The workingman's advocate. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1864-1877, 1868-04-18

hours, bat all ut once they received notice
that until the Manchester men came 10 terms
they would be locked out, and they were
locked out. They consulted us, and we
said, "There is only one course for you TO
pursue; we think il very unjust Of the en-
ployer TO attempt to punish you for the
fault (if 1t was the faulty of the Manchester
men. You must 20 on the funds, but mind,
whom il 10 settled, you must have Manches-
ter terms" The result was, that the men
got an advance Of IS. per week and q reduc-
ton Of one or two hours, which the men had
never thought of asking for. next wish to
correct statement Of Mr.. Maults with re-
gard to the Pottery district, mean the
statement where the men are accused Of
charging the masters with forging the name
Of their secretary and interpolsting the
rules, etc.
Sir d. Gooch-Is that the case In which
there was the dispute about the original
copy of the rulesf-Yes. The question
which Mr.. Hughes put to Mr.. Mault IL At
S057. Mr.. Hughes there asked Mr.. Msult
SIS this Birmingham one the only one Of
which you know 10 which the men have re-
fused TO submit to arbitration Mo- Mr..
Mault replies, "a very long strike took place
last year in the Potteries district in refer
ence TO the arbitration rule Of the year be-
fore last" Mr.. Mault follows on, 81 sm
speaking Of my own trade, and 0 matter
that know intimately, because went there
repeatedly and endeavored to effect q settle
ment. The year before last the masters and
men agreed to q set Of trade rules, the last
Of which was the arbitration rule" He
follows on, Last year the men made de-
Inand for either altogether new code OF
rules, or an alteration of the code Of rules as
far as wages are concerned and one other
point-the principal point-being the omis-
sion of this arbitration rule" And q little
rar.her on he says, "The men very unex-
peetedly told the masters that they did not
bold themselves bound by this rule, that the
masters lad interpolated 1t after the men
had agreed to the rules, and had forged the
signature Of the secretary to it," He fG--
Their says, II wish to say that my statement
does not rest uPOn the fact that the men
stated it," And further on, cit was done
ia bis official capacity by one OF the work
men in making a statement Of his view Of
the case to one OF the public papers that cir
culate in the district" Mr. Mault lie uncer-
tain as to the name Of the paper, but he
thinks tina; il was the &afordshire AdUsr-
tiser. Now, those statements are very i'm
portant ones II true, because on those state
ments Mr.. Msnlt forms certain opinions.
He says, GAS said before, do not wish to
say anything hard of working men 10 their
ordinary dealings with the masters, but
am speaking Of working men as | am sorry
to say find them when they are altered by
long and intimate connection with trades
unions" He further states, :" did rot
want il to be understood as expressing my
notion of what the working men of the
country usually are; am only giving in
stances of what they have been led to do, as
| conceive, under the influence Of trades
unions" Now, saw that Mr.. Mault's opin-
ions, wherein he thinks so very unfairly Of
the working men, are based on very erro-
neous conclusions or on certain statements
which he believes to be facts, but which
there is very little truth in. In the first
place the men did not give notice for
new code of rules or an alteration in the ex-
listing code, unless an advance Of wages may
he considered an alteration they DID not
give notice (which be says is the principal
point) that the arbitration rule be omitted.
| have here the printed notice which was
issued By the men, and they simply say
that, "We, the operative bricklayers OF
Burslem, Hanley, aud Tunstall, respectfully
ask the master builders Of the said towns for
the advance Of the Cd. per day upon our
present rate Of wages, VIZ 5s. 3D. per day
for the first five days, and IS. 4d. for Satur-
das, total sos. per week, such wages 70 con-
tinue in operation from the "a Of February
to the 9th Of November, then the wages to
be at the rate of As. 10d. per day for the first
five lays, and q. 10d. for Saturday, total
as. per week. n. B.-Failing 10 comply
with the request we make, we respectfully
inform you that our engagement viii cease
on the lst day Of May next ensuing. We
are, yours respectfully, the members Of No.
so Lodge, Barslem.n say that that was
the notice the men sent. They did not ask
for any arbitration rule to be omitted or
ANYTHING Of the kind, but when this was not
granted they struck for this advance. There
we're certain meetings that took place be-
tween the masters and the men, and at one
meeting q copy Of the rules as drawn up by
Mr.. Steele, the secretary Of the Master
Buildsrs' Association at that time, vas
handed to tie men There was other meet
ings, and these rules were discussed and
were adoped, and am told that rule is the
very last rule that was adopted there was
nothing whatever mentioned about arbitra-
uvn in them, and all the men, except one
" 20 has left the district, appended their
q mes to this statement: "We, the under
+ gned, declare and positively assert that
he foregoing rules are truthful and cor
rect copy Except rule 6 being altered to Sd.
per day) that was agreed upon BY US and
the master builders Of the Potteries and New
castle UNDERLINE. Joseph Nottingham,
l09, Furlong Lane, Burslem, Stafford John
Shaw, North Road, Cobridge; Robert Mason,
Heathcote Road, Longton John Simpson,
Fletcher Street, Newcastle"
What is that document This is q docu-
ment containing copy Of the working rules
As greed to by the masters and the men in
the Pottery district, aud in it there is no
arbitration clause.
But what leads you to believe that that is
more accurate than the other document
i will endeavor to show you. The men
say tina. this is an exact copy, and that at
the time they wrote this they could not find
the one that Mr., Steele wrote. Now they
have found It.
The copy OF the rules we saw had the
actual signature of the men themselves p
IL you will allow me will 90 over the
ground. When l had these placed in nv
hand thought it very strange affair that
the men should charge the masters with
forging the mems signature, and thought
that nothing could be more easy than to
get the newspaper with the statement 10 il,
but, however, having occasion to 60 into the
Pottery district, went among the men and
had long conversation with Mr.. Steele
himself, the maste. . secretary at that time,
and he admits all that the men say. He
says, "The men knew well enough that we
wanted an arbitration rule; it was talked
about at the meeting, but it was not put to
the vote" The men stated, 1--WE bad no
power Of compelling the whole Of the POI
terry districts to agree to arbitration, n we,
as delegates, had received no instructions
about arbitration, but what il more we did
not sign the rules at that meeting. The
masters did not sign them nor did we sign
them. w had q fair copy given US BY Mr..
Al A Al