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:--