Hide Articles List

11 articles on this Page



THE BUTE DOCK BILL. .4, THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. THE EVIDENCE OF SHIP- OWNERS. THE LABOUR CLAUSES. OPPOSITION OF THE FREIGHTERS. EVIDENCE FOR THE PRO- MOTERS. THE TESTIMONY OF SHIP CAPTAINS. COAL TRIMMERS AND COAL TRIMMING. THE PRESENT SYSTEM AT THE DOCKS. HOUSE or COMMONS, Monday Afternoon.âTo- day the committee of the House of Commons, with Sir H. Selwin-Ibbetson as chairman, Sir J. Eardle-y Wilmot, Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice, and Mr Ralli, resumed consideration of the Bute Dock Bill. The counsel were the same as on Thursday. M. E. H. Capper was recalled and cross- examined by Mr Matthews for the colliery pro- prietors. Mr Matthews; About the committee of ship- owners of which you spoke on the last occasion tile committee sat. Were you on. the committee ? Witness; Yes. Mr Matthews: Did the committee consist only of managers of steam vessels ? Witness: It consisted of myself, Mr T. R. Thompson, Mr John Fry, Mr J. R. Christie) aaid MrTtromas Watson. They are all managing; ship- owneM. Mr Matthews Did not Mr Fisner complain that he had no invitation to be present ? Witness: He jokingly told me that he had had Do invitation. Mr Matthews It was. a joke, was it? Witness: Certainly. Aad. I asked him if he was a managing shipowner, and he said*" God forbid! (Laughter.) Mr Matthews What was added to the bill to Satisfy the shipowners ? Witness: The words added to the clauses eable us to use our own crews. Mr Matthews For everything? Witness: Yes, for everything; for all the work hthedoeks. We have got the control of the vessel in our own hands. Mr Matthews Anything else? Witness: We got what we wanted as far as the labour clauses are concerned. Mr Matthews Did you approve of the dock of 1874 ? Witness: Yes, but I took no active part re- garding it. Mr Matthews Have you compared the two â¢cbemes? Witness: Yes. Mr Matthews: Did that dock afford as much accommodation as the one now proposed ? Witness: I think not. The sides of the present dock are straight. The sides of the one proposed by the 1874 scheme were sloping, and this makes a great deal of difference. Mr Matthews: About the bunker ooah In what proportion do ships supply themselves with tmnker coal ? Witness: The charterer supplies four times* I fhould say, to the shipowner's once. The colliery proprietors trim the coal themselves. Mr Matthews Do you know Mr Payne, who the secretary of the committee of trimmers and I labourers opposing this bill ? Don't you know that ? Witness: I have seez his. name m the news- papers, with honorary secretary after it. J Mr Matthews You never inquired, did you ? Witness: No. Mr Matthews: The tipping of bunker coal is necessarily a slow process U compared with the .eargo? Witness: In the majority of instances it is a longer process than the trimming of a. cargo. Mr Matthews: Do you buy a very inferior sort Of coal for bunker coal ? Witness: I am not a colliery owner. In answer to further questions by Mr Mat- thews, Witness said that every managing shipowner in Cardiff was invited to the meeting at which the bill was discussed, and there were about 25 pre- sent. As far as he knew, the system of trimming and loading prevailing at Cardiff existed at only One other place, and that was Newport. He could Bot explain how the system grew up at Cardiff. Despatch money, he went on, explaining some evidence given on Friday, was paid for saving hours stipulated for in the loading of the cargo. The object was that colliery proprietors might get toore money out of the shipowners. You have had a discussion with Lord Bute's trustees as to the effect of these labour clauses?â Yes. And you have had an understanding that these clauses shall not be construed so as to injure the lDen ? Witness: No I don't say that. I don't know frh.it you mean by injuring the men." Then what have they given you their word MIotlt, ? Witttees: As to the arithmetical profit to be made out of the money they may get from Htbipc'wner:* for doing the work, the object beingâ and I perfectly agree that. it is a very legitimate â object indeedâto despatch "iáOfoJ much quicker than before. That is the main object, but if Lord Bute takes the liability upon his own shouldersâ With the Employers'Liability Act and "peculiar acts of that kind-he would be a very silly man if he did not protect himself. Answering other quotums, witness said that Whenever the | eople who paid the money were dissatisfied with the charter they might have an hnmediate reference to the county court judge. Be considered that. there was also á. provision en- | fcbling the labourers to go to the county court â¢|udge. If he remembered rightly, the clause fru- vided for all persons concerned to go to the county «»ourc judge. Mr K S. Hill was the next witness called. Fie said that he was a member of the firm of I Charles Hill and .son: and had known the port of Cardiff for 25 years. He constantly used the Bute Docks, and had a large interest in the shipping therei. No doubt increased shipping accommodation was required. It had been a matter of general public interest, and had now become urgent. More ducks were required. He considered the proposed dock would be ⢠of very great advantage. It was very L important t" have a large number of railway siding* about the new docks. By the construction of the new dock it waf impossible tosiitupthe I*enartli Dock, in his opinion. The foreshore to be taken was no use at present. It would be of advantagre to have the trimming in the hands of Lord Bute. He wovld prefer this he could not see that the trimming wonld beduue any theworse by Lord Bute than by the shipowners, for Lord Bute had the greatest interest in the prosperity of Cautiff and Cardiff Docks. It would be Lord Bute's intere-t to despatch vessels in quickly as possible, and to give every possible facility, and that at the cheapest rate he could. The labourer would not be in any way injured by the proponed trim- ming clauses. By having the whole of the work under one control, despatch would be promoted. In answer to Mr Matthews for the colliery pro- prietors, witness said: My tirm hu recently been formed mto a company. It would be to the in- terest of the colliery owner to promote despatch. Mr T. R. Thompson, steamship owner and â¢tearriship broker, Card if* said that in the profit- able management of steamaiu despatch was not the most desirable element, but the real f.,potld.. A meeting of shipowners at Cardiff ap- pointed a committee to consider this bill, of which he (witness) was one. They pointed out to Lord Bute's advisers some of the c auses which ebe-y clmsidered would require amendment; and they were met m an extremely fair manner by Lord Bute's advisers. Witness desired to see the bill passed. He thought the necessity for in- creased dock accommodation was admitted even by the opponents of the bill. Sailing vessels j were frequently detained outside of the port as much as a week, ten days, and a fortnight; whilst 111 18J1 much damage Witi caused to Vet3e1s outride of the harbour by a storm, the want of accommodation having prevented th. vessels from