Part 61

On Wednesday, May the 15th, an inquest was held before Mr. Stirling, the coroner for Middlesex, on the body of Cully. The investigation lasted for several days, and the inquest-room and the neighbourhood of the house where the jury sat, were crowded by persons interested in the proceedings. A great number of witnesses were examined, many of whom declared, that the police had acted towards the people with unwarrantable harshness, striking and beating them with their truncheons; making no distinction between active parties in the meeting and defenceless women, but conducting themselves with equal and undue severity towards all; and that they had been guilty of this misconduct without any provocation being offered. On the other hand, it was sworn, that the mob were violent, and that many of them were armed with formidable weapons. Truncheons loaded with lead were used by them in striking the police, and the pikes upon which their banners were mounted were headed with iron, in obedience to instructions published by Colonel Maceroni, which were contained in a book called "Defensive Instructions for the People." It was admitted, however, that there was no disposition to riot among the people until the arrival of the police; that neither the riot act nor the government proclamation was read; and further it was proved, that the deceased had struck the man who wounded him before the wound was given. In reference to this part of the case, indeed, there was considerable contradiction in the evidence, for one witness distinctly swore that the deceased was speaking to her, and desiring her to go home, when a man suddenly rushed from the mob and stabbed him; and grave and important doubts appeared to exist as to the proper result to be arrived at. At the conclusion of the inquest on Monday, May the 20th, the jury returned the following verdict:--"We find a verdict of JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE on these grounds: that no riot act was read, nor any proclamation advising the people to disperse; that the government did not take the proper precautions to prevent the meeting from assembling, and that the conduct of the police was ferocious, brutal, and unprovoked by the people; and we moreover express our anxious hope that the government will in future take better precautions to prevent the recurrence of such disgraceful transactions in the metropolis."

The announcement of this finding was received with immense cheering among the people assembled, but not without remonstrance on the part of the coroner. He urged the jury to reconsider their decision, but with obstinate pertinacity they refused to alter the determination to which they had arrived.

The verdict was, however, declared by the law officers of the crown to be at variance with law, and with the evidence on which it was founded; and on Thursday, May the 30th, upon the motion of the attorney-general in the Court of King's Bench, the inquisition was quashed.

On Thursday, July the 4th, the trial of George Fursey took place at the Old Bailey. He was indicted for having riotously and tumultuously assembled at Cold Bath Fields, on the 13th of May, with five hundred others, and with having assaulted and wounded Sergeant Brooks, and Redwood, the constable, with intent to murder them.

The evidence by which it was sought to bring home the charge to the prisoner was first the positive declarations of Brooks and Redwood, that the prisoner was the man who had stabbed them, and secondly, the allegation by a man named Hayles, a constable, that after the prisoner had been apprehended, he was conveyed to a stable, where he and Tilley were confined together. They lay down on some straw; and when they had been removed to a lock-up house, the witness found on the spot where they had lain, a loaded pistol and a powder-flask, which Tilley had acknowledged belonged to him, and also a short dagger apparently made out of a foil blade, which was alleged by Redwood and Brooks to be exactly similar to that with which they had been stabbed, and which besides was found to correspond in shape with the wounds which they had received. Here, as well as before the coroner's jury, there was much contradictory evidence as to the conduct of the police. Many witnesses were called for the defence who described their demeanour as having been extremely violent, and who said that they saw them strike many persons whose proceedings had not rendered such a course justifiable. The trial lasted until two o'clock in the morning, the defence being conducted by Messrs. C. Phillips and Clarkson; and Mr. Justice Gazelee having summed up, the jury pronounced the prisoner "Not Guilty." This determination was received with loud demonstrations of applause by the people assembled within and outside the court, which the judges and officers in vain attempted to repress.

