The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-03 00:00:00

f‘
e t__ _ . # %7j.,/ C 774 leiP.-'40.Y.:
(.......- , -..
.. ..,.:,:,
, .
•
0...,,k,, ,44-014,4 . ~.... 2. , .
%..4.1' , ,li-jjt. ..,,,,tn,,a„„
k
-' '.;;.:;:.:,..;
~.„,,, ;.- ---
'' 'i-,,, e-,44,„-;
~
LiThi
'''
,'''.e.;_ ' ' ? 1 ''''' '4k ,-. _.-7-' ;6 ~// ' - - '-k) t, 4'''. .'=-----= ,* ' ',__/," •
„ , , ~t,, .', ?i,,,,v,! 4 % ..,.,_
i ~„ 1
_,
*Ak, : *Y. g:': ''' 423111iA- 4 • 1 ,f.,:."-AV
\ 4'-
•Nik,'":,* .- ' ' v __. - 0 I .3- 4'..'
..,\MI., .. *, tom- '--.- -,
\ ' 5',..,1 , ,
_
4, ,k, ).:-.4. -- , _._• , ,„; , ,„,,,,,,,„ .4,„ Rif. %5 014 '' 414,/, Z''• ^ -I' ''' ' '''
i
° d/i ,„ DIE '‘ - ...„1.:7.; '1,77,,8
. .;
.0."

