The Sun.
London, England, 1867-04-19 00:00:00

Trades' Unions.

The working of trades' unions in the various
branches of the building trade was entered upon be-
fore the Royal Commission in evidence given, by
persons connected with operative societies, and
evidence of Mr. Edwin Coulson, secretary of ti,e-
Operative Bricklayers' Society of London, will be
found peculiarly interesting, opening up, as it does,
to public view many " customs of trade" apart from
the society itself.
The witness stated that this society was established
for " trade purposes," and besides supporting mem-
bers " out of work" (i.e., on strike) it paid for the
burials of members and their wives, and assisted
travelling members. It has no sick fund. The
society numbers 96 branches, all in Great Britain,
with about 5,700 members. The contribution of a
member is only 3d. a week ; the yearly income is
about £2,700 ; and the reserve fund last December
was £3,200. About £3OO or £4OO a year were spent
in strikes, and it had not extended beyond that since
1861, it being found, the witness explained, that in
all those districts were lodges had been recently
established the men, "in consequence of the
organisation," had been successful "in obtaining
an advance of wages without a protracted strike,"
Rptiri, all, advance, he said, "as was satisfactory to
IWirieti at present." • thitayp the history of several
strikes; sme of which he said 'had -.been: 'eauied
by the employers endeavouring to force objection-
able rules.upon men, while others had been caused
by demands for increase of wages. These de-
mands for au increase of wages were made by tho
men after they " considered the rate of living, and
also the wages paid in the adjacent districts." Men
can lay more bricks of an inferior character than of
the better sort, and the men make not the slightest
objection to lay these bricks. They made no objec-
tion to lay bricks made by machinery., and it was
totally untrue that men would not lay machine made
bricks—at all events, such an objection had not oc-
curred in the London district. " High moral feel-
ing" was quite against such stamping of work as
described by Mr. Connolly as in practice among the
masons, and witness believed that trades' unions
promoted a " more honourable feeling among the
men." The society had no secret rules such as the
engineers. _ " Everything is above board," said the
witness. " We think as Englishmen .1 hat everything
we do should see daylight, and therefore every rule
of the society is in that book." There was no rule
in existence, he said, to prevent a nein putting down
his trowel and laying the bricks with both hands,
and no such custom. He never knew of any com-
plaint being made to a foreman, with an intimation
that. a certain man should be dismissed upon that
ground. Ile declared, as officially representing the
Bricklayers' Society, that the society and men make
no objection to a man using two hands to bricks ;
but then-the -witness spoke only as the representa—
tive of one society, as he could not tell what was
done in other societies. There was a great differ-
ence in the skill of workmen, but it was a rare thing
for men to receive anything for their extra skill or
ability, unless it was to induce them to act as " bell-
horses ;" that was, to do as much work as possible,
irrespective of quality. Ile added this remark, upon
which he was presently cross-examined, • and not
without result. "It is quantity now, unfortunately,
in public buildings that is required, and not quality.
As to quality it is no use to go to public buildings
for that at the present time." In reply- to Mr.
Mathews he said that two workmen received the
same rate of wages, even if one should be very
adroit, and the other very slow ; but there was no
restriction like the " chasing" rule among the
stonemasons as to the rate at which men should
work. A man might, if he could, lay a thou-
sand bricks a day and so reap the reward of his
skill, and there would not be the slightest objection
to work with bins on the part of the society men ;
but there was an objection to piecework, and the
men individually (that is without the action of the
union) refuse to work for the men who take piece-
work. There were no rules against working over-
time, and no objection to any numberof apprentices
legally bound, but they objected to labourers being
promoted from the hod to lay bricks, and he said
where this was done bricks were simply packed in
dry where the work was extensive.

An examination was commenced by Lerd Elcho
with respect to the inferiority of the works in public
buildings, and the witness said he meant by this
term Government buildings. Lord Elcho said,
" Take the Foreign-office, do you consider that an
example of what you have been describinn, ?" and
the witness replied " I include that with the other
buildings. It is called piecework, but of course it
is not really piecework. It is given out to the men
by the man who is placed over them that they have
got this work as piecework, and to make it appear
to the man that they had piecework the privilege
was given to those over them of paying them, and
in paying them they paid off whatever they choose
according to their abilities. The inference gene-.
rally drawn (and which is pretty correct) is that"
the foreman pockets the balance or bonus. Although
there is the quantity of work done that is allowed
by the firm, the quality is out of the question." Sir
William Erie asked--" Government wanting the
Foreign-office to be built, instead of paying a just
price for day labour, and having the work properly
done, what do you say to the course pursued ?"
Witness—" Mr. would take this course. He
wants to get as much work as he possibly can with-
out its appearing that the work is let by him.
To do this ho employs a foreman, and this fore-
man gives it out to the men that it is as piecework
to him, and no in the place of the ordinary clerk
paying these men as he would other men the
foreman pays the men." Mr. Harrison—" The
men do not work piecework ; but they work by
the day, do they not?" Witness—". They
work by the day." Sir D. Gooch—" Then,
as you p•tt it, it is rather a swindle against the men,
to use a strong term ?" Witness—" It is a swindle
against the men and a swindle against the Govern-
ment." The mischief to the Government, he ex-
plained, was that proper quality was not in the work
done; and the same thing was done, he said, in the
making of railways. The employers shut their eyes
to the matter, and the clerks of the works were in
fault, the inducement to the latter to shut their eyes
to this work being, he supposed, that, they received
a direct profit from the work in some way or other.
The union, the witness said, did nothing to discour-
age these practices, and would receive no encourage-
ment from the employers if it did.
Then the question arose as to the solidity of work
of the present day as compared with work of bygone
times. Lord Elcho asked, " Looking at the old
work which you have had to take down, and com-
paring it with modern work, do you think that there
was more reality and honesty in the old work than
there is in the modern ?" The witness replied, " I