en Lering. The new dock would be an ad- ?antago to the trade. Tire piece of foreshore h tel 1 it was proposed to utilise was not now of the slightest use. He thought that :t now dock, giving additional facilities for despatch, would be worth an additional charge. He thought that the despatch money at presentj>a;d 11 id very heavily Upon those paying it. If they paid an amount under tair circumstances he should not complain but at rn-esent thiti was not the case. The sbip- owiiei v of Cardiff, as a body, had agreed to support the bill. Affixed to their memorial be recognised the names of some,of the very be^t shi pawners* whose vessels frequented the port of 1 OmÃff-persoos of undoubted standing. W itlless, conti nninK, spoke in favour oftftatrtm- ming'being carried out by the dock, owner. At f present, he said, the freighter* got one farthing per tnu on the trimming, with the exception of ilir George K-lliot, wb»>, being more philanthropic, took one halfpenny. (Laughter, t Tlie foremen fnt part of the_iu<mey fur trimming. At all the porCi in the North of Kngtand the trimming was dnue by the dwekuwnes. With respect to the nursing of the tips at Cardiff, he. said, speaking from a shi{)*>wne>r's point of view, that the bill ;-w«uld tend to abeli.ib it. Shipowners derived benefit from the lighting and watching of the (Sdcka and he thought they uught to pay reason- ably tor it. Aftier furthe* examination tha committee ad- journed. â Rot/SK 011' OOMMOSS, Tuesday Afternoon.âTo- 'day the Bate Dock Kill again cattfe before the "Ccmnnittea of thi House of Commons, comprised "as fallows: Sir H. Selwia-lbbetecm (chairaaanj, Sir J, Eardley Wilmot, Mr Ralli, and Lewd lMmuoo Fitzmaioriee. The same counsel represented the different in- ilerests as on previous occasions. [ At thj openiBg of the- sitting, The Chairman remarked that he should like to thow by whose authority the House of Common? was to be asked at two c/chick that day W refer the minutes: of the BiiJs erf '69 and '74- to the etIIR- JDittee. He had never heard $I- ww-d a boot â¢Mxnigh hø ondensto d lhat the matter should go through the chairman of the committee. L Several gentlemen representing varioutintefesttt Wiving disclaimed any knowledge of tba course adopted, Mr Matthews,Q.C. lIor the colliery proprietors)^ renmrVed that it was the fault. of the parlramen- tary agent of tlt&t. body, and he (Mr Matthews) Taegfctod to tyxdogiee. The Chairmaa replied that tha parliamentary agent had assumed aa authority to which he. had <bo r ght. The matter had been put down in the 'Same of Sir Charles ltarster. who. although a member of the committee ef petitions, had nothing to do with this bill. With the object of proceeding in order it was decided to make the application to the House through the Chairman of the committee on another occasion, an intimation to that effect to be conveyed to Sir Charles Forster. Mr T. R. Thompson, examined on the previous day, was recalled. Mr Sullivan (for the coal trimmers): Will you ask the witness, sir, whether he knows anything as to the shipowners asking the promoters of this bill to put in a clause for the direct payment of the trimming charges to the men, and if such matter was mooted in the negotiations between the shipowners and the promoters ? Witness: There has been no such thing. Mr Thomas Joseph, Tydraw, colliery pro- prietor, was next called. Ay one well acquainted with Cardiff and its trade, and as a colliery pro- prietor holding under the Earl of Dunraven, the Earl of Jersey, the Marquis of Bute, and" other landlords, he was taking, steps to increase the output of his collieries. WitS respeet to the demand for increased dock accommodation, he said' it was very much wanted. Indeed a case had been made out for it in1874,when the coal shipped did not amount to one-half of what it did now. Trade was choked back to the collieries for want of sufficient accommodation. The waggons were continually kept waiting at Cardiff, so much so that it was calculated the delay cost three half- pence per ton upon all the coal shipped. If there were a regular system, and an absence of the stemming, all parties, would be benefited, includ- ing the colliery proprietors, the merchants, and the dock owners. He had seen the- plans- of the proposed dock, and strongly approved of them. He preferred it to the dock of 1874, which would be inconvenient for the large steamers now in use, being a cisooked ene oi an L shape. The colliery proprietors who had property in the neighbourhood, and who shipped at Cardiff, who were in favour of the Bill of 1882, repre- sented 42,000 acres of mineral property. The area of those opposed was only 19,000 acres. Those in favour of this bill produced last year 5,200,000 tons of coal; those opposed produced less than 3,700,000 tons. The new dock would be a great advantage to the colliery proprietors. He believed that more than. 10,000,000 tons of coal would be shipped in 1880âjudging from the past. In the area personally known to him, forming-am estimate upon the seams at present worked is one part or another, the quaatity of coal available was, he believed^ 500,000,000 tons of steam cool1 and 200^006^000 of house and manufacturing coal. In round numbers, there was an available supply of 700,000,000 of tons in this district alone. He thought that Cardiff wwuTd maintain its superior- ity as a shipping port, owing te the excellent facilities which it offered. There would no doubt be a great increase in the shipping of coal at Swansea owingto the new line authorised last week, and at Newport by that important com- munication-, the Newport and Caerphilly line. At the same tine, Cardiff would still hold its own, and. he had no doabt the traffic would go on largely increasing. Tkere was als» a very-large import trade to be provided for. He should say that those in favour of this bit! were reporters Ià haK-a-rnillion tons of iron ore, auMng ether mr terests, last year. The present dock charges in- cluded nothing, he believed, to pap foe the 60 miles of railway sidings aad the 5a lecotaetivea moving about the coah He should be glad if he had to pay only 3d a too fer this work at a neighbouring port 6d a tCM was: charged for these services. He thought that the docltowner should at least be paid the expense out of pocket for doing this werfc, from which other people derived the benefit. He. expressed approval of the trim- ming clause- in the bill, faying- that the tipping and trimming were two parts of the same opera- tion. The. dockowner already did the tipping, and then the merchant stepped into the bold and trimmed the coal. He could not see that the labourer was likely to be injured by the work of trimming being in the hands of the trustees of the Marquis of Bute. A benefit, instead of a dis- advantage, would accrue to the labourer, seeing that he would be properly paid. Asked whether it was true that the South Wales coal waa of so brittle a character that a South Wales labourer mist trim it to prevent breakage, he said he heard this statement for the first time in the House of Lords committee, but he considered that the South Wales coal was a very hard coal. It was, in his