The Sun.
London, England, 1825-08-10 00:00:00

[NEW TIMES.]

Every weekly publication of the Newspapers
set up and maintained by the working mechanics
presents the power of combination in a fresh
light, and with more alarming features. Thus
we learn, by Saturday's Paper, that the potters
of Staffordshire intend to join " the Grand Union
of England"—a body which has at least an im-
posing name, and if it have but a correspondent
force, may be capable of paralyzing the whole
manufacturing industry of the kingdom. These
potters, who are now holding out against their
masters, say, " two delegates waited upon us from
Manchester yesterday, requesting us to join their
Union : the same delegates are gone to Birming-
ham, and so on through England."—The Barns-
ley linen-weavers have begun to strike upon a
new and peculiar principle. The following is
the account given of their proceedings :—" The
manufacturers having declined so give the ad-
vance requested, their weavers resolved to strike
against one of the houses taken by lot ; and it is
their object to oblige each master in the town to
raise his wages, by striking against them succes•
sively : the house now under proscription i 5 that
of 'Messrs. J. Cordieux and Sons."—Where,
are those measures to stop? Is it possible that
any manufacturing country can long exist as
such, where the freedom of contract between
master and workman is so entirely subverted ?
Delegates are to travel through the country !
Workmen of all classes are to form the Grand
Union of England! and masters are to be selected
by lot to be put under proscription!! We last
week warned the workmen that they might not
be altogether safe in devoting their funds, by
thousands of pounds, to the support of such mea-
sures. To this one of their Journalists replies,
that " workmen, in contributing to the relief
of each other when in distress, are but exercising
a virtue common to all mankind." This shuffling,
false, and prevaricating excuse will never answer
their purpose. Neither in law nor in common
sew.. can it hold water for a moment. They do
not contribute to relieve distress ; they coutri-

bute to support confederacy ; and the object
of such confederacy is to compel masters to
form contracts against their will, or to proscribe
them if they refuse. True, the late Statute
on Combinations says nothing about such pro-
ceedings, but are they .tolerated by the Common
Law ? We think they are not. There is but one
honest principle, that the agreement between
master and workmaa_shall be free. The work-
man's labour, his strengh,.his skill, are his pro-
perty ; the master's ►nn►ta; is his property. The
interference of third parties is a fraud upon both,
and is likely in the tong run to be more ruinous
to the workman than even to the master.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, AUG.. 9.

The LoniCHANCELLOR entered the Court before nine
o'clock, at which time few Counsel were present. Little
business could therefore be done, and his Lordship retired to
his private room, sending out occasionally to inquire whether
any business was ready. Ile did not return into Court until
near 10 o'clock, when he remarked upon the absence of the
Learned Gentlemen.
EXPARTE CORBETT, IN RE SIR G. P. TURNER.
Mr. SIIADWELI. was heard in reply to the petition of Mr.
Corbett, which he resisted upon the same grounds as when the
application was first made—namely, that Mr. Corbett was con-
nected with certain individuals, who were dangerous persons,
having been already guilty of improper conduct towards the
lunatic.

Mr. HART replied.
Mr. TREsLoVE stated that he had a petition of Mr. Corbett,
on behalf of Sir Gregory, praying that he (Sir Gregory) might
have legal advice in preparing to traverse the inquisition. It
seemed to him (Mr. Treslove) absurd to allege that Sir Gregory
had the power to traverse the inquisition, when he had not a
shilling in his possession, and his solicitor was forbid access to
him.

The Loin CHANCELLOR observed, that the property of
the lunatic had not been taken from him by any process in this
Court.

Mr. TRESLOVE observed that Mr. Maberly (the solicitor),
who opposed the present application, had all the property of
Sir Gregory in his hands.
The bORD CHANCELLOR was not acquainted with any case
in which confidence seemed to have been so much abused as in
that of Sir Gregory Page Turner. His Lordship felt it to be
necessary to read all the affidavits; and held it to be his duty
to take care that, if Sir Gregory was to be represented at all,
he should be properly represented—in other words, with his
full concurrence. His Lordship therefore required all the affi-
davits to be handed to him. He would not prejudge the case;
the application might be extremely proper.
Mr. SHADIVELL observed, that the petition supported by
Mr. Treslove was that to which he had before alluded ; it was
unsupported by affidavit, and contained severe and unjust re-
flections upon Sir George Tuthill.
At a subsequent period of the day, the LORD CHANCEL-
LOR stated that there must have been some misunderstanding
with respect to his order on the petition of Lady Turner. It
had been referred to the Master to make inquiry as to what
was fit to be done; that he had received a letter from some in-
dividual who seemed to complain that, under present circum-
stances, the Court should have ordered a provision for Lady
Turner. The Court had done no such thing.