The Sun.
London, England, 1865-04-07 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TlMES.—Though the dispute in the iron-trade is
not yet terminated its calamitous effects have been
largely circumscribed. The strike continues, but the
lock out has been withdrawn. Nothing has ever oc-
curred in the history of trade controversies more in-
structive than this greatquarrel, and we submit the
case plainly to public judgment while the circum-
stances are fresh and the parties still before the
world. The ironmasters of Staffordshire having re-
solved upon a reduction of the wages paid to their
workmen, the ironworkers met in their trade unions
and took the proposal into consideration. After
due deliberation they agreed, with a special excep-
tion, to accept the abatement, and continue work
on the reduced terms. The exception applied to
the district of North Staffordshire, the men of which
district, it was resolved, should refuse the reduction
and strike against it. Be it observed and remem-
bered that this rejection of a course generally
adopted was not a private or isolated determination
on the part of the North Staffordshire men them-
selves. The very same authorities who, acting on
behalf of the trade in the trade union, sent the
other ironworkers to work, ordered the iron-
workers of North Staffordshire to stand out. It
was openly alleged at the time that they did this
to " try the strength of the masters." They meant
to support these strikers from the funds of the union
while they fought the battle of the trade, unless
they should discover that the masters, as seems to
have been half suspected, were strong enough to
win the battle. This discovery was soon made.
Taught by the elaborate and successful combinations
of the men, the masters had now, in self-defence,
formed a combination of their own, and they pre-
sently proclaimed that unless the men of North Staf-
fordshire followed the example of their brethren
and resumed work they would close their establish-
ments against all the workmen together, and thus
stop the fund of wages out of which the selected
strikers were to be maintained. This was the lock-
out. The unions were frightened at this distinct
demonstration of the masters' strength, and they
endeavoured to retreat. They revoked the order
to strike, and desired the North Staffordshire men
to go to work again. But the men refused, and
then the unions, after some controversy, threat-
ened to cut off the expected supplies. They were
probably sincere in their condemnation of the strike,
for it had proved a blunder; but the masters de-
clined to rely upon the professions put forth, and
insisted that the strikers should resume work. This
led to the meetings, discussions, and proposals
which have been reported in quick succession for
some weeks past. The unions made a grievance
of the masters' incredulity, and declared that it was
hard they* should suffer when they had done all they
could. The men locked out were willing to work on
the masters' own terms ; they had never struck
against the reduction of wages, nor did they strike
now, and they had repudiated the act of those who
did strike—why, then, should they and their fami-
lies be deprived of their daily bread ? To this re-
monstrance the masters replied that the strike was
the work of the whole trade in Union assembled,
and that those who had caused it should put an end
to it ; that the North Staffordshire men were evi-
dently relying on support from without, and that
the lock-out proved the only means by which this
support could be effectually intercepted. Thus, the
object now was, in some way or other, to bring
these North Staffordshire men to work again. With
this view several public-spirited and benevolent gen-
tlemen, and especially Lord Lichfield, Lord-Lieute-
nant of Staffordshire, endeavoured to bring the par-
ties together for understanding or compromise. It
happened that a certain North Staffordshire delegate
had declared in London that, if the masters would
re-open their works, the. men on strike would
" resume work," and leave the question of
wages to arbitration. On hearing this the chair-
man of the Masters' Association wrote to us to say
that if a proposal to this effect were brought to him
with authority he would place it before the masters,
and do his best to get it accepted. The men,
however, at first repudiated the offer made by their
delegate, and:alleged that he was not empowered to
mak it, but in the end they consented to resume
work provided the wages given them, pending the
arbitration, were on the original scale. But this did
please the masters, who maintained that the interim
rate of wages should be on the reduced scale. At
length Lord Lichfield proposed that the question
should be suspended in fairness between the two
parties by allowing the men to draw wages on ac-
count, the balance to be made up after the arbitra-
tion according to the tenour of the award. To this
reasonable compromise the masters assented, but
the men resolutely rejected. it. They refused to go
to work, except on terms implying the success of
their strike, although that strike had been repudiated
by their own brethren. They had struck against
the reduction of wages, and they insisted that this
reduction should be cancelled. In this position the
case stood till Wednesday, when the masters with-
drew from their original demand, that the men on
strike should be induced by their brethren to go to
work again, and accepted instead a distinct assurance
from the other wolkpeople that they would not,
directly or indirectly, support the strikers in their
resistance. The lock-out, therefore, is at an end,
and the struggle, if all parties are sincere, has now
dwindled to a mere local dispute bet Ween a few North
Staffordshire masters and. North Staffordshire men.
But the lesson taught by the whole story is im-
portant in the extreme. The men are indignant,
but without any just cause, while there is but too
much ground for suspecting that they do not look
cordially on the proposed system of arbitration as a
substitute for strikes. What they would like is
strikes, but strikes without lock-outs. They are
alarmed and angry at the discovery that when it
comes to union against union the masters are too
strong for them, and that their hitherto successful
tactics will become of no avail. Accordingly they
denounce, as not only tyrannical but absolutely
illegal, the combination of all the masters in the
trade against all the men in the trade, though they
know full well that all the men in the trade are
organised in standing array for prompt and regular
combination against any master or masters selected
for attack. They call the concerted action of the
masters a " conspiracy," forgetting how this very
action arose out of a regular plot laid against the
masters of North Staffordshire by their own Trade
Unions. They had intended to employ force against
a particular body of masters, and they raise an out-
cry when they found the weapons wrested from their
hands. As far as the discussion enables us to judge
they had no reason on their side at all. When it came
to sober debate, the origin of the strike was dis

