The Sun.
London, England, 1859-11-30 00:00:00

THE BUILDERS' LOCK OUT.

Last night the weekly meeting of the Metropoli-
tan Trades' Delegates was held at Shaftesbury Hall,
Aldersgate-street—Mr. M‘Lauchlan, delegate from
the Type-founders' Society, in the chair. Although
the evening was very wet and disagreeable there
was a large attendance of delegates.
The CHAIRMAN, in introducing the business, said
he was not aware of any material alteration in the
position of the parties in this struggle; but it ap-
peared to him that they were bound under the cir-
cumstances to stand more closely together, shoulder
to shoulder, than they had ever done. The question
at issue had narrowed itself more and more dis-
tinctly. It was now simply whether trades' unions
should exist or not, and upon that point they must
concentrate all their energies.
Mr. POTTER, Secretary to the Conference, said
that the chairman had truly told them that there
was little alteration in the state of affairs. What
change had taken place was in fact of an unfavour-
able character. Many of the employers who had
induced, by means of their foremen, workmen to
enter their employment upon the non-presentation
of the decument, had, within the last week turned
round and demanded that the workmen should
agree to the declaration. In some cases the men
had refused to do so, but seeing that they had most
of them been out of work sixteen weeks, it was no
wonder that some were disheartened and disposed to
accept work on any terms. Seeing this was the
case, the Conference had passed a resolution that
any member of the building trades should be at
liberty to accept employment where the "document"
was not presented individually. That resolution, he
believed, had given general satisfaction, and, he
hoped, would lead to the re-employment of many
now " locked out." (Hear.) He regretted to say
that, in the course of that day, an attack had been
made upon the delegates from the Conference,
who were deputed to pay the labourers at the
Mitre. One result of which they saw in the torn
coat before them (pointing to a very dilapi-
dated garment at the back of the platform). The
police had been called upon to interfere, but had
declined to do so, and the money in the possession
of the delegates had actually been carried'off by
force. Their great difficulty all along had been
with the labourers, and now the time had come
when it would be necessary to take 'a different
course. The first step taken by the Conference was
to reduce the dividend this week to 3s. Gd. to skilled
artisans, and 2s. Gd. to labourers ; but there was
this explanation, that the various skilled trades had
discontinued their payments of one-third of their
levies into the general fund, and thus, though there
would be a nominal decrease to the skilled artisans
on the general dividend, there would, in fact, be an
increase. The Conference, however, had been sub-
jected to such annoyance, disturbance, and danger
recently, that it had been determined to remove
from the Paviors' Arms to a more private and more
accessible office, for really business purposes, and he
hoped that change would have the approval of the
delegates. (Hear.) On the whole, he regretted to
say that there was so little prospect of the speedy
settlement of this dispute, that they had been
compelled to take these steps with respect to the
labourers. In fact, life was not safe under the cir-
cumstances. They had been again and again de-
frauded by the labourers; and, seeing that there
was no chance of satisfying the demands of the
labourers, they had resolved to discontinue all pay-
ments in future. The number of artisans and
labourers paid the dividend last week was about
5,000, and the sum was about £BOO.
Several questions were put by delegates with
respect to the charges made against the labourers,
which were answered in detail, the general effect of
which went to establish the charge of gross fraud
in many ;nstances, and in some of violent and
brutal treatment of those deputed to pay the money.
In one case it had been discovered that returns
had been sent in for one hundred labourers more
than were entitled to it ; and, upon the death
of the man who got the money and divided a
Ss. instead of a 3s. Gd. dividend, his successor
did the samey although he could not show
the number of claimants formerly fraudu-
lently represented as being entitled to a share
in the funds. The discovery of these frauds had
led to the removal of the Conference to a private
office from the Paviors' Arms, where the lives of the
members of the Conference were in danger ; and
unprotected as they were by the police, they were
hound to take the best means in their power to save
themselves. The labourers had at all times consti-
tuted nearly one-half of the whole number paid
from the general fund, and as the labourers paid
little or nothing to that fund, it was necessary to
leave them to their own resources. One shilling a-
week from the labourers who were in work would
be amply,suflicient to pay all those who were out.
These explanations appeared to satisfy the dele-
gates, with the understanding that the whole ques-
tion was under the consideration of a special com-
mittee.

A motion recommending the Conference to dis-
continue pay ing the labourers was discussed for
some time, but ultimately it was agreed to leave,the
decision with the Conference, to which the del Tates
passed a vote of confidence.

The subscriptions (including £5O from the boiler-
makers and iron shipbuilders, and £2O from the
pianoforte makers) amounted to about £l3O.
During the last two days the contributions re-
ceived from the Iwovinees in aid of the lock-out fund
by the Conference has been about £l5O.
A vote of thanks to the chairman concluded the
proceedings last night.