Much ill-feeling was produced by this unfortunate affair towards the police and the government. The police at their establishment had been exceedingly unpopular, from the military constitution of the force; but their usefulness had now begun to counterbalance the feeling which had so unfavourably prevailed. Their conduct at the Calthorpe-street riot did much to make them hateful to the lower orders, who were unable to draw the distinction between the intemperance of a few, and the usefulness of the main body. The conduct of the mob can be justified only by the attack which it is clear was made upon them; but the act of murder, and the attempt made to kill or disable Brooks and Redwood, are offences which appear to have been quite unwarranted by the circumstances which preceded them.

Fursey, after his trial, recovered 40_l._ damages against the proprietor of "The Morning Chronicle" newspaper, for publishing a libel, imputing to him the murder of Cully. Tilley, whose name has been mentioned, was liberated on bail, on Fursey's acquittal taking place, the charge against him, as has been already said, being found to be without foundation.

JOHN CROFTS.

TRANSPORTED FOR BURGLARY.

The circumstances of the apprehension of this fellow are so singular that they deserve to be recorded.

On the 8th of February 1834, he was indicted at the Surrey sessions for entering the house of a poor widow woman at Cheddington, in the county of Surrey, and stealing therefrom all the little property she was possessed of in the world. The trial of the prisoner excited a considerable degree of interest. On the day mentioned in the indictment, the prosecutrix having occasion to go to the next village, locked up her cottage, leaving nobody at home. On her return, in a few hours afterwards, she was alarmed, on her approach, to see a man in the act of leaving the cottage, carrying a large bundle in his arms. The man, on perceiving her, made a precipitate retreat towards a wood in the vicinity of the place, and was soon out of sight. The widow remained almost motionless through fright while this was passing, when, at length, she walked towards her cottage door, which was open, and on entering the dwelling, she found that it had been ransacked of every thing of a portable nature that it contained. Her distress on this discovery was excessive; and in her anguish of mind, she rushed out of the cottage into the road, uttering loud lamentations. At this critical moment a pack of hounds, in full cry after a fox, happened to be passing that way, followed by Colonel Wyndham, Colonel Vandeleur, and several gentlemen of the county. The moment the sportsmen beheld the widow they made a dead stop to inquire the cause of her sorrow, leaving the dogs unattended in their pursuit after reynard. In a few broken sentences, which were rendered almost inaudible by grief, she told what had occurred, and, pointing to the wood, said that she saw the thief disappear a short time before in the thicket. Colonel Wyndham immediately suggested that the wood should be beat up, to try if the thief had not taken cover there--a proposition which met with the unequivocal approbation of the whole of the sportsmen. Arrangements were then made for securing the thief if he had taken refuge in the wood, which was surrounded in such a manner as to render escape impracticable, while Colonel Vandeleur, accompanied by the two whippers-in, entered the thicket for the purpose of beating up for the game they had in view. The whippers-in had not proceeded far when they discovered the prisoner squatted in the bushes, and the bundle containing the whole of the widow's little property close beside him. He was led from his place of concealment in triumph by Colonel Vandeleur; while shouts rent the air from those who were stationed on the outskirts of the wood, and who had placed themselves under the command of Colonel Wyndham, to cut off the retreat, in case one should have been attempted. The prisoner was then conveyed to the widow's house; and when the bundle containing her all was produced, she manifested the greatest joy, giving utterance to expressions of thanks to the gentlemen through whose exertions in her behalf her property had been restored, and the thief secured. In the course of the examination of the various articles taken by the prisoner on the occasion, the widow complained, in doleful accents, that she missed the wedding-ring of her poor dear first husband. Colonel Vandeleur, on hearing this, undertook the office of constable, and immediately proceeded to "rub down" (search) the accused, when, to the delight of the widow's eyes, he discovered the ring wrapped up in paper, in which it had remained for years, concealed in the prisoner's waistcoat pocket.

Colonel Wyndham and Colonel Vandeleur gave their evidence on the trial, and both those gallant officers said that the loss of their day's sport after the fox was fully compensated in being instrumental to the apprehension of the robber of the widow's little property.

The jury found the prisoner "Guilty;" and the chairman, after commenting on the aggravated circumstances under which the robbery was committed, sentenced him to be transported for life.

The prisoner was a stout, hardy fellow, but was unknown in the neighbourhood of the scene of his offence.