ereetly left in the background, and it was alleged
that the ironworkers of North Staffordshire were

justified by special circumstances affecting their
condition in standing out for higher wages than
their brethren in the trade. But this assertion was
not substantiated, and. presently the men fell back
upon their strike and nothing else. They would not
even accept arbitration, unless they had first been
allowed to get their way by force. It is clear that
there is a-reluctance to forego the machinery which,
though scandalous in the eyes of the public and
calamitous to the trade, has hitherto served, at least
occasionally, the turn of the men against their em-
ployers. It was openly urged at the meetings of the
men that the unions had, whether with or without
reason, obtained better terms for the men than pre-
vailed before, and the cry of the men from first -to
last has been that the masters wanted to destroy
their unions, and that their unions must be pre-
served. But this can only mean that they must
be at liberty to strike, and extort their own terms
by striking. The masters' unions can only de-
stroy the men's unions by proving the stronger -of
the two, and by meeting a strike, which is. the
expression of one combination, by a lock-out,
which is the expression of the other. The whole
outcry means—that a lock-out beats a strike,
and that if the masters are allowed to
lock-out it will be of no use striking any more.
We should not be the least inclined to quarrel
with this conclusion if it led both parties to abandon
the principles of coercion altogether, and resort 'to
more reasonable methods of settling disputes ; but
we are compelled to doubt from the experience 'of
the last few weeks whether the men are really dis-
posed to accept a system of impartial arbitration in
place of organised strikes. Certainly, the Iron-
workers of North Staffordshire have shown no such

inclination, and the machineryoiriCades' Unions
has of late been worked so successfully in the in-
terests of the men that they may naturally be 1111- -
willing to forego its advantages. On this we can
only say that if they choose to fight with these
weapons they must expect to find their adversaries
doing the same. They cannot appeal to the public
against combinations and conspiracies while they
are themselves combining and conspiring to the
utmost limit of their power. We should like to see
these combinations discarded altogether for more
sensible proceedings, nor do we admire lock-outs
any more than strikes. The masters, it is evident,
have found the disadvantages arising from their
policy, effectual though it may have been against
the men. They tried public opinion rather hard, too,
by their wholesome evictions, though they were
logically defensible, and even now, at the last, they
have yielded a point, without, perhaps, being really
convinced. If the 'experiment tells against future
lock-outs, so much the better ; we only trust it may
tell against strikes a well.
HERALD.—The 'anxiety of Lord Westbury- to
vindicate his character must, indeed, be intense.
He has courted the fullest investigation into the

circumstances attending Mr. Edmunds' resignation,
and to secure a satisfactory verdict has packed the
jury. The world is edified with just that happy
union of the wisdom of the serpent with the harm-
lessness of the dove which might have been antici-

