The Sun.
London, England, 1841-10-04 00:00:00

CHARGES BY THE MEN.

Charge I.—One instance is of a male who unfortunately
fell from 'the scaffold and broke his leg, who, as soon as.
he was able to resume his employment, returned to his
work, expecting at the least to find a COlTlasion of f 451-
trig • woilid-Wlll6Wii. 'tower& Trim, bia; howevefe; tifit
" he was brutally told to go about his business, as he
(Mr. Allen) did not want such men on the work."
Charge 2.—Another instance is that of a man who was
taken ill in consequence of his being previOusly out of
employment and unable to obtain the common nece.saArie:.: •
()Hire ; and having at that time a wife who had been ill
for some months, he was in consequence obliged to remain
from his work a few days, and when he came back, ex-
pecting to resume his employment, he was insultingly
told "to leave the ground, as he (Mr. Allen) wanted
none there but sound men."

Charge 3.—A nother instance of his cruelty and tyranny
was exercised upon an individual, who, obtaining 'cave
from an under foreman to remain at home to close the
eyes of his dying wife, was told the ensuing morning,
when he came to his work, by this Allen, " to go and
die with her, and be damned." _ _

Charge 4.-Another is a young man, who received the

distressing news of the death of his mother, and conse-
quently solicited Mr. Allen to allow him to. go and see
her buried. The time required was a week or a fort-
night, but this unnatural being unfeelingly told him he
might go, but he should not come back again, as he
should- not keep his work open for any one under such
circumstances.

GRISSELL AND PETO'S REFUTATIONS.
Of Charge I.—lt is perfectly true that a labourer (not
a mason) had the misfortune, some twelve months since,
to break his leg by the falling of a stone upon} him, and,
upon his recovery be applied to our firm for relief, and
a recommendation to enable him to obtain some other less
laborious employment. The statement that he applied to-
ns again for employment, and was refuSed, is not true.
Of Charga 2.—As to this, neither Is lien, nor any of
the under-•foremen, have any knowledge or recollection
of the circumstance.

Of Charge 3. —ln respect to this, all the foritmen agree
in declaring that the circumstance related never could
have occurred. No man would have been discharged
under such circumstances. The enormity of the charge
carries-with it its own contradiction.

Of charge 4.—With respect to this, we can boar our
own personal testimony to the untruth of the statement.
The circumstance was simply this : a man applied to the
foreman for leave of absence to bury his mother, to
which the foreman immediately assented ; but, upon the
workman mentioning that ho should be absent about a
fortnight or three weeks, the foreman replied that he
could not uncle: take to keep •the place open for so long a
time ; the man then replied, if that were the case he
would not go at all. We believe he did go, and returned
to his work, at which he remained until the time of
the strike.

As the public must necessarily be interested in the
progress or delay in a, work of such great national in-
terest, we feel it our duty, in addition to contradicting
and refuting the above charges, to state to the public the.
circumstances under which the strike of these men ori-
ginated; and we leave the facts to speak for themselves.
Some short time since a few of the workmen deter-
mined to organise an arrangement among themselves,..by
which only a certain quantity of work should he per-
formed by each -man within a certain given time, and
that any workman who presumed to do more than the
allotted quantity should be subjected to a fine, to be de-
termined by the Committee appointed to carry out this
arrangement..
The natural effect of such a resolution was, that the
industrious man was at once placed on a level wit!► the
idlo one, and that no workman had any oppor:amity
showing the superiority of his workmanship or industry.
One man, however, too honest to be influenced by a reso-
lution which paralysed his exertions to do his best for
his employers, completed the working of a window-head
in two or three days less than the allotted time, and for
this '` chasing," as it is called. he.was fined 55., as will
be seen by the letter from the Chairman of a meeting
convened for the purpose of trying him for having done .
nothing but his duty to his employer, and which letter is
here subjoined :
Letter from the Masons to Wm. Geggie, one of the
masons employed at the New Houses of Parliament :
" Parlour's Arms, Sept. 3, 1841.
" Brother Geggie—l am instructed by a meeting of the
masons employed on this job, held at the Paviour's Arms
this evening, to which you was summoned but failed to
attend, to inform you that it was unanimously resolved
that you should pay the fine of five shillings for your
late conduct in chasing ; you must pay the fine to
Messrs. Stewart (Thomas Downs) by Saturday night,
August 4th, 1841; at the latest.—Signed on behalf of
the meeting. JOHN WORTHINGTON, Chairman."
The ruinous result of such a combination to the em-
ployer, and its .evil influence upon the industrious and
honest workman, are sufficiently evident to require no
observation from us.

