The Sun. — 1868-08-13 (London, England)

AND CO.  TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.  Sir,—ln your issue of to-day appears a letter headed " Rattening in the Printing Trade," and signed "0. and Cu." Into the merits of the dispute between our members and the manager of the firm in question I do not propose to enter, as that would occupy far more of your space than I dare venture to ask you to accord. I, however, trust you will allow ine to state that the dispute set forth in your correspondent's letter is not the reason why our members have determined to leave Messrs. " U. and C 0.," the cause for the adoption of such a course being that incessant disputts have arisen between the society hands employed (who now number only four) and the firm through their endeavour to override the London scale and customs of the trade, and alto the insulting treatment our mein bers at all times experienced when they had any representations to make to the manager. With regard to the observations personal to myself, I pass them by as unworthy my notice ; and with respect to the committee, those who know its constitution can afford to smile at your correepoadents' ignorance of the capacity of its members ; but I may state that the Committee of the Master Printers' Association, representing the immense majority of the employers of London, do not appear to entertain the opinion so flippantly put forth by " 0. and C 0.," as they always display their wiilingness to enter into correspondence and conference with the representatives of our society on all needful occasions ; and notably was that the case in 1866, when our members agitated for an advance of wages, on which occasion an employers' committee appointed by a general meeting of the master printers of London, met an equal number of compositors elected by the workmen to discuss the question submitted to them, and after nearly 12 months' deliberation conceded the advance desired ; and, as a proof that the compositors' claims could not be deemed excessive, two of the employers recently examined before the Royal Commission on Trades' Unions stated that even now they did not think compositors were too well paid. With regard to the sum expended by the society in assisting its unemployed members, I should have imagined that such a fact was to the credit of any body of working men who made such a provision, rather than a matter to be objected to or sneered at.  Your correspondent also taken occasion to state the names of certain ()films which are closed against  our members ; but, although that is so in the few houses named (and I very much regret it), I beg to state we have 240 others i❑ which our members are paid by the London scale, and they embrace, with two exceptions, all the great houses in the metropolis. Again, your correspondent chooses to assume that the advance of wages in 1866 has driven work out of town, and thus caused the depression under which the trade has for some time languished. I am in a position to know, however, that that slackness has beau equally experienced in the provinces ; the fact being that trade here has suffered for the last two years in consequence of the monetary panic of 1866, and not from work having left London to be executed either in the country or abroad. In conclusion, Sir, I must energetically protest against the use of the word " rattening" which heads your correspondent's letter, in connection with the dispute between themselves and us —a word which is a convertible term for the most outrageous ruffianism culminating in murder. What, in the name of common sense, is there in the laboured epistle of " 0. and Co." that justifies such an insolent imputation ? All that our members have done in regard to the 'firm of your correspondents is to give them notice to leave, finding that they cannot agree with them, and that, they may rest assured, is all the rattening they will receive from us.—l am, sir, your obedient servant, 11. SELF, Sec. London Society of Compositors, 3, Raquetcourt, Fleet-street, Aug. 12.  711 E