opinion, fair that a penalty should be imposed upon the persons occupying the sidings for more than 48 hoursâblocking them. He had himself suffered from this cause. With anything like proper working there need be no hardship in the payment of the extra charge for waggons delayed on the sidings for more than 48 hours. He believed that it was necessary that some pressure should be put upon the persons who conduct their traffic irregularly. Mr Wm. Henry Taylor, of the firm of Gray and Co., of Whitby, shipowners, next gave evidence. He said in answer to Mr Bidder, for the promoters, that his firm had seven: steamers in the foreign coal trade, and frequently called at Cardiff for cargoes. At Newcastle the trimmers were en- tirely under the control of the Tyne dock authori- ties, which was a satisfactory system, whereas be had found that the practice at Cardiff was ex- tremely unsatisfactory to everyone but the freighters, who got a profit out of it. There was no reason for saying that if the dock authorities had charge of the trimming less care would be exercised in the performance of the work than was exercised at present. Nursing was carried on by all the shippers at Cardiff. If it was for the benefit of the freighters to nurse the tips there was no doubt it would be done. It would be of great advantage to get the trimming in the hands of the dock authorities. Quicker despatch would be secured, and it would help to do awaj with the objectionable practice of nurs- ing, which he believed the witnesses opposing the bill would admit was done. Mr Frederick Edwards, Cardiff, said that his firm had been connected with the shipping of that port for upwards of 20 years. They had a line of steamers sailing from Cardiff to New York, known as the Edwards Line." and they had several steAm tugs besides. His firm were the largest carriers of American produce into Cardiff. About the necessity of increasing the dock accommoda- tion, he thought there was no quastion. He con- sidered that what tha promoters of the bill in- tended to provide for amounted to perfection. He thought that the charges were reasonable. He considered that the present system of trimming was open to abuse. The work of loading cargoes was not by any means done to his satisfaction aow. Mr .Tames Waie said he was the owner of several Iarge steamers belonging to Cardiff, with the shipping of which port he had been connected during the last 32 years. He had £4íJ,OOO invested in steamers and had in addition the manage- ment of dS40,000 worth. Until lately he was en- gaged in colliery enterprise, and in the course of the 32 years alluded to he had shipped over one million tons of coal at Cardifi and Newport. He had frequently been ob!;ged to send shins to Newport instead of deal- ing with them at Cardiff, iu order to get a better J despatch. He occasionally sent his vessels to I Swansea, but he found Cardiff to be a cheaper 1 port. He had known a sailing vessel delayed at Cardiff for fi ve weeks, owing to the stem. That was some time ago, but within the last two or threes years he had known vessels to be delayed threv weeks. The utilisation of the foreshore for the purpose of this dock would be of great use. He thought it would be better to have the load- ing and unloading of vessels under one head, although the work was now done very well. He considered that the trimming of the cargoes by Lord Bute would be an advantage. Mr Philip Morel, senior partner in the firm of Morel Brothers, Cardiff, was called as a witness. In answer to Mr Bidder (for the promoters), he said his firm imported over 200,000 tons of iron in the year. His firm had lost five vessels in one storm on Penarth Beach through their not being Sufficient dock aceon modation at Cardiff. In the great storm of January, 1881, twenty-one vessels were lost on Penarth Beach through not being able to get into the docks. If constructed, the present dock would be a very great boon to the trade of Cardiff. He had had an opportunity of studying the provisions of the bill, and, as a shipowner, he was perfectly satisfied that the bill would be in the interest of the trade of the port. He would rather see the Bute authorities have all the control of the labour they were now asking for, including the trimmersâ there being no apprehension that the work of trimming would be done in any less satisfactory way than at present. As they were the people who paid for the trimming, it appeared to him to be only right that they should have a voice in whom they preferred. When a vessel came into the docks at present, there was a great deal of con- fusion in the way of the men tonting for employ- ment. Mr C. O. Yonnsr, of the firm of Me-srs Young and Christies, next ga-ve evidence. He said, in am-wer tn counsellor the promoters that his finn were v ery largely interested in t!ie shipping trade of Cardiff-âmanaging a quarter of a million of money. Further accommodation was urgently wanted. Srilmg ships were now often detained in the roads; in the cade of steamers, they had the preference, but he had known steamers detained 24 and 48 hours, or even three days it Cardiff. He had consideied the provisions of the present bill, and lie thotrjrht that the measure would be bene- ficial to the trade of the port. He thouglrt the trimming clauses and those with regard to the hobMcra and riggers would be of advantage, Mr W. II. Hawkins, Secretary of the Cardiff Chamber ot Commerce and of the Cardiff Ship- owner?;' Association, who said be attended at the bid ling o»f a Speaker's warrant, gave evidence as to the calling of meetings, of the shipowners' asso- ciation and the chamber of commerce. He sent circulars U>eivery managing shipowner be knew of, it being desired to get a true representation of the manacring- shipowners, of Cardiff at tbe meeting- spoken of by Mr Capper, the chairman of the shipowners' association. He handed in the reso- lution arrived at as previously reported. The committee then adjwurned. HomHt OP COXMOXS, Wednesday Afterao&n.â Th8 Bute Dock Bill, 1882, again came before tfre I Committee of the Ilou^e of Commons.âSir H. S«lwiu-Ibbet«ua fclwurmanJ, Sir J. Eardley Wihnot, Mr Ralli, and Lord Rdmond Fits- maariceâ to-day. The same cuuuael were sagagod aa on previous occasions. Captahr Robert- Wood, the first witness, said in auswer to Mr Bidder, Q.C. fforthw promoters* that he was over looker and ship's husband fnr Messrs Carr and Ge", of Greenock. 'ih» *essel» of that firm want to Cardiff, and witness was. acquainted with the mode of working at the Bute Docks. Sailing rensels had to wait a. long time before they could pet a. tip; and delay ensued. Me did not think that the prBneat system of trim- ming was satisfactory. Q, Would it oe tot the advantage of the trade far the duck authorities to provide the trllnmers. r âA. I think itt would be much better fur theslrip- owners. You think business' trould be much better and ⢠quicker done ?âA. Yes i I think s<r. Continuing* witness said that tiio rig-gars,. hob- quicker done' ?