Upon the refusal to pay this fine, which he considered
had been so unjustly inflicted, a meeting was held for,
the purpcse or proposing a strike against the work-
man who hall resisted their injustice. This was, how-
ever, found not to be feasible, and they therefore re-
solved to adopt Mr. Allen as the cause of fieir turn-
out, because he had been instructed by us • to protect a
workman whom we considered to have done only his
duty.

Upon this resolution we received a notice intimating
the intention of the workmen to quit their work unless
Mr. Allen was discharged, but, strange to say, this
notice did not contain one of the charges since brought
against him, but simply alleged " that the masons wore
required to do more work in one day than they (the
masons) considered a fair day's work," as the sole cause
of the strike ; nor was it until six days afterwards that
the charges were made.
The workmen are well aware that upon a recent occa-
sion,.when some misunderstanding had occurred, that in
a personal interview with us, which had been requested
by them, every complaint was arranged to their perfect
satisfaction.
But upon the present occasion no interview was so-
licited, no friendly interference sought for—and for this
simple reason, that an investigation of the truth would
not have suited the purpose of the unionists, who were
too well aware of the falsehood of their statements to
submit them to public and fair examination. •
We have indeed every reason to believe that the real
ohect of the few who govern the many is to show to the
public, and the builders in particular, the power which
.the,combined Union possess to control the price of la-
bour and regulate the quantity of work to be performed,
to an extent which can only be anticipated with alarm
by the builders in the first instance; and which must
ultimately operate upon the public at large by necessarily
raising the prices of every article connected with build-
ing. Such a power must likewise effectually put an eml
to public competition ; for what builder of capital woald
jeopardise his property in large public contracts, calcu-
lating, as they must do, upon the ordinary value of la-
bour, if workmen during the progress of a large under-
taking arc to become the judges and dictators of their
employers of the quantity of work that is to be done,
and. to have the nomination of their own superintendent?
We know that there are some who argue that a man
is at liberty to ask what price he pleases for his labour.
It is, however, we humbly submit, a very different case
for a number of men employed upon a particular work
to combine to raise the wages or lessen the quantity of
work, and with " a dog in the manger " system, by in-
timidation, prevent other workmen from accepting what
they refuse.
Another serious influence of the Union is that every
workman, good or bad, idle or industrious, shall receive
the same rate of wages, namely, ss. per diem, and that,
no man is permitted to undertake tusk work, by whicl.
absurd and unjust regulation hundreds of workmen are
prevented from availing themselves of their own cape
city and industry to provide for their families, and
against the contingencies of sickness and old age.
In considering this question we conceive the worktner
to be quite as much interested as ourselves, as, the ever-
tions.of industry are paralysed, and the good workman
is placed quite on a level with the bad and the iak of
the Union.
In conclusion, we beg to state at the present moment
we have between 3,000 and 4,000 workmen employed oe
what is called contract work, or work undertaken fol
specific stuns, and for which our calculations have of
course been made upon the presumption that a. good
workman will execute a certain quantity of work in
' a given-period. The position, therefore, in which we
or any other contractor must be placed Ly having the
necessary authority of an employer wrested from them
by a combination of the workmen, upon whose honesty
and labour we calculate for the due'performance of our
engagements, may easily be conceived, and we coon-
dentlyappeal to all the workmen in our employ, both
collectively and individually, as to the kindness and
consideration which they have ever received at our hands.
I Lambeth, Oct. 2, 1841. GRISSELL AND PETO.

PRICE 5(1

THE CHANCELLOR OF .THE EX-

CHEQUER'S LOAN.

