The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-26 00:00:00

MASTERS AND OPERATIVES.

The committee re•assembled on Tuesday—Mr.
Mackinnon in the chair. There were also present
Lord R. Montagu, Sir J. Paxton, Sir M. Peto, Mr,
Alderman Cubitt, Mr. Egerton, Mr. Pollard-Urqu-
hart, Mr. Ayrton, Mr. B. Cochrane, and Sir J. Fer-
gu§on. . .

Mr. Piper, master builder, was examined as to
the meetings which preceded the late strike, and
put in the resolutions adopted at those meetings
which were published in the newspapers at the
time.

By Lord It. Montagu—Approved of the prin-
ciple of the bill now before Parliament, and thought
it would be welcome generally to the different
trades; but thought there were considerable diffi-
culties with regard to the details. Had no doubt,
if disputes arose, that the masters would resort to
councils of arbitrition. The great difficulty would
be in the selection of workmen as members of the
council of conciliation, because they were not gene-
rally sufficiently well known to each other. There
would also be a gnat difficulty in the selection of
a chairman. Thought the selection might be placed
in the hands of the Board of Trade, but was of
opinion that it would be difficult to choose a man
sufficiently acquainted with the details of the
various trades.

By Sir J. Paxton—Did not think that any ques-
tions of daily wages could be brought before a
court of arbitration. They might be resorted to in
questions of piece work.
By Mr. Pollard-Urquhart—lf a court possessing
the confidence of the workmen had been in exist-
ence before the strike, and the workmen had been
shown that the state of trade would not allow
an advance in the rate of wages, the strike might
have been prevented. Most likely the workmen
generally would not have supported the strike
against the expressed opinion of such a court.
Thought the establishment of such a court worth
an experiment.

By Mr. Alderman Cubitt—The question which
arose at the time alluded to affected all existing
contracts. If the masters had offered, on the com-
pletion of the contracts, to agree to the propositions
made to them, most probably there would have been
no strike. An arrangement of the kind was sug-
gested by the workmen ; but, in his opinion, if it
had been agreed to the masters would not only have
sacrificed their own interest but would have been
guilty of a dereliction of duty to tie public.
Mr. Butler, of Coventry, was next examined on
the subject of various strikes of that city, which, in
his opinion, might have been prevented if a council
of conciliation had been in existence.

Mr. Henry Fancott, of Bradford, was next ex-
amined. He said he was iot practically acquainted
with trade, but be had read a great deal on the sub-
ject, and lectured on it. He did not approve of the
councils of conciliation, which all the other wit-
nesses had spoken in favour of.
Sir Joseph Paxton, a member of the committee,
wished to state his views on the question. He said
—I may say that for the last 40 years I have had a
great deal of experience with workmen, having had
occasionally as many as 1,000 men under me at the
same time. I have also employed men in France on
a large scale. I have formed an opinion otjhose
courts of conciliation, or, as I should call Them,
courts of arbitration. I believe they would achieve
one point of very great value, and that point is ob-
tained in France. There they strike as well as
here, but the men do not apply to their own body,
but to the courts. About two years ago I. had in
France very nearly 140 English mechanics under
me, and perhaps upon the same work nearly 200
French mechanics. One fine morning, without the
slightest notice, all the French mechanics left
their work. The contract was carried on by Mr.
Miles, a large builder in London, who was to build
a large mansion about 20 miles from Paris. The
men who struck were masons ; the carpenters did
not strike at the same time. English masonry is
much superior to French, and the English masons
got very high wages. The French masons thought
they had a right to the same wages, but Mr. Miles
refused to agree to that, and they left the work
without the slightest notice. Mr. Miles sent his
foreman to Paris at once to employ some more
masons, but there was some secret communication
between the trades, and he could not get any; and
after the work standing still for a month or six
weeks Mr. Miles had to give increased wages. I
believe, with regard to a great variety of trades
whose work is of a special character, courts of ar-
bitration would be of the greatest value, both to
masters and workmen, but if those courts were not
carried on in a friendly spirit they would be of no
use. Therefore, my notion is, that if you have a
permissive bill the proceedings before those courts,
carried on in a friendly spirit, should have a legal
effect. Now I understand, at the Potteries and
Macclesfield the courts broke down in consequence
of being called upon to regulate the question of
wages for the future. I think you must have a
friendly constituted body altogether; and in large
places, when a strike is intended, the chief magi-
strate of the place should call the best informed
masters and workmen together, in order to adjust
their differences. , But with regard to London
workmen—such as builders, masons, carpenters,
&c.—l am perfectly satisfied these courts would
not be of any use. The men under no circum-
stances would give up their combination or trades
unions, and I am not aware that the masters do
not also take their own course under difficulties to
meet their side of the question. A general strike in
such a large place as London cannot take place
without very long preparation. Now, if when such
a strike was impending, so many masters and so many
workmen could meet together, presided over by
some entirely independent "parties, it would be of
very great advantage. But the question is so rami-
fied in London that you can hardly find a sufficient
number of persons acquainted with each other to
inspire confidence in those with whom they had to
act ; but I am very anxious indeed to have those
courts established upon the same principles as in
France.

The Chairman said the committee did not intend

to hear any more witnesses. Their next meeting
would be for the consideration of a bill on the sub-
ject.

BURNING OF THE JACOB A. WESTERVELL.—A
despatch was received in Liverpool yesterday, dated New
York, April 12th, stating that the packet ship Jacob A.
Westervell took fire at that port on the 12th, and was
totally destroyed. The above vessel had a large car'o on
board, aud was bound out for Liverpool.