do. You find that now all kinds of rubbish are used
to make mortar. If you pull down an old piece .of
wolk, you find the mortar hard and sound, but if
you do that in the new work rfter a few years, you
find the mortar crumbles to pieces." Mr. Mathews
Does that arise from a superior knowledge of
making mortar on the part of the old people?"
Witness —" Not at all." Mr. Mathews—'• I think
we have heard it slid that the art of making mortar
in the days of the Romans was much superior to the
art in vogue now, and that is the reason why old
buildiags last so much longer." The witness an-
swered, " There now men who arc capable of doing
anything with a brick that a brick can do, and of
doing superior work to that done iu the olden times.
Give the men time and material, and they can do
anything." In reply to Lord Elcho, he said that as
a general rule the work done in the last century was
superior to that done at the present time; and Mr.
Roebuck said, "And that in spite of trades' unions?"
to which the witness replied, " Yes; we are only too
happy to do the work as well as possible, but we
often have no encouragement to do it as well as it
might be done." He said that better bricks were
now made than in the olden time, but the fault he
explained was in the bad mortar and in the honesty,
or rather dishonesty, of the work. Some sewers'
work, he said, done on both sides of the water wav
":11 done, because there were inspectors or clerks of
..et.e.:work who knew the trade, and that work was
done by day work. As to the inferiority of work
done, he said, he could point to some houses having
17 to 20 rods of brickwork with bnly 20,000 bricks.
in the whole house in place of 73,000- bricks, inde-.
pendently of the bats brought among the bricks,
and he explained that this was done by having
" pockets" of broken bricks and mortar placed where
there should be solid bricks. This " roguery," as
Mr. Roebuck called it, was done by day work, and
the men got nothing out of it, the houses being
" built to sell."

The following examination took place regarding
a peculiar trade custom of which much has been
said :—Lord Elcho—" In your trade is there such a
system as what you call picqueting ?" Witness—
" Yes." Lord Elcho—" Under your rules how is
that carried out?" Witness—" When an employer
infringes our customs and refuses to comply with
the conditions of the working rules there set forth,
or with the demands for an advance of wages, we
report to the society the names of the men who are
working on that job, and we appoint a man to
watch there, and as far as possible to use all the in-
fluence he can to get the men away from the job."
Lord Elcho—" That is to say, to use his influence
with non-society men ?" Witness—" With non-
society men or with any other men that might be on
the work." Lord Eleho—" What influence has he
over non-society men?" Witness—" No other in-
fluence than this—the first opportunity he has he
will speak to the man and point out the injury that
we consider he is forcing upon our society, as well as
the injury to himself, and he will endeavour to get
him to leave the job." Mr. Roebuck—" But in regard
to this nou-society man, supposing that he had no
other employment, and that this was a job which he
had got, how would it be an injury to him to go on
to that job ?" Witness—" He would be doing an
injury to our men by taking their place." Mr.
Roebuck—" But he would be doing no injury to
himself, surely ?" Witness—" No,' perhaps not:"
Mr. Roebuck.—" Or to non-society men ?" Wit-
ness—" Or to nou-society men." Mr. Roebuck—
" And supposing lie took that view of it, that it was
not an injury to himself or to non-society men, and
supposing that he did not care for the rules of. the
society, what would be the next step ?" Witness—
" The next step would be that our men would re-
port him to oar strike committee." Mr. Roebuck
--" And what then ?" Witness—" His name would
be circulated among the members, who would be in-
formed what he , had done." Mr. Roebuck—" So
that the result would he that he, being a non-
society man, his name would be reported to the
memberi, and they would not work with that man
on further jobs ; that is the next step, I imagine ?"
Witness— " Our rules give no authority to men to
cease work against any non-society man, let him
have committed himself against any of our mem-
bers." Mr. Roebuck—" Then, what is the object
of reporting him, if no result is to follow from that
reporting ?" Witness—" The society takes no
action ;it rests entirely with the men." Mr. Roe-
buck—" What action do the men take ?" Witness
—" They shun him generally ; send him to Coventry."
Mr. Roebuck—" They will not work on a building
where he is, you mean?" Witness•—" Yes, they
will work on the building, but send him to Coventry."
Mr. Roebuck—" They do not speak to him?" Wit-
ness—" Just so." Mr. Mathews —" There is no phy-
sical obstacle, but a moral obstacle is put in the man's
way ?" Witness —" Yes." The witnessfurtherstated
that, in addition to the 5,700 members in this society,
there was another society of from 6,000 to 7,000
members at Sheffield. He believed there were from
20,000 to 30,000 bricklayers in the United Kingdom,
and he detailed some facts relative to men who had
taken part in strikes being set down as marked men
and refused employment.
This concluded his evidence.