New-York tribune., 1871-09-27
FOREIGN LABOR MOVEMENTS.


FOREIGN LABOR MOVEMENTS.
STRIKES IN THE NORTH OF ENGLAND.
DEFENSE OF THE ACTION OF THE EMPLOYERS
AT NEwCAsTLE-PRosPEcrso OF A RENEWAL
OF WORK.
IynoN OUR own CORRESPONDENT,
LONDON, Sept. 1.-THE strong sympathies
Of the Press with the strike at Newcastle have
brought out the associated employers per Biz william
Armstrong In defensive statement two columns long
It appears this mornings Tines and is proessedy
reply to leading article IN that paper on Monday. It 10
IN fact appeal to the tribunal Of public opinions i
bunal which, though 1t allows appeal sometimes per
mits rehearing Of case doubtfuy decided. II had
made up Its mind In this case, having had fifteen weeks
tme and abundance Of testimony, and Judgment had
gone against the Newcastle employer sir william Arm.
strong included do not think Sir william will succeed
In rcversng the Judgment His statement contains III
tie that Most Of 1t Is devoted to proving that the
men have been - obstinate - the masters.
But what first enlisted public interest the side Of
the men their obvious desire for negotiation, and
the fat refusal Of tho employers to meet them. This is
what Sir William does not and cannot deny He admits
that the masters formed combination before the strike
began that the League which acts for the men, began
by sending circular to each nrm asking for the reduc
ton from 80 to hours per week; that the masters
the eth Of May simply declined to accede" that the
the 18th proposed conference and gave the masters
O week to accept reject and that the masters
ected It, passing and sending TO the League the follow
ing resolution: "That the employers Isee advantage
in the interview proposed by the Nine Hours League.
They (the employers would have suggested written
communication but for the fact that strike has already
taken place. Under the circumstances the employers
feel that open them but to refer the Nine
Hours League to the communication dated the 9Th inst
and to request them to consider 1t final"
1t would be difficult to conceive anything moro naughty
than the tone of this refusal The strike which had al
ready occurred at Clarke watson Gurneys and which
the employers refer to justification for their REFUSAL
have explained In a former letter. That establishment
had rule of Its own often enforced against the men,
allowing dismissal without notice. This tme the men,
avang themselves Of the same rule struck on days
notice. and the employers had right to complain The
general strike did not begin till the 2oth. when weeks
notice given But these details really unimpor-
tant Every line Of Sir william Armstrong; statement
shows that the employers had made their minds from
the moment they heard Of the Sunderland strike; that
they were Of beating the men, ready for the
conflicts preferred to negotiation, and flung back in
the faces OF the all well meant appeals for settle
ment by peaceable Nothing that happened af-
relieve them of this responsibility For did
anything happen essentially changing the atti-
tude Of the two parties To the various efforts
made by third to bring about an arrangement
the League sometimes assented and sometimes objected,
according the nature Of the proposals but there
time, far Sir Williams own statement
shows when the would not readily have gone back
to their original suggestion Of conference They
jected rightly rejected the subsequent offer by tho
masters offs hours But Sir William Armstrong omits to
mention that they agreed TO arbrae between 81 and g.
and that he refused He omts good many other things,
and, he s arguing his own sde he s hardly to blame
for It, but he must not expect others to forget Them
Above ALL he omits the offer Of the to submit to
duction Of wagesa point before conceded think,
In the agitation for Nine Hours Eight Hours working
day.
But the question which really lies at the bottom is not
whether the masters have shown themselves unreason
able and dctatoria but whether the claim Of the
s Just or unjust. To this, Sir wam's is very
meager He affrms that o demand for more wages
would have been granted but We refuse tho demand
for u hours week because believe that the district
In which factories located would be laid under
permansnk and asss ssEiaas-
with other localities in tho Kingdom II the system
were extend to those other localities then the whole
country would be placed at Like disadvantage In its
competition with foreign producers But Of the reasons
for this belief one Is given. Out Of Sir Williams
two columns the sentence ! have quoted 10
literally the only that. undertakes to justify
tho resistance Of himself and bis confed-
crates to the demand for nine hours Nor 1t possible
to believe that he believes this days work in an
engine-shop Is not measured entirely by hours 1t
measured by results. certain quantity Of work must
be DONE Sir William knows very well that many OF his
men can their ten hours work in five, some OF them
even In three His foreman knows how much each man
does and man who does less than the quantity
finds himself discharged. great London manufacturer
said he other day. In discussing this question:
have men in my shop who do three days work in
one, and whom would gladly pay three days wages for
doing should get out Of one set Of machinery the
work OF three SETS and the cost and interest OF the
other two" The masters themselves many OF them,
freely admit that the present hours work might be
DONE and would be DONE IN nne At Sunderland, where
the nine hours have been conceded, there has not
been time for Q very lGrge average TO be struck,
but have heard of workmen-no doubt
workmen Of the Inferior sOrtwho claimed that the fore
man got more out OF them the nine hours than ever
before the ten 1t necessary to read between the
lines OF Sir William Armstrong; letter to fnd out what
he really thinks perhaps his real reason for refusing
the nine hours demand may be discovered In para
graph somewhat remote from that above quoted which
10 the ostensbe reason awe unhcutatingy assert ne
writes that the only effect Of the reduction OF hoursat
Sunderland has been the higher rate for over
time to commence onehour earlier thanbeore and that
the actual duration of each labor remains at least
as great as ever his mind then 1t only the old
question of wages raised In new FORM
There is q third view The Times traces this struggle
to the old object of Trades Unions or one OF their old
Objects the wiier distribution OF labor There only 30
much work to be done on the whole not enough to keep
all the worknen in the kingdom fully employed. A
tenth of the whole number are obliged 70 1--WE laie.
Reduce the working dny from ten hours 10 nine, and
YOU reduce the product oue-tenth, that the en-
poyers as they surely w desire to keep their produo
tion ND to its present amount they must employ the
other tenth OF workmen idle. This theory ignores
kcp hnura w0r