• . .
The ptesent funding. is not sd adVantageOns to the
public as that' 0f.1839, which was the last official-act of
Lord:Monteagle, .There.must consequently be an error
in the report of the debate upon the Exchequer Bills
Funding...BilLlast night, where Mr. Goulburn is made to
say, in answer to 'dr. Willianis—‘, In no instance had a
luau been.olitairwd'for the country on better terms than
those upon which the present Exchequer Bills have been
funded." In 1839, 4,000,0001. Exchequer Bills wee
funded ; whereof there were subscribed by the Bank of
' ' Three per Cent. Consols.
£500,000 at the rate of loot .53. 20.
Throe per cent. Lonsols for every
1001. Exchequer Bills, equal to £546,291 13 0
3,500;001 were subscribed for by the
public at the rate of 110/. Three per
Cent. Consols fOr every 1001. Ex-
chequer 33i11s 3,850,030 0 0--
So that, to withdraw four millions of
Exchetiner Bills from circulation,

. there were then created 4,396,291 13 0
On; the .preseUt occasion, the. terms offered by the
Chancellor of the.Exchequerotqd accepted 14, the public
ti) the extent of seven-tenths of the intended substrip-
tion. :f're.ll`2l. 2s. Three' per Cent. Consols for e-,Tery
1004 I!.3xchequer Bills subscribed. So that, to effect the
withdrawal of 4,000,000 of Exchequer Bills at preseAt,
will require. a creation- - of-4,484,0001. Three per Cent.
Consols i whereas in 1839 the seine amount was can-
celled at an expense of 4,396,291/. 13s. of the same de-
scription -of Stook. The public will therefore give
'87,,908/., 7s. more Three ver Cent. 'Stock to • retire
4,000,0001. Exchequer Bills-at presunt than they did in
.1839 ovhich, estimated at 89 per cent., the market priec'of
the ft ty,,rFpresents ac4tAl of ab_o ut. 7fl, 1 501... and sulge44,
tliem -an increased annuaetirge of ~W;-1/,. It is not
intended to charge any mismanagement upon the present
Chaneellorof the Exchequer, who could not be expected
to obtain such favourable terms for the public when
Three per Cc;nt. Consols were between 89 and 90; as his
predecessor did in 1839, when the price was between 92
and 93'; but simply to. point out the fact, that the pre-
vious funding was made upon more advantageous terms
for the public than the present.—Spectutor.

REGISTER !. REGISTER ! RE- j
GISTER !
(raom A CORRESPONDENT.)
This was the advice given by Sir Robert Peel to his:l
friends some six years ago, and not only have the Tories.
most assiduously followed the advice of their leader,. but.l
Sir Robert himself carries it out to the very letter. As'a 1
pattern to all thorough RefOrmers, only peruse what oc-
curred at the Revisin,, Barrister's 'Court for the city of
Lichfield lust Wednesday. The Tory Baronet was ob-
jected to by the Whigs. Isis claim was suppOrted. by
Mess-es. P. Dyett and Alfred Eg,gington, the Conserva-
tive agents, attended by a host of other professionals. His
steward was called, and was proving his qualification gas
a freeholder, when the town-clerk said the only objeo-
Lion was that Sir Robert did not reside within seven
miles, and that he should call witnesses to prove it.
The Tory agents said they were qUite prepared, on
that point, and called a witness, who said he was a k
surveyor, and that he had been at the express troubl et of
measuring every inch of the road, from the entrance hall
at Drayton Manor to the boundary post, of the: city, wad
that tli distance was six miles and 416 'yards by. the
-turnpike road. lie should judge the distance, " us-the-
crow flies," to be not so much as five miles !
The .R,form party were not prepared with witness( es to
rebut tile measurement,. but the agent said he had rev era:.
who would swear, " to the best of their belief," it was
above eight mileS.
The Barristers refused to receive evidence of belief,
in opposition to the positive proof laid before them ;
and thus the Whigs were obliged to give up their objec-
tion, and Sir Robert's claim was accordingly established.
Oh ! that we could persuade every true Reformer to
take a leaf oat of the Tory's book, and not merely at-
tend, but attend well prcpared on all points, at the Re,?,is-•
tration. Had this been done last year, the Tories could
never have boasted of a majority of 9 1.