âA. Yes i I think s<r. Continuing* witness said that tiio rig-gars,. hob- 'biers, ami labourer* were a nni?:u.ce i*vth»ship- mvuer at Cardiff, u. tlvey coulu not be fouad whan wanted. He thought it v 1 be much better if these men were brought -v the con- trol «C the dock authorities. Wher. M ;J ^ot-their tura on the tips, after waiting, > i deaf of delay occurred owing to saUin;c v .ssvls being moved to and ko at ttie picas are i,I.. u ciguiieid. in order to make room for steamers. He had car- ried a good deal of Welsh coal, and he did not know that it was so peculiarly oenstituted as to require very steady handling. Replying to Mr Matthews (for the colliery pro- prietors), witness said that the berthing master, at the instance of the freighters' foremen, ordered vessels from the tips. The berthing master was in the employment of the Bute trustees. He found that ships were generally loaded within the lag days, but they could be loaded quicker if they got right up to the tip at once. The ship had to pay for the shifting, and if the freighter owned a steamer which was ready for loading, to secure despatch money he made the sailing vessel wait. The demurrage was generally 4d per registered ten. He had not eemmand over the men who were put on board eemmand over the men who were put on board to shift the vessel. Ha had never applied to the Bute trustees to get a gang of men to trim his vessel. He had not thought of it. Mr Matthews But. at present labour in. Car- diff is free and you could have done so ?âA. There is generally a clause in the charter party stipulating that the freighters are to trim.âQ. But your owners are not at the mercy of the freighters. They can make the terms. By Mr Pembroke Stephens (for the. shipowners who oppose): You complain that you cannot get under the. tip. Whatpreventsyou ?âA. I complain of being ordered away from the tip before we get finished.âQ. Have you ever found this that there is a delay iu getting down the coal that is intended for your ships by the trustees themselves '/âA. I do not know.âQ. Do you know that the coal is not sorted out at the sidings quickly enough ?âA.Jt do not know. But I have known coal intended for my ship on the dock sidings, but which could not get down along- side the vessel.âQ, Do you know that the arrangement of the sidings is exclusively in the hands of the Bute trustees ?âA. Yes, I under- stand this. Mr A. M. Sullivan for the coal trimmers How do the men do the work ?âA. The men do the work fairly well.âQ. Supposing instead of the freighters sending the men; to do the trimming, the dock authorities did ao that is what you would like?âA. Yes.âQ. But you see no reason why the men need be licensed under the new system any more than under the old ?âA. No. The Chairman But it is not proposed to license â the trimmers. Mr Bidder Ne the riggers and hobblers. Mr Sullivan Oh yes, that is so. (To witness) when you Toad within your fair time you still don't like the expense of the moving in the dock ? âA. No.âQ. But if you had not to pay these hobblers, would yeu not be under the expense of keeping your own crew ?âA. The dock company move them themrelves.âQ. Would they do it for nothing ?âA- No.âQ. They are not in the habit of doing things at Cardiff Docks for nothing, are they ?âA. Jie.âQ. I understand the whole sub- stance of your evidence to be that you complain that sailing ships are made to move from the tips to make way for steamers?âA. That is se.â Q. Supposing the trimming were in the handfe of the Bute Dock authoritiesâsurety that would not prevant sailing ships from being turned out. Have you ever complained of this moving from the tips ?"âA. Yea.âQ. And the Bute authorities gave you no satisfaction ?âA. No.âQ. Is it because you could net get aactiefactionthat you think theyought to have more power ?âA. Yes. (Laughter.)â Q. How often did you complain of this moving of sailing vesslsâfcialf a dozen or 20 times ?âA. No, once or twice. The Chairman: Ba,re the dock authorities any power at present in their hands to interfere- with tha freighters and trimmers ? Mr Sullivan The dockmaster can prevant any such abase as that alluded to in the d sclc. Mr Bidder: He really cannot. The Chairman: We have no evidence of that at all: Mr SuHiran (to witness): At all events you got no satisfaction from the Bute people ?âA. No. Mr Bidder: When the freighter has possession of a tip he has a right to have any vessel at that tipt The berth-master has no voice in the matter. The Chairman The presumption isâunless there should be direct evidence to the contraryâ that the berth-master has merely to carry out the instructions of the foreman, who is employed by the freighters. Mr Pembroke Stephens (for the opposing ship- owners) called attention to section 32 of the Act of 1874, which provided that the undertakers might regulate the admission of vessels into or near the docks or works, and the removal out of and from the same, in such manner as to give and secure a preference of steamers over sailing vessels. The Chairman: As I understand that clause it is entirely limited to bringing vessels into the dock and taking them out. Mr Stephens: "Docks and works." Mr Matthews: The dockmaster has charge over the tips, and he assigns one to a particular freighter. He may then use it either for a steam ship or sailing vessel. Mr Bidder: And this witness complains that the freighter uses that power for shifting away the sailing vessel in favour ef the steamer. Mr Bidder (to witness): Now about the charter party. As I understand, the freighters offer a charter party, which contains a clause usually which secures the trimming to the freighters ?âA. Yes.âQ. And, if you do not chose to accept the charter party, you lose the freight ?âA. Yes. Captain Archibald Thompson, who was in com- mand of one of the National Line steamers from Liverpool to New York for 14 years, and was now inspector of coal for the Union Line of steamers at Cardiff, was next called as a witness. He said he partly inspected the trimming of the coal shipped for the use of the Union Line steamers, and he had not seen the freighters' foremen taking much part in the work. The Union Company had dispensed with the screening at tbe port shipping coals colliery screened. This step had been decided upon at his recommendation, and it had been found to answer well. In his opinion, it would be of benefit to all parties-tn the shipowners, the consumers, and the trirnUlers- to leave the trimming of the coal in the hands of the dock authorities. The freighters now trimmed the vessels, and nursing was going on every day. The trimmers nursed the tips, filling up the time nntilmore coal was sent down, thus losing a good deal of time. If nursing were put an end to it would tend to quick despatch. The captain could not interfere with the trimmers, except as to the way in which they trimmed; he could not interfere M to the time the trimmers took. The coal from his company was sent away in sailing vessels, and he had had experience of nursingâ the sailing vessels being ordered away by the freighter to make room for steamers, upon which the freighters received despatch money. By Mr Matthews, for the colliery proprietors Your wish is that a freighter should be prevented from loading steamers, in order that he may first complete a sailing vessel?