The plaintiff claimed damages upon the ground
that the defendant had assaulted him, and had also
broken some furniture. The plea was not guilty.
Mr. Sergeant Shee, Mr. Giffard, and Mr. Lap-
worth appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Edwin
James and Mr. Sergeant Parry for the defendant.
Mr. Sergt. Shoe said, that the plaintiff was a gentle-
man in independent circumstances, and he resided at
Ditton, iu Surrey, wherele kept a small establish-
ment; he -and his mother living together. The
defendant was a gentleman who personally and in
respect of family and profession was most respect-
able ; he was a surgeon practising in the village of
Ditton. He had been there but a short time, having
succeeded to the practice of Mr. Garrett, who had
for many years been the medical attendant of the
plaintiff and his mother. When Mr. Garratt retired
ho introduced the defendant to his patients, and
since then he had been the regular medical atten-
dant of the plaintiff's mother. When the defendant
married two or three years ago, he
.sent cards to
the plaintiff, and they visited occasionally at one
another's . houses, though they never' became inti-
mate. The plaintiff Very seldom had occasion to
go to the defendant's except to get some prescrip-
tion for his mother, to pay a bill, or to ask for a
church-rate, he being the minister's churchwarden.
For some time previbusly to July last there was
something in the manner of the defendant which
excited the plaintiff's surprise, though the feeling
did not break out into actual incivility, nor did it
prevent the defendant from attending at the plain-
tiff's house. About half-past seven in the evening,
on the 11th July, he went to the plaintiff's, and
having, in an excited manner, said something about
the plaintiff having ruined the peace of his (defen-
dant's) family, committed the violent assault which
would be detailed in the plaintiff's evidence. The
learned sergeant concluded by saying that there
was not the slightest pretence for uttering the
words which the defendant had made use of. Tlie

plaintiff was a gentleman 65 years old, and he
challenged the fullest inquiry into his conduct in
relation to the defendant or to any member of his
family ' • and he defied the defendant to suggest any
reasonable or possible, or even fanciful, ground for
the words that be had uttered.
Mr. Joseph Gillett,. the plaintiff, said—l have
lived at Ditton for 23 years, and have been 15 years
a guardian of the poor, and four years minister's
churchwarden. My mother is 89 years old, and I
am in my 65th year. The defendant is probably 33
or 34, and he was married two or three years ago.
After he was married I called on him and we ex-
changed visits two or three times. For a few months
before July last the defendant did nut. 'seem so fami-
liar as he used to be, but I was not aware of any
reason for it. Oa the 11th July I was employed in
my garden and I saw the defendant coming across
the Green. I went through the back of the house
and told the servant to go and let him in. Before I
got to the door he had rung the bell, and I went to
the door and met him. I offered to shake hands but
he did not do so. He said he would speak to my
mother, and he went into the dining-room and shook
hands with her. He came out and at once pushed
me into the drawing-room, and shut the door. He
said, " What do you mean by watching me about ?"
I said I had not watched him, and asked him what
he meant. He raised his stick (a thick one) and
struck me on the arm. I thought the arm was
broken—it was quite paralysed. I again asked
w„h# he meant, and he said, " -- your eyes, you
have ruined my home." He struck me on the arm
again and also on the side. He knocked over a chair,
and he caught his stick in the muslin curtain and
tore it, or I should have had it sharper I expect. I
received eight or nine blows altogether. I received
the blows on my arm because I put it up to save my
head, at which the blows were aimed. Afterwards
he went into the passage and said to my mother, " I
will come to see you at any time, but I won't see
that blackguard. The next time I come I will spat-
ter his brains on those pillars" (meaning the pillars
that supported the portico). My mother, notwith-
standing she was hard of hearing, heard the blows,
and she came to the door. She said, "He has not
hit you, has he ?" and I said, " Yes, he has." The old
lady said, " I wish I had been there, I would have
hit him." (Laughter.) I ordered the defendant never
to come to the house again. I went to a surgeon, and,
after I had waited some.hours for him, he came home
and dressed my bruises. It was one in the morning
before I got home. I could not sleep that night, nor
for one or two nights afterwards. I was so sick, ex-
cited, and nervous. I sufferpain to this day. I had to
carry my arm in a sling for three weeks. Ido not
know of any provocation or pretence for this as
sault ; not the least in the world.

Cross-examined—My house is scarcely a quarter
of a mile from the defendant's. I did not under-
stand, nor do I now understand, my ruining the
peace of his family. I said to him, " Good God, I
was never in your house when you were not there,
I will be on my oath," and he said, "D— your
oath, I will not believe you on your oath." There
was no bone broken ; but I should have liked you
to see my arm—you would not have liked it. It
was very much bruised and swollen.

A servant maid, who witnessed part of the affair,
to that extent corroborated the plaintiff.
At this stage of the 'proceedings it was announced
that the matter would not be further contested.
Mr. Edwin James said, your lordship knows what
a very delicate and difficult duty the advocate has
at times to discharge. Our client is not here, but
some highly respectable gentlemen, friends of his,
who had undertaken to attend the court in reference
to the matter are present. There can be no doubt
a species of almost monomania has affected this
gentleman's mind in reference to a notion that his
wife has been guilty of infidelity with the plaintiff;
and, indeed; it was not until we had the opportu-
nity of a consultation that we could do anything to
remove the impression from his mind ; but he has
now placed the matter entirely in the hands of the
learned sergeant and myself, and, under the cir-
cumstances, I feel that we are discharging our duty
to him in expressing his deep regret for what has
occurred, for the insult, and I may say the outrage
that he has committed on Mr. Gillett ; and in
hoping that our persuasions and that of his friends
have removed from his, mind that impression which
was most deeply implanted there, that his wife
had committed herself with Mr. Gillett, for which
there is not the slightest foundation—it is a perfect
delusion.

The Lord Chief Justice—This is a very satisfac-
tory termination.
A verdict was entered for the plaintiff by consent
—damages, £lOO.