The Sun.
London, England, 1863-11-07 00:00:00

THE SON, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 7, 1863.

men of all parties in the line of conduct he adopted
between the ruthless factions now distracting Mis-
souri. The Radicals of that State will not be easily
put down, nevertheless, and the time has perhaps
come when their " Committees of Public Safety"
will resort to violence and take the law into their own
hands. Already Governor Gamble, the President's
in like Scholefield is charged with
n"olmukewee:rmwnh eos's in the good cause," and worse than
suspected of a leaning to rebels, Southern sympa-
thizers, &c.,—has called upon the central Govern-
, ment for protection against personal violence. Mis-
souri is ripe for mischief, and the anarchy which
reigns thronghout the provinces is not unlikely soon
to reach the principal city.

THE COLLIERS' STRIKE,

Mr. Joseph Love, one of the proprietors of the-collieries,
in a letter to a contemporary, says :—" The first cause of
complaint is the discharge of 12 men from Oakenshaw
Colliery. These men received 14 days' notice, according
to agreement, but the Union men, in commencing the
strike, ceased work without a moment's notice ; therefore
they are the originators of the strike, and are answerable
for all the miseries such an act may entail. It is also
stated ' their conduct has been marked by the greatest
order.' I will leave you to judge of this from the fol-
lowing circumstance :—The men first commenced to reduce
their labour to 3s. per day, then to Is, 3d., after which I
gave 14 days' notice to the Brandon men ; they at once
commenced the strike, using intimidation to influence the
men at the coke ovens to give up their work also, This
was on Friday; on Saturday they went to Willington
Oakenshaw, and Brancepeth with colours and music, and
succeeded in influencing both pitmen and men at the ovens
to give up work, without a moment's notice, at all those
collieries. One of their grievances was as to the contents
of the tub in use, and their statements were entirely false ;
the contents of the tub, which the owners require of the
men, are the contents they pay to the landlord, with an
allowance of 281 b. to the men before a tub is confiscated.
This has been the custom for 20 years. They state if a tub
comes to bank deficient by accident it is forfeited. This is
incorrect. In such a case the tub comes to bank with a cer-
tain mark denoting accident. They also state that, if a tub
is deficient, the landlord loses the tub as well as the men.
This is untrue ; the landlord receives full pay for all deficient
tubs ; hence he is a gainer and not a loser in such a case.
And then it is stated that 6d, is given to the person whose
duty it is to confiscate a deficient tub. Now, I dispute if
orhin g clown in the coal trade; at
hearde, I of such a thing. I would
fines levied in our collieries are
ha therecerey r
ra waset
re
kvc. ec
try
hes
arut suck el
awt
devoted to charitable purposes among our own workmen,
have no interest in enforcing fines,
out the regulations of the
collieries. There has also been a misunderstanding as to the
andcexwc
en epnrtes vf;ce
rrt hd (ti: oncece
if
pohlr
iennsew,oecnrePenny gone to the pockets of the
carrying
281 b. allowed to the workmen before a tub is confiscated. If
a tub is deficient 271 b, the man receives full pay, as though
the tab was quite full, and many men have worked a num-
ber of years and have never lost one tub from deficient
weight. A great deal of misrepresentation has been made as
to the difference between weight and measure. The only
reason the owners prefer measure to weight is because it is
more simple, easier done, and a saving of time, as measure,
once ascertained, is weight. But for the great difficulty in
carrying out weight the owners would much prefer it, and if
the men had applied for such a change, without advance of
price, it would have been granted on application. I have
now done so.