âA. I want to have just ce done to the sailing vessel.âQ. What injustice is done to the sailing vessel if she is loaded within her lay days ?âA. There is the expense oi moving her out and in. And then the sailing vessel is not always loaded within her lav days.âQ. But then she gets demurrage ?â A. That is the shipowner's business.âQ. And then there is the demurrage to be paid on the steamers if they are loaded. Do you expect that the Bute trustees are to employ and pay gangs of trimmers for nothing?âA. No. I think they ou^ht to get something. âQ. But-if it is B" advantageous, why has it not been adopted before ?âA. I do not know.âQ. And yet it would be for the bene- fit of everybody to have the trimmers employed exclusively by the Bute authori- ties ? Why has it not been adopted ? â A. It would be for the benefit of the ship- owners, and it would be for the benefit of the trimmer.âQ. What benefit would it be to the trimmer Tâ A. He would, have fair pay and less hours. The Chairman There is a good deal of imagi- nation in all this. Mr Matthews What I want the witness to ex- plain to the comipittee is why a system which is to the benefit of the shipowners and everybody else, and which could be adopted now, has not been adopted. Witness: But there is a monopoly of the freighters now. Mr Matthews: There is no monopoly of the freighters. Bus I suppose yon put it that the changed system would be for the benefit of the freighters amongst the everybody?âA. Yes, I do.âQ. Well, why have they not adopted it? â A. I do not know. â Mr Matthews Nor anybody else. (A laugh.) Mr Sullivan: If it be correct as you say that the nursing goes on when the coal is not down, the nursing must be in consequence of coal not being down. It is in no sense the fault of the men ?â A. No.âQ. Am I not correct in saying it is to the interest of the trimmers to have di"P3Wh just aa much as to the inte.re8t of tha ahipowner?-A. I believe it is.âQ. Do yon know that Mr E. C. Downing, a sh\pbroker, keeps a gang of trim- mers, and trims the Cork steamers ?âA. I do not know. Mr Bidder: I don't think they shipconl at all. Answering other questions from Mr Snllivpn, witness said that the nursing system did not pre- vail so much at Newport as at Cardiff. He had made complaints both at Newport and Cardiff about his ships not being loaded within the proper time. To Mr Bidder: At Newport they find the sys- tem so intolerable that they have a bill in Parlia- ment to put a stop to it; and complaints are also made at Swansea. Mr J. C. McCulloch, a mining and civil engineer of 30 years' experience, and co-mected with the AdiuiraltyyPaid that thosewho hatl the. tip" should have the trimming, for convenience and better working all round. If the trinrminsr was not worked in unison with the ship, the efficiency of tips might be, to a gieat extent, neutralised. He did not think there was any reason to believe that trimmers would he less efficient if iu the employ and pay of the Bate instead of under the control of the freighters. He thought, on the contrary, that there wotdd be greater effiofency. Mr Matthews, for the colliery proprietors and freigbiotM Thill so-called system of nursing is against the real interest of the freighters ?âA. Yes, I think so. â Q. And if ene freighter does nurse the tips it is to the injury of the rest ?âA. Certainly it is. I quitef agree with yott. v Witnass I quite telieve the ooal shippers to be. ia the majority intelligent and honourable men. Mr Matthews: Ytft, I leave the howour to re- present them. tA laugh.) They ought to taboo (the tmscruimlous freiglrter then?âA. Yet, they I ought to taboo himâQ. If they know their business as intelligent and honourabla men, they ooght to tabotr tho otisoiupulous freighters ia their >wn interest, and why do they not do so ? Witness; vVelT, that is. a question I cannot answer. Men look at matters front different stand-points. What 000 man considers hooour-' able another man does nott In answer to further q-nesfions, the witness said the South Wales coal was iwnfe friable coal unless it was exposed to the weather. It. would not stand the wind and the sun and the rain. It did not break into dust exactly, bat into small cubes. Mr Pembroke Stephens' (far. thef shipowners, who oppose^ What. was the origin of Baxter's mixture-?âA. Tha origin wae-this â¢, that we found it necessary W mix steam with bituminous coil to prevent waste. Mr Sullivan (for the enal trimmer: Do you think that if the-dock master had sufficient power he could pro vent. tMMing Y-A. Yes^ but I» has. not that power. Morøu, coal trimmer at the Bute Docks. oS was next called as a witness, and, in answer to Mr Bidder (for the promoters), he said he was in a regular gang in the employment of the Ferndale Colliery. Some time ago there were complaints, and he was discharged, but since then he had been taken on again, and still worked for the same firm. Trimming was very laborious work, and work which fairly deserved to be well paid. Mr Bidder: Do you get the full share of the amount which the sShip pays for the trimming ?â A. No, sir.âQ. What is taken out of it before it comes to you ?âA. A farthing a ton is kept by the merchant,âQ. Do you get the rest?âA. Then we have to make an allowance to the foreman.âQ. What is the nature of the allowance to the fore- men ?âA. So much per week, in some cases £1 per week I have had to pay.âQ. And the fore- man has'his own wages quite distinct?âA. Yes I believe the foremen of Messrs Davis & Sons re- ceives £210s per week.âQ. There is such a thing as standing in wjth the gang ?âA. Yes but I have never been troubled with standing-in foremen.â Q. What is the meaning of standing in" with the gang ?âA. The foreman makes the 7th or 9th man, and receives a 7th or 9th share. â Q. Does he do any part ef the trimming work ?âA. No.âA. Does he go into the hold while the trimming is going on ?â A. No.â^Q. Does he take any part in seeing that the coal-trimming is properly done?âA. No.â Q. Do you know anything of nursing the tips ?â A. Yes, I have done it. I did it on the 6th of last April, in the case of a ship called the Venice. âQ. Who tells you to nurse ?âA. Our foreman. We carry on the work quietly and steadily until the coal comes down from the col- liery, when the stock of coal is rather short.â Q. Is that very often ?âA. Oh yes, very often.âAnswering other questions, witness said he had very often known a tip to be nursed until the arrival of another vessel. The berth would be kept for a steamboat if one was expected in. Tips would sometimes be nursed a day. In April last they tipped ten waggons from 6 to 9, seven from 9 to 12, and one from 12 to 1, that being the number tipped up to 5 o'clock. The number of waggons was 18 in all, whereas they could have tipped at the very least 50 or 60. Mr Bidder: It shows what can be done by judicious management. (Laughter.) Is it a fact that in some cases men are paid in a public-house of a brother or cousin of a foreman?âYes, there are cases, but under Messrs Davis & Sons we are paid in a place called the Lodge." Formerly we were always paid in a public-house.âQ. In such cases is there a beer score?âA. Very of ten.