JAMES LOVELACE, AND OTHERS; "THE DORCHESTER LABOURERS."

TRANSPORTED FOR ADMINISTERING UNLAWFUL OATHS.

In the instance of the riot in Calthorpe-street, reference has been made to a combination or union of the working classes, confederated for the purpose of securing certain political objects. The system of "Unions," which was commenced in the metropolis, and the larger towns of the kingdom, was not, however, confined exclusively to those thickly populated districts, nor were the objects of these societies limited to those which were merely of a political nature. In various parts of the country associations were formed with a view of maintaining the prices of labour, and with other objects more especially connected with the social welfare of the community.

The case of the Dorchester labourers is one which has attracted a vast degree of general observation and attention. The evil effects of the system may be collected from the following statement of the charges preferred against them, at the Dorchester assizes, on the 17th of March, 1834, and of the facts which were proved in evidence upon their trial.

The names of the prisoners were--James Lovelace, George Lovelace, Thomas Stanfield, John Stanfield, James Hammet, and James Brine, and they were indicted for "administering and causing to be administered, and aiding and assisting, and being present at, and consenting to administer, a certain unlawful oath and engagement, purporting to bind the person taking the same not to inform or give evidence against any associate or other person charged with any unlawful combination, and not to reveal or discover any such unlawful combination, or any illegal act done or to be done, and not to discover any illegal oath which might be taken."--Mr. Gambier stated that the charge against the prisoners was, that on a certain day in December, they, all together, or one of them, administered an unlawful oath to a person of the name of Legg, for the purpose of binding the party to whom it was administered not to disclose any illegal combination which had been formed, and not to inform or give evidence against any person associated with them, and not to reveal any unlawful oath which might be taken. The first part of the charge was, that the purport of the oath was to bind the party to obey the orders of a body of men not lawfully constituted. The indictment was framed on an Act of the 37th George III., cap. 123, and his lordship would be aware that the preamble of that act related to seditious meetings, but the enacting part was of a more general nature, including confederacies not formed merely for seditious purposes, but for any illegal purpose whatever; and his lordship would be aware, that there was an authority which had decided that the enacting part of the statute was not restrained by the preamble, but extended to all societies the object of which was unlawful. One clause of the act related to oaths administered for the purpose of binding a party not to reveal an unlawful combination. The allegation in the indictment was, that the prisoners administered an illegal oath to certain persons, binding them not to disclose an illegal confederacy. It would be for them to see whether the facts bore out the conclusion to which he had come, that a combination formed under the circumstances that would be stated, was a combination which the law had pronounced to be illegal, and would depend on this--whether any member was required to take any oath of this description, or any oath which the law did not require or authorise. He should, therefore, show that the combination was illegal--that it was the practice of the association to administer oaths, and that they were administered, and that the members were bound to obey the commands of men not legally constituted, and that they were bound to secrecy. With regard to the form of the oath and the mode of administering it, it was proper he should call his lordship's attention to the 5th section of the 37th George III., cap. 123, which provided that any engagement in the nature of an oath should be deemed an oath within the meaning of the act in whatever form or manner the same should be administered.

The learned counsel then proceeded to state the facts of the case to the jury, and to call his witnesses, from whose evidence it appeared that the prisoners were agricultural labourers, and that on the day stated in the indictment Legg and others were conducted to the house of Thomas Stanfield, at Tollpuddle, and after waiting a short time, were blindfolded and taken into a room, when certain papers were read over to them while on their knees; on the bandage being taken from their eyes, they saw the figure of a skeleton, with the words "Remember your end," written over it. They were then sworn to obey the rules and regulations of the society, and not to divulge its secrets or proceedings. They were to pay a shilling on entrance, and a penny a week afterwards, to support the men who were out of work (those who had struck) till their masters raised their wages. The defendants were all present, and Lovelace wore a dress like a surplice. The general laws of the society were produced and read to the jury, from which it was collected that the society was to be called "The Friendly Society of Agricultural Labourers." Regular officers and periods of meeting were appointed, and the mode of making collections pointed out. The twentieth and twenty-first rules were as follows:--"That if any master attempts to reduce the wages of his workmen, if they are members of this order they shall instantly communicate the same to the corresponding secretary, in order that they may receive the support of the grand lodge; and in the mean time they shall use their utmost endeavours to finish the work they may have in hand, if any, and shall assist each other so that they may all leave the place together, and with as much promptitude as possible."--"That if any member of this society renders himself obnoxious to his employer solely on account of taking an active part in the affairs of this order, and if guilty of no violation or insult to his master, and shall be discharged from his employment solely in consequence thereof, either before or after the turn-out, then the whole body of men at that place shall instantly leave the place, and no member of this society shall be allowed to take work at that place until such member be reinstated in his situation."