The true origin of the strike is an advance of wages from
20 to 25 per cent. This the men have demanded in our col -
lieries, and I state, without fear of contradiction, that a good
workman, in an average placeupon any of our collieries, can
make ss. and upwards in eight hours. This is the standard
by which I fix the price in every colliery. I have taken the
average wages of 20 men for the last six fortnights at Bran-
don Colliery, and find it upwards of £3 net to each man per
fortnight. The advance asked would increase that average
to nearly £4 a fortnight. This is a model colliery for com-
fortable houses and gardens, and many of those houses have
cost the owners £BO each. Tho workmen are much better
rewarded for their labour than the owners are for their capi-
tal on this colliery, and, as it is a less evil to lay the colliery
in than to comply with their request, I have done so. I
would also add that the men in the west district are better
rewarded for their labour than the coalowners are for their
capital, Any advance is impracticable, much less the demand
of 20 to 25 per cent. ; and, however long the men may be able
to stand out, the masters have no alternative but to resist. I
have been asked to assign my reasons for opposing the Union
upon our collieries. With your permission I beg to do so. I
oppose it because it interferes both. with the freedom of the
'neater and servant, and consequently leads to a system of
tyranny. It denies the right of the master to choose or re-
move his servant, unless at the expense of the stoppage of
his works. This is ono of the fundamental articles of the
Union, and is now carried out upon Inkerman colliery, near
Tow Law. When the owners gave notice to two men, about
a month ago, a deputation waited upon the agent to say that
if these men were not continued upon the works they would
lay the colliery in, The agents had to withdraw the notices
in order to prevent the stoppage of the colliery. A few days
afterwards, the same agent having had occasion to set on
some fresh men, the deputation already alluded to again
waited upon the agent, and said that if he continued to set
more men on they would all stop work. Now, I would ask,
is it within the range of possilelity to conduct public works
under such a system of dictation and tyranny ? And yet
this is the universal practice where the Union is established.
When I gave notice to men upon our collieries whom I con-
sidered dangerous to the peaceable working of the collieries
I was given to understand this—that if these men were dis-
missed they would all cease to work. This is the result of
the working of the Union wherever it is established. The
Union Committee dictates all terms, both for agents and
men, and many men submit as reluctantly to their terms as
the agents do, but from fear are compelled, cal the agents
from necessity. This is the power the delegates are deter-
mined to possess—viz., the entire control of the working of
the collieries, to dictate terms, prices, and the qu mtity
work done. Under such a state of uncertainty owners would
not dare to make those prospective sales necessary for the
regular working of the colliery, as they could have no cer-
tainty on the amount of produce. For instance, the Brandon
men, at the dictation of the Union Committee, reduced
their labour (and some of them were working for as much
as Si. 6d. per day) without a moment's notice to the owners
of their intention. After a few days at 3s. per day they
made a further reduction to is. 3d. per day, and about three
days afterwards they stopped the colliery. Under such a
system of uncertainty as I have described any person may
easily see the impossibility of owners entering into large
contracts, by which alone they can successfully work a coke
colliery. Hundreds of men who were in our employ have
been applied to by our agents to resume their work, and
many of them have expressed their anxiety to do so, but were
afraid of the Union men, We promised them protection;
they replied that after the strike was over they threaten to
drive the blacklegs out of the country. Is this a state of
things for any considerate man to tolerate ? And yet there
never was a Union established among pitmen without such
threats and consequences. Every colliery, sir, has its own
peculiarities ; but it can matter little to the workman in
what way the work is done provided he is fully remunerated
for his labour. I believe no pitmen in the county have been
better rewarded for their labour than those upon Straker and
Love's collieries, and no collieries are safer, being free from
gas. I would here state that if any of the delegates could
prove to me that any colliery in the district is better paid
than ours, I should make ours the same as that colliery. I
am prepared to pay equal wages to any in the trade, and I
fully believe I have always done so ; the fact was stated at
their public meeting, and none attempted to dispute it. I
have already said that a good workman can make ss. per
day within eight hours. I shall be glad to be called on to
