of a natural law ? — No, that is not what I say. What I say is this : that the men who think it is to their interest, and who are following the natural law and go to that town, are prevented from either entering that town or taking service in that town if they want to do so. 3716. Do you mean to say that as a rule they are prevented by force ? — I mean to say that as a rule they are prevented, by force in the manner in which I have interpreted force. I do not mean always personal violence, but what the men call persuasion is used in the cases that I refer to, that is to say, in cases where there is a dispute between master and men as to what the proper and fair wages are. fJ4 160 TKADES UNIONS, ETC. COMMISSION : — MINUTES OF EVIDENCE, Mr. A. Mault. 21 May 1867. 3717. Do you mean more than that these men are brought to think it not to their interest to go to this town ? — I do not mean more, but I think that that means a great deal. 3718. {Lord Elcho.) How are they Ijrought to think that ? — They are brought to think it by the persuasions of the men addressed to them. 3719. {Chairman.) Is that persuasion something like this : " If you do not do as I persuade you you " shall be miserable for the rest of your life," or do they simply say to them, " This is for your interest ?" — I say that it is what actually amounts to intimidation, whether it legally amounts to it or not. 3720. {Mr. Booth.) You mean that the unions exercise such influence as they can to prevent these men taking employment ? — Yes. 3721. {Mr. Harrison.) Is such influence intimida- tion ? — I do n,ot profess to know what the intimidation is, but it very' often is intimidation, as defined by law, because we obtain judgment against the men involved in it in certain cases ; but from the natm-e of things, if this intimidation exists, it is very hard to get evidence of it, because if a man is intimidated from trying to get work he will be still more intimidated from going to give evidence in relation to that intimidation. 3722. {Mr. Booth.) The law against intimidation then is practically inefficient to a great extent ? — It is to a certain extent from the difficulty of obtaining evidence. 3723. {Lord Elcho.) Have you ever heard in brick- making of needles being mixed with clay where non- unionists work ? — Further on in my evidence I will give you such a case. 3724. You have known of such a case then l—J. have known of plenty such, but I thought it not worth while multiplying them. As I say, however, I can give you a case further on in my evidence. 3725. Would you call that persuasion ? — No, that is not what I should call persuasion, undoubtedly, but rather dissuasion. 3726. With reference to these picquets, as a rule picquets are very generally used ? — Very generally The witness used in every trade — in every one of the building trades at any rate, and, as I believe in every other trade where there is anything like organization of labour. 3727. The existence of a picquet implies, does it not, that were it not for that picquet there is labour which an employer might obtain ? — Yes. 3728. But by some means these picquets prevent men willing to come to work for an employer from coming to work for him ? — Yes. 3729. And so far freedom of trade and freedom of labour are interfered with 'i — Yes. If I may proceed with my evidence, the manner in which the masons usually secure an advance of wages is this : the operative masons in the town send a notice to then' central committee asking for permission to make a demand upon their masters to such and such an effect. That notice, or application as it is called, is put into tlie Masons' Fortnightly Return, -I'iiiich is, as'I have before mentioned, a secret document which circulates simply among the masons themselves, and the masters never see it. This application is referred to the votes of the whole of the members of the society throughout the country. 3730. {Mr. Harrison.) How many copies of this secret document do you suppose are sent out ? — One to each lodge in the country. In reference to that, I can say that I Iiave seen very many master masons who have been master masons the whole of their lives, and until J showed them a copy of this fortnightly return they had never seen one, though of course they had frequently heard of it, and as to its nature or contents they had not the slightest idea whatever. 3731. I am astonished to hear you say it is secret, for I have been in the habit of seeing it for years ? — I daresay. It got to be known that I was seeing it, and if you will look at the numbers for the last year or two you will see very frequent references to the fact of my getting to see it. I have applied to Mr. Harnott for copies, but I have never had them. I only see one occasionally, and I am obliged to return it in about an hour. withdrew. Adjourned to Tuesday next at 11 o'clock. LONDON : Printed by Geokgb E. Etkk and William SporiiswoODB, Printers to the Queen's most Excellent Majesty. For Her Majesty's Stationery Office. FIRST REPORl OF THE COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED TO INQUIRE INTO THE ORGANIZATION AND RULES OF TRADES UNIONS AND OTHER ASSOCIATIONS: TOGETHER WITH MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. iPrjgtntea to hoO) Rouses uf farlianwnt j)p Comm and at ^tv iWajfgt^ LONDON: PRINTED BY GEOEGE EDWAl^D EYLE AND WILLIAM SPOTTISW PRiNTERS TO THE QUEEN'B JWOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY FOR HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE. II ii , T8B7. HD 6664.G787" ""'*'*™">' "-"Tary «• ,2^ iSS*'? ^W 1 L# 3^fl «.'*'' .-laty ,€ ^■y .r H .#>' ''iPt y'lsj i"-Vil.'^j ^'*'-*