â Q. As a lien on the wages, the beer store is deducted before the wages are paid ?âNo answer. Mr Matthews (for the colliery proprietors): Do you look forward then to having beer without paying for it under the new act? (Laughter.)âA. Not at all, sir.âQ. What were you dismissed for by Messrs Davis ?âA. Mr Taylor is the best man to answer that question.âQ. Did he say it was because vou were too long in loading a vessel?âA. No, he (fid not.âQ. Was not the gang dismisaed-because it did not load a steamer in time?âA. The gang wswr not all dismissedâ 9 out of 14 received notice.âQ. Was not the reason assigned a delay in loading a steamer ?â A. No.âQ. If yon had worked as fast as you could, you would not have been paid so much as you were ? â A. No, not at all. The more tons I put in, the more money I received. Witness went on that this trimming was very hard work. It was requisite that it should be done by men used to it. It wanted a little prac- tice. In his opinion it was not necessary that the coal should be handled by people who knew all about it. He trimmed-a cargo to the satisfac- tion of the captain; the foreman did not look alter itâQ, Why did you pay the foreman ? âA. I knew what wound happen if I did not.âQ. You mean that the foreman would not keep you on ?â A. Yes. I afterwards refused to give towards the foreman, and that, I believe, is the reason why I was discharged.âQ. Had Messrs Davis's fore- man any power to discharge you ?â A. I believe he had; and .1 know it, because I know a man he has discharged.â Q. Who ? (Witness appeared reluctant to answer.) âQ. Never mind, I shall have Mr Davis here, and the foreman, and I will get it from one of them.âA. I wish he (the foreman) was here. He would be rather ashamed to hear me speak of him. The Chairman It would be as well. perhaps, to keep the other man's name out of it.âQ. Are there foremen over the men employed by the Bute trustees ?âA. I cannot answer.âQ. This system of paying the foremen by the men is a common one at Cardiff?âA. Very common it was in the early part of 1879 that I objected to pay the fore- man. It was understood between Messrs Davis and the foreman at that time that he was not to receive a penny from the trimmers. But through the head-trimmer the question was brought before the others, at the instigation of the foreman, and they entered into an agreement to give him £1 per week, or 10s from each gang.â Asked what advantage was derived by paying the foreman this sum, the witness said that he allowed a. smaller number of men to go in the gangs and thus left more work for those em- ployed. Supposing the trimming were taken out of the hands of the freighters, and put into those of the trustees, he supposed that foremen would have to be employed. Mr Sullivan (for the trimmers) Have you ever seen a paper like this ? (banding document).âA. Yes, and siguod them on several occa.sions.Q. Then you are aware that the Bute people receive payment for keeping the tips waiting ?âA. It is not known to the Bute trustees.âThe learned counsel then read the document as follows: â Bute Dock, Cardiff.âTo the trustees of the Marquis of Bute.âWe hereby request you to keep- tippers and âââ hoi-ses at No. ââ tip, on siding of ââââ dock, to proceed with the loading of the âââ on her arrival, and we agree to pay the tippers' wages f )r the time they are waiting. A. That is many years ago.âQ. Then yon have known the Bute people themselves to take money to keep the tips waiting ?âA. No; that is an agreement between the tippers and the foremen. âQ. And yet it is addressed to the Bute trustees, Who provides the tippers ?âA. I believe Lord Bute.âQ. Then when the tips: are. kept waiting, the foreman pays the tippers direct?âA. Yes.â Q. As a matter of fact, don't you know that the tippers frequently receive gratuities from the trimmers for working more quickly in order to expedite matters?âA. I have paid some pounds to them, but not for working more quickly.âQ. Then what for?âA. For better attendance.âQ. The majority of the men were in your case in favour of paying £ l per week to the foremen?â A. They were.âQ. Are the majority of the trim- mers in favour?âA. No, but those that are in the gangs are compelled, or else they know what to expect.âQ. If, in the case you mention, the vote had been the other way, would the jBl per week have been required ?âA. Yes.â Q. Is a like option"given to other gangs ?âA. I do not know. âQ. Have you paid any others ?â A. I have paid the foreman of Messrs Burness and Sons. I had rather not give the names of others. Mr SuHtvan We do not wish you to do your- self any harm. But if you complained, what would be the consequence ?âA. If I complained, I dare say I would tind that I would not be re- quired. Men are compelled to do things some- times they do not like. The Chairman Y 8S, they are. Witnef-3 And very often in Cardiff. (Laughter.) Mr Sullivan If the foremen under the Bute trustees disobeyed orders, and required money from the gangs, would you complain ?âA. I do not know. Mr Michael (for the promoters) Is there a custom of paying a premium for entering gangs ? âA. Yes, there is a custom. Mr Sul!i\an What makes you pay?âA. I think it worth while in order to get employment. Michael Driscoll, coal trimmer at the Bute Docks, who said he hnd been engaged there for the past nine years, was next called. He was a hobbler, and not a member of a permanent gang, but got work when he could. Generally the fore- man used his permanent gang for the trimming; if the foreman had not a permanent gang he em- ployed hobblers. The trimmers only got a share of the money paid for the trimmingâthe mer- chant getting a farthing, and the foreman "stand- ing in with the gang. For this the foreman did not lqok after the trimming at all, that being left to the leader of the gangâthe foreman being chiefly engaged to look after the waggons. The foremen it was who gave the directions to nurse the tips, which practise was resorted to in the in- terest of the freighters. He rememliered the case of the Royal Minstrel, which was being loaded by Messrs Beynon and Company. This was in the month of May. The trimming was commenced on Monday evening, and finished on Thursday morning. He received £2 10s for that work, but if he had had his proper share as he considered, he w<Hild have received much more. Since it had been known that he was coming to give evidence for the promoters, he had been boycotted prac- tically, only being able to get work with about two firms, it would be, in his opinion, of advantage to the trimmers were the trimmers in tho employ- ment of the dock authorities. He had been paid at the Cardiff pastle public-house by Mrs Moore, the landlady, with whom the money had been left by the foremen. This was a i cry common occurrence, but in a good many cases they were paid in coffee taverns and "lodges." Trimmers were paid at the Friendship Hotel, Bute-terrace, the Cambrian Arms, and the Pier Hotel. Mr Pembroke Stephens (for the shipowners) You are a member of one of these casual gangs?â A. The foreman of the gang employs whom he wishes. We generally enquire if any man is required but there are no casual gangs. We are the odd men who are taken on to make up gangs to the required number.