prove this by facts ; if so, they cannot justly complain that
they are not paid for their labour. If it be asked why the
delegates have attempted to stop our collieries first, the rea-
sons I have heard from reports at their own meetings are that
our works being so extensive, and being under large contracts
to the blast furnaces, that if the men were firm they might
force us up to any price or terms, as we dare not let our works
stop, owing to the fear of the parties coming upon us for
damages for non• fulfilment of contracts. Also, our works
being large, if they could succeed in bringing us ttp they
could easily bring up every other colliery in the district. It
is stated that I have fixed a standard that the tub cannot
bring to bank. This would be extremely foolish. I have fixed
the standard paid to the landlord at Brandon at a less weight
than we paid last year , but, as we now propose to work
by weight, the standard is a matter that can be easily ad-
justed. The public express great sympathy for the families
ejected from their houses at this season of the year, and
properly so if the parties ejected had no choice. But no
person is ejected without the question being asked, " Will
you resume your work or give up your house ?" If they
consent to go to work, of course they remain in the house;
if they refuse the owners have no alternative, as the houses
are necessary for the working of the colliery. Other men
cannot be got without the houses to live in, and none will
come so long as those men remain on the place. Therefore,
until they are removed, it is impossible to get the colliery to
work. The men know this, and remain in their houses to
accomplish their object. I have received a document from
each colliery, stating the advance price wished, but at the
close of each document it is stated " We demand the resto-
ration of each dismissed man before we start work," Thus
they would compel the master to employ men of whom he
disapproves. If the owners submit to this they must give
up the control of the collieries to the men.
The strike has now assumed such a magnitude that it has
induced many persons to express their opinions in the diffe-
rent papers. The want of experience and knowledge of such
persons in pit matters leads them to very erroneous conclu-
sions, and as my name has been so freely spoken of by the
public, I think it my duty to lay before them a brief state-
ment of facts from the commencement of the strike. The
value and extent of the works over which I have the super-
vision are too extensive and important, as I have already
said, for me to hand over to the management of delegates
and committees, which is, I repeat, the great object the con-
ductors of the union labour to acquire. They appointed a
committee upon each of our collieries, and their duty was to
issue orders to the men when they were to work and when
not to work, how much to work, and what way to work.
Upon the knowledge of such proceedings, and not being
disposed to yield my powers to such committees, I gave
all those men 14 days' notice. Deputations waited upon
me and gave me to understand that if those men were
not continued they would stop the collieries ; and
knowing that to be the least of evils, I declined to withdraw
the notices. They then sent in a written document from all
the collieries, stating the advance they demanded, which
advance upon our present workings would amount to about
£20,000 a year. At the close of each document is placed,
" We demand the restoration of every dismissed man," A
deputation waited for my reply. I told them I could give
no advance of price, neither could I continue those men
under notice. If they were dissatisfied, all I desired was
our usual notice. This they declined. They then reduced
their labour, as I have before stated to 3s. per day, then to
Is. 3d., and three days after ceased work without any notice.

A large number of the men were wishful to work, but they
were intimidated, and said if they could get protection they I
would work. We then got a large police force, and a num-
ber of men went to work at Oakenshaw, Brancepeth, and
Willington pits. The working of these pits inflamed the
worst of passions in both men and women. The annoyance
and insults passed upon the men going to and from work
became so brutal and vile that many of them could not pos-
sibly endure it, and ceased to work, for while they were at
work their wives and children had to fasten themselves into
their houses. The remaining mon that continued their work
then waited upon my agent, and said unless those families
were removed they must cease to work, as they could no
longer endure such persecution. Thus a choice of evils was
placed before me—either to eject those families, or the col-
lieries must be finally stopped. Of course, I decided upon
what I considered the least evil. We gave sufficient notice of
our intentions to remove them to any place they might wish
to go to. We also offered horses and waggons to remove their
furniture; but they gave us to understand that they would