After the counsel for the defendants had addressed the court and the jury, contending that no offence had been proved, the judge summed up, enforcing on the jury that they must satisfy themselves as to the illegality of the oath which Legg had taken, and which had been administered to other members of the society. The precise formality of the oath, his lordship observed, was not under inquiry; but the Act of Parliament referred to an oath fixing an obligation on a party to whom it is administered. To sustain and prove this charge, the jury must be satisfied that the oath administered to Legg was to bind him not to divulge the secrets of the society; if so, it came within the meaning of the act. It was also a question whether the dress of James Lovelace, which resembled a clergyman's surplice, was not intended to give a degree of solemnity and additional force to the proceedings. The representation of a skeleton seemed also to have been intended to strike awe on the minds of the persons to whom the oath was administered. In taking the oath, if they were satisfied that it was intended as an obligation on the conscience of the person taking it, it clearly came within the meaning of the act. His lordship proceeded to remark on the rules of the society, which spoke of the violation of an obligation, evidently referring to the oath which was administered by the prisoners; and that such violation would be deemed by the society a crime. His lordship also read from a book belonging to the society the names of several persons (the prisoners among others), who had contributed to its funds; leaving the jury to draw their conclusions from these facts, and the whole chain of evidence which had been repeated to them.--The jury, after about five minutes' consultation, found all the prisoners "Guilty," and they were sentenced to be transported for seven years.

In pursuance of this sentence the prisoners were subsequently conveyed to New South Wales by the Surrey transport ship, the offence of which they had been convicted being deemed to be of a nature so heinous, as not to be expiated by an imprisonment in this country. This proceeding by the political supporters of the system of unions, was looked upon as one which was exceedingly harsh and unjustifiable under the circumstances of the case, and loud and repeated remonstrances were made, both within and without the walls of parliament, against it. For a considerable time the government declared its unwillingness to interfere to direct any amelioration in the punishment directed to be inflicted upon the offenders; but at length, however, they yielded to the constant exertions of the friends of the prisoners, and granted a free pardon to them all.

At the commencement of the year 1838, those who had chosen to return to England were landed at Plymouth--several of them, however, having preferred to remain in the colony to which they had been transported. An attempt was made to excite great sympathy in their behalf, and a species of public entry was made by them into London; but the whole affair turned out a failure, and the good sense of the general order of people was found to have induced a feeling not altogether in accordance with a supposition that these men had been martyrs.

ALFRED RAE.

CONVICTED OF A CRIMINAL ASSAULT.

This person, at the date of his trial, was a youth who had just attained the age of fifteen years only. He appeared to have been well brought up, and to have received a good education; but no effort could induce him to divulge the residence of his parents, or of any person with whom he was connected, or indeed to give any account of himself. He was a stout, well-made lad, and appeared to possess a degree of strength beyond his years. His offence undoubtedly is one of a most extraordinary description.

He was indicted at the Launceston assizes on Tuesday, the 1st of April 1834, for having assaulted Grace Brenn, with intent to commit a rape.

The prosecutrix appeared in court to give evidence. She was apparently in a state of extreme suffering. She stated herself to be a widow with two children, and to be thirty-one years of age. Her appearance denoted her to be of a delicate constitution, and gained for her much sympathy. Her evidence was to the following effect:--