pated in the eminent professor of Christianity who
has publicly attributed his success to his fulfilment
of the apostolic precepts. Unfortunately this bright
example will not produce much imitation. There
are a good number of gentlemen who would like to
follow in the footsteps of the Lord Chancellor but,
circumstances forbid. Thousands of poor devils are
scattered about London alone who would hasten to
vindicate their characters against the aspersions and
the prejudices of the public if they could only select
their own jury; but an unjust and partial law will
not allow their friends, who must know most about
them, to investigate their proceedings—that is a
privilege reserved for a Minister whose " chastity of
honour " all of a sudden " feels a stain like a
wound," and who, having for three or four years
employed his patronage to provide for his kindred,
cannot live under the suspicion that he has
done anything to create a vacancy in a snug
office, to which he has appointed one of his sons.
The committee nominated by the Lord Chancellor
as the court of investigation into his conduct con-
sists of eleven members, four of whom are his col-
leagues and two ex-members of Liberal Cabinets
and warm supporters:of the present Government,
which has the deepest interest in whitewashing its
Chancellor. The wisdom of his lordship's precautions
has been amply justified. The majority could not,
indeed, " bulle" the inquiry. They could not re-
fuse to hear the witnesses and to investigate the
whole subject, in accordance with the terms of the
Order of reference. They could not prevent the inde-
pendent minority from eliciting from those witnesses
the fact condemnatory of the Chancellor's conduct.
They could not protect the Chancellor against him-
self, and prevent him from convicting himself by his
own testimony of all the misconduct which had been
imputed to him. But they could temporarily sup-
press that evidence. They could prevent the public
from learning the whole facts, from getting the
ample confirmation of its suspicions, at least for a
time—and time in such a matter, as Lord West-
bury, no doubt, took care to tell them, was of the
utmost importance. A whitewashing report would
be of very little value if it followed the publica-
tion of damning evidence ; but preceding the
publication of the evidence it would be invaluable.
The majority of the public would accept it as a
fair deduction from the evidence, absolve the
Chancellor accordingly, dismiss the whole subject
from its consideration for something fresh, and
refuse to pay any attention to the evidence when
published, as concerning a question already settled.
The committee therefore resolved that its proceed-
ings should be private, and the public has - heard
nothing of them except rumours in the interest of
the Chancellor and the Broughams. But this was
not enough, the majority recognising again the value
of time, resolved to protract the proceedings as long
as possible. If the presentation of the report could
be delayed until after Easter the public interest in
the subject might dwindle. Something might " turn
up," something fresh might arise to so engross public
attention that report and evidence would both ob-
tain very little notice. So the noble lord's colleagues
have set themselves to work to prevent the commit-
tee from doing anything. The inquiry has been
finished some time, the report might liave been ready
several days ago. But the Whig members have not
attended the meetings of the committee, and have
thus forced several adjournments, with the object,
of course, of hanging the matter up till after Easter.
We hope, for the credit of the House of Lords, that
these tactics will not be successful, and that the re-
port will yet be laid upon the table of the house be-
fore the adjournment. There is already a veil
wide-spread-dissatisfaction with the secrecy and de-
lay, and people begin to murmur that the whole in-
quiry is a solemn farce. And a solemn farce it was
no doubt intended to be by the Chancellor and the
Government ; but the matter is one not to be settled
to suit the convenience of the Chancellor., The,
House of ;Lords, which has been directly injured
by his proceedings, cannot allow its committees
to be used to screen him against censure, net
can it afford to incur the suspicion that it looks with
equanimity upon gross jobbery and scandalous abuse
of power. It may be quite right that the house and
the public, in forming their final judgment upon
Lord Westbury's conduct, should take into favour-
able consideration the abilities and the high position
which the organs of the Government now urge as a
plea ad misericordiam. We will not now discuss the
question which might be raised, whether these great
abilities do not rather aggravate the offence ; but
before these arguments can be listened to, the Main
question must be decided. The prisoner cannot be
heard in arrest of judgment until the whole question
has been determined and the verdict given. Then
the virtues of the Chancellor may. be catalogued by
his advocates, and the list will no doubt meet with
all the attention it deserves. At present the simple
question for the House of Lords and the country Is,
whether Lord Westbury has been guilty of the
offence which he so vehemently repudiated, whether
he did not extort the resignation of Mr. Edmunds
by the threat that if he did not resign he should be
dismissed under circumstances which would deprive
him of all chance of a pension. That is the question
upon which Lord Westbury has asked the house to
pronounce a verdict by a committee ; and the house,
having already neglected its duty in allowing hiin
to select his judges in the first instance, must at
least, for, its own reputation, insist that all the
evidence in the inquiry should be at once placed
before it and the country, in order that both, 50
tribunals of a higher resort, may confirm or quash
the verdict of 'a tribunal' the majority of whose
members Must. have entered into the inquiry with A
strong interest in recording a verdict of not guilt/
let the guilt be ever so clearly proven.