not remove from the place. As this is their principle, to
compel the owners to eject them, that they may secure the
sympathies of the public, I was informed the committee
of the union had made arrangements for all the ejected fami-
lies previous to their being turned out; but they were
urged upon to place themselves in the most pitiable condi-
tion, to cast odium upon the masters, and to create sym-
pathy for themselves- But for that motive they would all
have been housed on or before the day of ejection. I" appeal
to any reasonable, disinterested person, whether it was a
greater evil to eject 38 obnoxious families from Sunnybrew,
or to stop a colliery in full operation, giving employment to
a large number of people. The latter would have been a
real calamity upon well-disposed people; the former wa
self-inflicted, and could have been avoided, but for the sake
of creating public sympathy, as there is accommodation for
twice the number of people we turned out within a very
short distance from the spot. The same remarks apply to
Oakenshaw. Everything that I could invent has been done
to prevent the evils of the strike. No ejectments would
have been sanctioned, but they were found necessary to pre-
vent greater evils, viz., the stoppage of three collieries which
are now at work. Since the ejectments the work has in-
creased instead of being stopped. The ejectment was the
evil of a day or two, but the stoppage of three collieries
might have been for months. The number of those ejected
is but a small portion to those who are in full and good em-
ployment; and to show that nothing has been done out of
resentment at Brandon Colliery, where the men have shown
the greatest hostility, I have allowed them to remain in
their houses, as I did not see by ejecting them a sufficient
prospect of getting the colliery to work. When the number
of houses we have upon our collieries is considered, the
number ejected bear but a small proportion to the number
of union-men who live in our houses and refuse to work.
Some of your contemporaries have expressed great better-
ness against us for using the power of ejectment; but if we
do not use that power how can we gain possession of our
property ? It is the only means we have, and has always
been enforced. If once understood by the union men that
coalowners were intimidated by the public not to use this
power, we should have no cnd of strikes, for it is the only
protection we have. Tho houses are as necessary for work-
ing a colliery as the engine, and if the union-men are al-
lowed to keep possession of the houses they could effectu-
ally stop any colliery, and as hug as they chose, If there
is any odium due against the firm of Messrs. Strakers and
Love for the ejections, such odium must fall upon myself,
as the Messrs. Strakers have nothing to do with the ma-
nagement of the collieries. I defy any man to prove that
I am the author of any unkind action, unless done to
prevent greater evils.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—On grounds of policy, no less than on
grounds of justice, it was right that the doctrines
laid down in the Alexandra case should be recon-
sidered. Whether the Foreign Enlistment Act be
regarded as a municipal statute, or as an applica-
tion of a municipal sanction to au obligation of in-
ternational morality, the whole nation is concerned
in the construction put upon it. It is the country
in its capacity of a sovereign State which is the real
plaintiff; it is the country in its capacity of a com-
msrcial community which is the real defendant.
Where such interests are at stake no uncertainty in
the law, nor even the suspicion of such uncer-
tainty, ought to be tolerated. It would have
been a grievous misfortune—nay, more, it would
have been a disgrace to our system of juris-
prudence, it a judicial statement which has been
so much criticized, and a verdict which has failed
to command anything like general assent, affecting
as they do the public character and private rights
of the British people, had not been subjected to
solemn revision. It is greatly to be lamented that
the Lord Chief Baton and the Attorney-General
were unable to agree upon the terms of a bill of ex-
ceptions. Such a bill ought properly to be drawn li
up on the spot and before the verdict is given, while
the points to which objection is taken are still fresh
in the memory of judge and counsel. It is but fair
to say that this course was proposed by the late
Attorney-General, that it was resisted, but only for
the sake of convenience, by the Lord Chief Baron,
who professed himself ready to accept any bill of
exceptions which the Crown might tender, and that
it was not for want of repeated applications on the
part of Sir W. Atherton and Sir It. Palmer that the
substance of the bi!l was not settled before the Judge
left the Court. It is fair, on the other hand, to point
out that the Lord Chief Baron protested at the time,
as he still protests, against the meaning attached to
his words, and would probably have declinedthen to
sign the form which has since been tendered to him.