PRICE 5d

increase in the total circulation of the United
Kingdom of 539,3841., being the excess of the
average of the month ending the 13th of No-
vember, as compared with the month ending the
16th of October.
11,10 Ti
England
liabdi,e' e(riruaNrglimne
sga.amount
showing
nnag tdthieel
ce
rßle3aa nst
aoo
sif
compared with the preceding month of 72,000/.
This amount agrees with tolerable accuracy with
the estimate whicbvas fbrmed from the last
quarterly return of fbe Bank of England ending
the 9th of November.
STRIKE OF THE MASONS.
At a meeting of Delegates from the differot trades
of the metropolis, held at the Craven's Heg.7l, Drury-
lane, November 24. for the purpose of assisting the
Masons in their strike at the New Houses of Parliament,
Woolwich Dockyard, and Nelson's Monument,
Mr. BUTLER, carpenter, in the Chair.
After hearing the letter read of Thomas Hickey to
the Editor of the Morning Advertiser, stating his acci-
dent at the new Houses "of Parliament, and his treatment
and subsequent discharge by George Allen, the foreman
of Grissell and Peto ; and the replies by R. J. Wardle,
G. Allen, and John Baker thereto, and also the statement
of Patrick Wheelan, it was unanimously resolved, " That
two of this meeting, not masons, be appointed to investi-
gate the correctness or incorrectness of the statement
made by Thomas Hickey on the one side, and Messrs.
Wardle, Allen, and Baker, on the other; and that T. J.
Dunning, bookbinder, and J. Baker, plasterer, be ap-
pointed for that purpose."
The'undersigned being thus appointed, lost no time in
making the necessary inquiries.
The allegations of Messrs. Wardle, Allen, and Baker,
contradicting the statement of T. Hickey, they place in
order, numbering each.
R. J. Wardle states:-
1. " That Thos. Hickey met with his accident on the
25th of February, instead of the 13th, as alleged by him.
2. " That he did not complain to him (R. J. Wardle)
of Allen's conduct.
3. " That he returned to his work, March 29, after an
absence of five weeks, and not of 14, as he stated.
4. " That in no instance hare the foremen on the works
made use of the language stated by T. Hickey, in his
presence, upon men being discharged."
Geo. Allen states:-
5. " That the circumstances and language imputed to
him by T. Hickey, as to the cause of his dismissal as ma-
son's labourer, from the new Houses of Parliament, is ab-
solutely false.
6. " That he firmly declares he is not in the habit of
discharging men without good and sufficient reason.
7. " He begs to append the statement of Patrick
Wheelan, the individual alluded to in his previous state-
ment, in confirmation of that statement.
John Baker states :-
8. " That he is ono of the foremen of masons at the
new Houses of Parliament, and that he perfectly recol-
lects Thomas Hickey returning to his work, and the fact
of his working six weeks after his said return.
9. " That he (John Baker) considers George Allen
perfectly justified in discharging the said Thomas Hickey."
The above statements are given in the form of affida-
vits, intending them to be such but the Magistrate re-
fused, on account of some legal objection, to sign them.
Whether the objection of the Magistrate was made before
or after the parties had taken the oath, the deponents, of
course, have not informed the public.
1. With respect to the date of the accident, the under-
signed, after carefully inquiring at the Westminster Hos-
pital, and elsewhere, have no doubt that it happeried on
the 25th of February, and that, consequently, T. Hickey
is mistaken in believing it to have happened on the 13th.
This, however, as all parties are agreed as to its having
happened, and as to its serious nature, is a matter of
slight importance.
2. The statement of T. Hickey is as follows :—" I then
went to the pay-clerk, and told him of the usage I had
received from Allen." Here, also, appears to have been
an error, for it was to the time-keeper, and not to the
pay-clerk, to whom the complaint was made. This error,
which relates only to the person to whom the complaint
was made, and not the treatment complained of, is thus
explained. There are two persons to whom all employed
on those works had to apply previous to being paid—the
time-keeper and the pay-clerk ; having first to go to the
time-keeper for their "time," as it is called, and then to
the pay-clerk, who paid them for the time which had
thus been previously given. It appears that T. Hickey
wanted to be paid for two hours of the morning on which
he was discharged, which Allen refused to allow the
time-keeper to give ; Hickey, therefore, could not go
to the pay clerk for these two hours, for he had not got
" his time" for them, a circumstance which Allen must
well have known, and consequently must have perceived
the error, and remembered its cause immediately. The
undersigned, therefore, in confirming the statement of
Wardle that no complaint was made to him cannot ac-
quit him of gross partiality in his omitting to correct the
error, after he had pointed it out, thus made by T.
Hickey; for the undersigned are convinced that both
Wardle, Allen, and Baker, well knew to whom the com-
plaint was made, and are convinced, therefore, that the
pointing out of this error without correcting it, was
only for the purpose of leading the public to believe that
the circumstances complained of had not taken place.
The undersigned give the following shortened account
of the matter in Hickey's words to them. After the
first ebullition of anger, when Allen said "he did not
want any d—d Irish cripples there," he (Hickey) stopped
about ten minutes to see if he would forgive him (relent),
but he (Allen) came back, and told him "If he did not go
he would put his boots in his backside ;" he then went to
the time-keeper for his money, who told him it was "all
nonsense," and went to Allen, but returned to him (from
Allen) and told him that it was " all up" with him.
Allen went off (away) for about a quarter of an hour,
during which time Hickey waited near the office to be
paid or to " get his time" for the two hours in question.
When Allen came back he (Hickey) asked him how
long he was to wait for his money ? Allen told him if
he did not go about his business he would give him in
charge of a policeman. This took place on Thursday,
May 6,1841.