âCJ. And you join your- selves to any gang where there there may happen to bo an opening ?âA, Yes.âQ. How do you know your share in the case of the Royal Minstrel ought to have been more than £ 210s 6d? âA. By calculating the tons we tipped as the tariff.âQ. How did you come to ealt upon Mf Moore ?âA. We went there to be paid.âQ. Yo. went with the rest ?âA. Yes. It was under- stood. Mr Sullivan, for the coal trimmer# â¢, Did Y01I" ask the gang known as the Cambrian gang for employment 1-A. I do not know that gang.â(?. Mr Sandy's gang, you know. You have spoken about boycotting. Did you aak then* for employ- ment?âA. No.âQ. Did yotf apply" to" Messrs Da vies and Sons ?âNo.âQ. Did you try Messrs Cory Bros. and Company ?âA. No.' It would be of no use for a Roman datholic to go to them.â Ql You ate naw* trying fot" the appointment of leading trimmer for the Bute Trustees?âA. 1 rtiay be so.âQ. WeH, »re yo*» leading trimmer ?â I cannot say. Mf Bidder; But there vt no such appoititmetft^ i«there? Mr Sullivan: It may bs be1 libl another high appointment in the Starfce>â-i» abeyance, aad wait- iflgiorâ (Liwigbtefcy Mr Bidder He is not waiting for the Dttchy of Lancaster srrrely yutr (bar not suggest- that? (Loud laughter.) Mr Sullivan (to witness}.: Have your r6<?ei ffetJ anjr appointment under the But&'Rustee&stwh as lead- ing trimmer ? (No answer.)'â Q. Have you had a little conversation with Mr Cuthbert abcrut it ?â A. That is my private business.âQ. Have you had any conversation about it ?âA. With whom*? âQ. With anybody fâA. With whom ?âQ, The matter has been discussed, has-it not?âA. Not withressard t. this affair. (Laughter.)âQ. Far be it from us to say so. But the matter has been discussed, has it not ?âA. Well, that is for YU8 to prove, and not me. (Laughter. r-Q. Who is the person that has talked withywttaboufrit?â A. Who is the person T tA laugh.).âQ. Yes. Who is the person fâA. Well .âQ. Who is tbe psreoa ?-A. Wou. Mr iieed.âXa lie thw foreman under Mr Cuthbert ?âA. Yes.âQ. Is Mr Cuthbert the manager of the labour depart- ment at the Bute Docks ?âA. I don't know.âQ. Don't you know that he is ?âA. I do not know.â Q. Has he control of the tips ?âA. Yes.âQ. Yes. When was there this talk about getting an ap- pointment ?âA. Well, I cannot give you the date.âQ. A few weeks ago ?âA. About a fort- night ago. (Laughter.) By Mr Michael (for tne promoters): The Bute Trustees have no gang of trimmers at present. Mr Reed did not represent himself as having autho- rity to represent the Bute authorities. Patrick Driscoll, 12, Duffryn-street, Cardiff, who had been working as a coal trimmer for the past 12 years, and who was in the service of Messrs Davis and Sons, now gave evidence. He described the process of nursipg the tips, and instanced the case of the Baron Ardrossan lying in the East Dock in the month of May last, and the Mace- donia. Nursing was quite common, and it was town talk in Cardiff that premiums were paid by men in order to become trimmersâmembers of regular gangs. They were often paid in public- houses ia Cardiff-he had eben paid on a Sunday in a. public-house. Asked repeatedly whether the employment of a small gang in loading did not result in "the fore- man and the men getting a larger share of money than might otherwise be the case, he replied over and over again that it would be better for' the foreman and worse for the ship, but he would not say that the men would benefit. The foreman trimmer told him that by paying the foreman £1 a-week they could get M less men on vessels." He believed that it would be better to give this JB1, as by having less men" they could make more money. James Cliff, 41, Davies-street, Cardiff, labourer, said he had been engaged in loading and trimming coal at the docks of that port for 17 years. In 1875 he joined a regular gang of hobblers at Messrs Cory's, but owing to a dispute left two years afterwards. It was a regular practice, he went on, for foremen to deduct part of the men's wages. He had had great experience of the nursing of tips, which was done to a considerable extent. The object was to gain two pointsâwhen a merchant was short of coal, and wanted to hold a tip until such time as a train came down, the tip was nursed, and it was also nursed at times when a steamboat was expected. Mr Matthews: Have you ever made a com- plaint to the merchant and freighters of deduc- tions from your wages, and of blackmail levied ?â A. Some years ago I was one of a num- ber who made complaints to a great number of merchant*, and brokers at Cardiff. The brokers promised their support, but said they could do nothing, as the freighters were agfiinst them. And for 13 weeks I went around the Car- f diff Docks, suffering the frowns, sneers, and scorn of my fellow-workmen for trying to remedy their differences; (Laughter.}âQ. Yon have been dis- missed a good deal, have you not ?âA. No only twice.âQ. Are you a. noted character in Cardiff ? âA. I do not know about being a noted character. I suppose 1 am known amongst some ef my fel- lows. But as to being noted, what do you mean? (Laughter.) Mr Bidder: That is a fair question* Mr Mat- thews. (Laughter.) My learned friend is bound toaMwerwhathenMMM. frLamgtrtw.y Mr Matthews: When you have dooeinternapt- ing I wiH tell him. To witness Are you a per- son known as. an opponent to. the freightage ?âA. Opponent of the freighters ? Never.âQ. Are you a friend of the promoters ?>âA. Well I do not know.â-Q. Are you. kaews as U. enemy of the foremen ?âA. Only in regard to the blood-sucking system that has been written about in the papers. âQ. Are you yourself a newspaper correspon- dent TâA. Not generally. Mr Sullivan: Are, you ever?âA. I write a letter sometimes.âQ. BLa-ve you been pakl for writing letters.âA. I decline to answer that.â Q. Perhaps you have written on both sides.âA. I decline to answer ?âQ- Have you been paid' for writing on both sides ?âA. If you have got testi- mony from the other that I have been paid I shall be glad to hear it. (Laughter.)-âQ, Were you dismissed in consequence of writing letters ?âA. No, sir.âQ. Had you not been dismissed from your employment in consequence of writing letters to the newspapers when Mr Riches took you on ? âA. No.âQ. What have 1011 been doing re- cently?âA. Discharging ballast for Mr Hill, contractor.âQ. Under the Bute Trustees? And you have objected to the system at the Car- diff Docks?âA. Yes, to the blood-sucking sys- tem at the Cardiff Docks.âQ. So much so that you have brought your son up to racing. (Laugh- ter.) Mr Bidder: Is not this going too far ? The Chairman: It is very near Goodwood, but I don't think we require to go into betting. (Laughter.)5 Mr Sullivan (to witness): Are you the Mr Cliff who made a speech in the Ten-acre Field,â A. I am.âQ. Did you get up that meeting?âA. Well, sir, I took an active part. The meetihg was got up with the object of discussing the pre- sent system of the Cardiff Docks, the future sys- tem of Cardiff Docksâ(laughter)âand the labour clauses of the present bill.âQ. Was the next meeting called by the men ?âA. By a great num- ber of them.