This untoward conflict of impressions having arisen,
there was, of course, no alternative but to aban don
the bill of exceptions, and to move simply for a now
trial. Here, however, a new diffieulty arose upon
two questions relating to the right of appeal, in
case the motion should be fruitless. Into these
questions we need not enter now. It is enough to
say that the rule nisi for a new trial has been
granted, 'and that the whole matter will be fully
discussed before the Court of Exchequer. If the
Attorney-General shall succeed in satisfying the
Bench either that the verdict was perverse, whether
as contrary to the evidence or as unsustained
by the evidence, or that the Chief Baron's direc-
tion was erroneous, whether positively or by reassn
of its inadequacy, the suit will be tried over
again. If the decison of the Court should be ad-
verse to the Crown as to the alleged default of the
jury, that part of the case will be at an end, but
there would still be an appeal against the alleged
misdirection, provided the Chief Baron acknowledges
the language imputed to him, and is supported by
his brethren in ratifying it. In the meantime we
are not without the means of forming an independent
opinion upon the controversy which has been carried
on with some degree of warmth for the last three days
between the Attorney-General and the Court of Ex-
chequer. It is the more important that we should do
so because the disputed expressions go to the very
root of the subject regulated by the Foreign Enlist-
ment Act. That statute, than which the unscholarlike
subtlety of legal draughtsmen, never constructed one
more elaborately slovenly, is confessedly modelled
upon one passed in the preceding year by the Ameri.
can Congress. Without the knowledge of this fact we
might despair of construing the famous 7th section
upon any grammatical principle. As it stands, it
appears to prohibit two things—the equipment of
transport or store ships " with intent" that they
should be employed in the service of foreign Powers,
and the equipment of any ships "with intent" to
cruise or commit hostilities against foreign Powers
in amity with her Majesty. It would thus impli-
citly legalise the equipment of ships of war for the
very purposes interdicted to store ships, and prevent
the equipment of these last even where they might
not be intended to annoy a friendly State. Such
an interpretation would obviously be an ab-
surdity; but it is only by comparing this 7th
section with the 33 of the American Act that we
learn the true origin of the confusion in our own.
There nothing is said of transport or store ships,
and the cruising or committing hostilities is so
clearly connected with the illegal fitting out for the
service of a foreign Power as to leave no doubt
what the object of our Legislature was in framing a
parallel but somewhat more comprehensive clause.
This object may be shortly expressed thus,—No
one shall, within British dominions, directly or in-
directly, "equip, furnish, fit out, or arm" a vessel
to be used as a transport ship, a store ship, or a
ship of war, by one foreign belligerent against
another in amity with the Queen, on pain of fine
and imprisonment, as well as of forfeiture. Another
branch of the same section is directed against com-
missioning ships with a like intention. Now, how
was this applied by the Chief Baron to the case of
the Alexandra? She was seized by the Government
before she was completed, and therefore before
any armament had been put on board of her, but
not before she had assumed proportions unsuited to
a merchant ship and eminently fitted for a gunboat.
There was sufficient evidence of her destination to
be laid, as it was laid, before the jury. Had it been
left to them with no other comment than that with
which the Chief Baron concluded, embodying the
very words of the statute, no exception could have
been taken, Such, however, was not the fact. Be-
fore putting the question in this form he carefully
explained that the " object of the statute" was to
obviate the possibility of a hostile collision between
ships built in our own dockyards for different
Powers, and putting to sea at the same time. Nor
was this all. He referred to TVebster's Dictionaurty
to show that equipping, furnishing,
and arming are identical, and continueficlo,ttiinn
ffl ial shore
which we quote from the report of the official
is that
gwo°rds
hand writer :—" I own that opinion
meate pre-
equip,' 'furnish,' fit ou,t,' or.
'arm,
that this pas-
cisely the same thing.'
litfiCation, but it was also
sage was followed by a
followed by a declaratiocieu;ht that' the building and sale
of the Alabama was perec y leeal. We cannot
doubt that such obiter dicta, if th©y must be so're-
gerded, produeete eta: same anpr,:,,=aun on the jury.