3. The 3d by Wardle, the pay clerk, and the Bth by
Baker, the deputy foreman, are the same, each impugn-
ing Hickey's correctness as to the time he was in the
employ of Grissell and Peto, after the accident ; they
asserting the period to have been six weeks, while lie
five and a half days. The undersigned, when they as-
certained from the Secretary of the Westminster Hospi-
tal the date Hickey left that hospital, March 30, in-
quired )whether he had been afterwards an out-patient,
and, if so, for how long ?—for the undersigned did not
know then he :had left the hospital without leave ; the
Secretary replied that he could not give that informa-
tion, nor did he believe such information could be readily
obtained; but, said he, " if the inquiry is made with
reference to the statements in the papers " (alluding to
Wardle's, Allen's, and Baker's statements) " it is certain
that, in the case of a broken leg, the bones could
not knit together, so that the limb could be used, in the
short time, for such a process, from Feb. 25 to March 30,
less than six weeks that he wasin the hospital." If this
be correct, of which medical men can best decide, it
must have been physically impossible that Hickey could
have returned to work on the 29th of March, as stated
by Wardle, the pay-clerk, and Baker, the deputy fore-
man, which, on oath, they "so perfectly well remem-
ber." The undersigned, upon questioning Hickey on
this point, elicited from him that a few days before he
left the hospital he inquired whether he could not be al-
lowed to leave, when the surgeon told him that he would
not allow him even to leave his bed for a fortnight. He,
however, did leave, without the consent of the surgeon,
on the 30th, in a "cab," but soon found that the
" Doctor" was right, and, after a few days,error aopfpinlieadkifiaogr
medicine at the hospital, when he was told, that as he
had left contrary to orders, they could do
diddo notno more
_e
for him. He further stated, that he was able to do no-
thing for five weeks after he left theliobspeietanitirellyf
this be correct, which, as it is against himself, there can
be no reason to disbelieve, it is again impossible, and
luetdtgerelyto
tshoe,
soifrgewoen
oafltlhoew hospital,cotnpe competent
Himeke:catotlhreleysnoofmie-t
Ahvthei
Hickey
employment mnle ppqutl
iolotryani
blempseueu until
undersignedttisi
eluloyvinontirhgltkadheTtueohe3ni2ousittepthhathae,dureo2tfo,f9otobrtillfheolte:haht
Ihra‘chothehfe.e
might
those
inquiry
ein the
thenegative. house
coovnfirmed their
where heinj
hu
es t
lodged,ccallingandof paol
In
bieisiicdkeesy,
htaaoyhper
house where
tuh,ahte
rhise
Hickeystatement s
resided
correct.ed eo
is positive as to his not being at work for four weeks out
h e
left landlady
the
h ofs p
it
thael
of the five. She has no doubt as to the whole, but can
swear to four weeks inability to perform work. The
undersigned inquire of Messrs. Baker and Wardle how
theyknew Hickey was in the employment of their mas-
ters
from the 29th of March to the 6th of May. Is it
pbfbryyi
et
ancollo:ntihsosuesf
el taiwilsnisagiuinemaht hip etpiiorenrbi oot odhk s fho r that period, or is it only
from consulting their books,t
q ui rie
really
egael werelyt h
oe madeum
be more easy
challenge e Peto
immediately after he left thuee 911_
by
that nh efi
rm
thatetundersigneduhnedherussipkginnt
aoe
ldw?
publiclydlf it ib e
to swear to, nothing is more certain than that his
name must be found on the books for the whole of that
ttilltieoa
vportrohkdesiurfcoepr trtleihodesuepe
tebireoinoo kd;s
t.
ha
enyNd oitfh e
kceayn
time. were ready

If, however, it be only from the mere assumption, the
undersigned beg to suggest to them that an oath is no
trifling matter, and to recommend, for their own sakes,
that the next time they tender an oath, or take an oath,
to take care that they really do " perfectly well recol-
lect" the circumstances to which they are about to swear.
4. R. J. Wardle denies that the foremen on the works
have in any instance made use of the language stated by
T. Hickey in his presence upon men being discharged.—
Does Mr. Wardle really intend this to implicate the
statement of T. Hickey? if so, he ought to have specially
named not the " foremen on the works," but George
Allen. Hickey has brought no charges against the
" foremen on the works," but only against George Al-
len. It has already been admitted that no complaint was
made to him, the pay-clerk, and that, therefore, the lan-
guage described might not have been used in his pre-
sence. But does he mean to say because it was not used
in his presence that it was not used at all? The un-
dersigned beg to inform him that if it really be true
that Allen never made use of the language described "in