âQ. Have any of the Bute people been seeing you about these meetings and speeches ?âA. No.âQ. Was the meeting in question reported in the South Wales Dtrily NewlJ of Tuesday, May Q3ttl!âA. 1 think the meeting was held on Monday.âQ. Who paid fov the bills, and met the expenses of getting up that meeting ?âA. That is not my business. I don't know.âQ. Were not you largely concerned in getting ap the meeting? and, therefore, don't you know who paid the "shot?"âA. I don't know. I had nothing to do with the financial matters.âQ. Previous to taking part in the meeting on the platform, had you doing anything ?âA. I arranged the malfeer as far as the public meeting was concerned outside?âQ, Who went between you and the men managing the inside things ?â A. I gave orders tor the bills and everything I wanted, but who was going to pay for them, how they were going to be paid for, and who has paid for them, I don't know. (Laughter.)âQ. Mr Cliffe we are getting on now. Are you in the habit of giving orders for bills to be printed, and incurring expense, without knowing or caring who is to pay?âA. No but I have been in the habit of giving orders for bills, and paying direct for them myself, and also giving orders for wliieh others have paid.âQ. Why did you give orders for these bills about the meeting?â A. I received instructions to that effect.âQ. Who instructed you ?âA. I cannot answer that. âQ. Who gave you those instructions ?âA. 1 cannot answer the question.âMr Sullivan Then I must appeal to the chairman. The Chairman (to witness): I think you must answer. I understand you to say you received instructions to get up tho meeting ?âA. The out- side. The Chairman: Who gave them to you ? Witness here hesitated and coughed in apparent embarrassment, amid much laughter. Mr Bidder: I don't object to tho witness anwer- ing. Witness Well. sir, it was Mr I forget his nameâ(laughter)âit was Mrâthe editor of the Mail. The Chairman: Editor of the Mail newspaper? âA. Yes, sir. Mr Sullivan: Was it Mr Carr? How do you know that the gentleman was the editor, if you don't know his name? The Chairman: The witness is a newspaper correspondent. (Laughter.) Mr Sullivan (to witness): Oh, you are a news- paper correspondent, are you ? (Loud laughter.) Now I ask you again how do you know that the gentleman to whom you gave instructions about the bills was the editor of the paper ?âA. Be- cause when I went into the office I made en- quiries for the editor, aud I was conducted to a gentleman's room by a person who said, "There is the editor,"âQ. Who sent you to the editor of the Mail for the purposes of this meeting ?â A. A fellow-workman and me, burning about this question, went to the Mail office to see if they could do anything for us. I told the editor I was shftrt of means, that I was only a poor man, and could not afford to run up any expense myself in connection with this meeting. He said, Oh, if you want bills, I'll do them for you." (Laughter.) Mr Sulltvan When I asked you a few minutes ago about who was responsible for the bills, why did you not tell me this?âA. Well, sir, you have got the answer now.âQ. Will you tell me this When you began to look for a benevolent editor, why did youselect the Mail ? Was that paper ever owned by the Marquis of Bute or his- people ?â A. Not that lam aware of. Mr Bidder Uh, Mr Sullivan f Mr Sullivan Why did you select the Mail newspaper ?âA. The reason I went there more than to the other paper was because I had seen letters in the Mail showing an interest in the matter in which I was so warm. The Chairman The witness had been writing letters himself occasionally, and was on the look out for anything. Mr Sullivan For an open-hearted editor, sir. Quoting from the South Wales Daily News report of the meetingâ" An immense majority of the workmen, it was apparent, were opposed to the labour clauses. Feeling ran somewhat high to- wards the end, personalities being freely indulged in." Witness I cannot understand how any person could give an estimate of the feeling of the meet- ing at all, because the meeting was a scene of confusion. In answer to further questions by Mr Sullivan for the coal trimmer*, Oliff said men of the opposing party came to the meeting on the Ten Acre Field half drunk, and interrapted the pro- ceedings;âQ. Who went with you to the Mail office ?âA. John Morgan, the previous witness, and he heard the editor say he would stand the expenseof the bills. I did not say that I took it for granted that the editor wonld pay.âQ. And about the manuscript of tlfe> bill announcing the meeting, who composed that?âNo answer.â Q. Who wrote the bill?âA. Mr Jfobn Morgan.â Q. Who eomposed it ?âA. Mr Oochlin, Mt Jamea Cliff, and Mt John Morgan. (Loud Jawght^r.y. I took the manuscript to the Mail printing works, and f gave drreOtiAUS for the? bills i to be distributed.âQ. Why were some actually posted up en Bute tips ?âA. That miglrfr haw accused throwgh the anxiety tA tihe pcftrf hobbfers in order to remedy the grievaac* they boir suffer under.. Counsel for the promoters ask&d if thetee ques- tions were relevant, Dr. PhttHimores Opr cuse is that these arrange- lhentat wefe entirely Bute ai-rangemerttft, that the movement ef workmen in favour of the biN has been taken under very great pressure brought to i Sear upon them br great people, agents, and under workers, and that it fe. scfr S gonnine move- i ment. i The Chairman: But with regard tor this witness; He says himself that for years he has' been art agitator on this qaestioa that-he has what he eatts ar grievance as i>* this "birfocf-atiokrng sys- l tern," as he terms it. and he has bed.i stirring up* his felTow-workers agitate about it; He says, having a binming cWsfcteto. ventilate4 grievance, he writes » fetter ffo £ paper, and: that afWwards ithe editor of the paper says he* will help hi getting out the bills calling the meeting. He has ColdHis fioW the bills were got out?, and his an- swer.* form.part-of a-sequence. Dr. Plrilliinore: Bub thore & this-fftrtiW ques>- tiou-the character the. paper. It ifr known to advwSate a. particoW interest, and particular vieqtt. Sir J. Bardfey Wilmot ;â This dbes tmi look Tiko a Bute trustee's arrangement. The chairman and the committee desira to Juiow how evfcleuG* of this kind can prove that the bill would be in- jurious to the trade of the port. The evidence is very strong at present that the trade of the port will be benefited by the dock. I do not see *jow that will be affected by this public meeting. Dr. Phillimore I represent some 1,100 work- men. In matters of this kind workmen are the best judges of their own interests. I say the workmen are in conflict, but the great majority, by far the great majority, are against the bill. The Chairman Will you throw any discredit upon the witness by the line of cross-examination taken by Mr Sullivan or yourself ? Dr. Phillimore: I wish to show that the meet- ing was a got-up one. The Chairman: We have had that. Dr. Phillimore: The point is that the money expended in getting up the meeting was expended not by workmen, but by other parties. The committee adjourned at this point until to- day (Thursday).


[No title]








[No title]