TRADE OUTRAGES AT MANCHESTER.

Press, Volume XII, Issue 1576, 25 November 1867, Page 2

TRADE OUTRAGES AT MANCHESTER.

The Commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject of trade outrages at Manchester are Mr P. A» Pickering, Q.C., Mr T. J. Barstow, and Mr G. Chance. In opening the commission on September 4, M^

PVkeririg said the investigations were t intended, to benefit the masters ]■ ' ut the workmen as well. He! °Sd i" irdlr t0 sa y that {t would be ' L desire of .the commission to con- j Lt their inquiry in a fair and impartial spirit towards all parties. He loved that they would meet with tinr»a_V assistance of both masters and Lrkmen in endeavouring to carry out ♦he -objects of this commission, and that their efforts might tend to assist in putting an end to that social tyranny which, while it was productive! i injury to the employer, was also j Jroductfve of great evil to the working; men lhe first witness examined was jtlr Thomas Meadows, who, with his brother, is a master brickmaker at Eedditch, near Stockport. He detailed how on one occasion, having introduced new machinery, by which he slaved tenpence in the rliottsand in making bricks, the union men insisted that the tenpence ought to be given to them, and turned out, although the firm were willing to let them have sixpence of the gain. On another occasion he and his frother set a brick, and were ordered w the union to pay a fine of £2 10s fordoing so. They resisted for some time, and the men turned out, but came back when the fine was paid. Some of the men who originally struck against the new machinery came backon the understanding that they were to get sixpence of the ten pence per thousand which was saved. Among these was Thomas Wild, w ho detailed the particulars of an outrage to which he was subjected in consequence. He was attacked about twelve o'clock one night, when he was burning bricks, by six men. One came up and asked for him and his mate to lie down; that was William Slater. There were five other men, and the second was Cheetham. Witness proceeded —"I have never been told who were the other four. Cheetham struck mc with a cast leg and Slater pulled mc down, and then some bit mc and some kicked mc. 1 struggled about thirty yards, and then Basked them to have mercy. One of them said I should burn no more bricks. When they left mc I had my arm broken in several places, and I was cut on the shin and leg. I was five or six weeks in the Stockport Infirmary. Cheetham and Slater were tried here, convicted, and sentenced to twenty years' penal servitude. Cheetham and Slater are now at large. I was asked to sign a memorial in their favour. I do not know why they beat mc in this brutal manner, but suppose it was because I had returned to work before them. Slater was a Union jnan, and ' a big man among 'em.' I was pressed many a time to sign a memorial in Cheetham's favour by Humphrey Holme, William Potts, Humphrey Child, George Brown, and several others. That was before I left Eedditch, and more than two years ago. I refused to sign many a time, and Humphrey Holm°i reckoned it would be worth £20 to mc if I signed, and said I did not know them. Potts and his wife were there. That was the second time they had asked mc. I said it was more than I durst do. They said the paper had come from London from Mr Watkin when they asked him to sign, and said it would do no harm. When I did sign they got mc to go to a publichouse. [A paper was produced signed by Potts, Joseph Brown, and Holme, in which they promised, on condition of his signature, to reinstate him to the benefit of the union, and pay him £5.]" The man did eventually sign a petition that the sentence on his assailants might be mitigated, but he refused absolutely to say that he had been mistaken as to their identity. He got £5 for signing the paper. He had, however, been so persecuted that he had to leave the district, and was living under a feigned name. Mr.Singleton, the treasurer of the union, was a good deal pressed as to what was done by his society the day before the outrage on Wild, but he seemed to have a bad memory, in addition to being, as he said, no scholar. It was necessary, in order to stimulate his recollection, to remind him of the terms on which certificates of indemnity will be given, and this appeared rather to help him, but nothing very definite was elicited. The evidence of William Slater, president of the Stockport Brickmakers' Union, was taken by the Trades' Outrages Commission at Manchester, at the sittings on September 4 and 5. He had been sentenced to a long term of penal servitude for an attack on a non-unionist, named Wild, but received an unconditional pardon after being two years and six months in prison. He had formerly been treasurer and was now president of his Society. He denied that he took part in the attack on Wild, though he bargained with Kay, a brickmaker at Manchester, to give him a beating for £10. The club was to find the money, and witness did not know whether it had ever been paid. Witness admitted he never said anything about Kay at his trial. Had employed Kay before Wild's case for union purposes ; only a few days before. Two days before he was employed in Thornley's case at Heaton Norris to spoil bricks. Could not say what he had spoilt, but he believed more than £10 worth. He destroyed 50,000 or 60,000 bricks. Another case of destroying bricks was at Simpson's brick croft, in 1564. It was ordered by a resolution of the council, because Simpson would not give his men their price. Witness himself was employed to do that job, and with him were Thomas Holland, James Garner, Jackson, and Hultne. They went on a dark night in the summer. They destroyed a few bricks, not above a 1000. They set fire to a shed by means of naphtha. Witness took down part of a wall. He did not I Bee the watchman. Garner and Holland carried each a gun, and witness heard some shouting, and heard a gun fired. Did not know who fired the gnn, but believed it was fired at the watchman. [Sensation.] Witness paid himself and the others about £3 each for this job, in all about £15 on behalf of the union. Believed the payment would not appear in the books. Had been engaged in destroying bricks last

June at Mr Bailpy's. in Heaton Mersey, where they destroyed 40.000 bricks. A letter produced was in hi* handwriting informing Air Bailey that fhe union would pay £20 as compensation for destroying the bricks if he would take his men into employ ngain. This was in consequence of a quarrel with the Manchester union, who had caused the strike. The money was paid. It was a rule of the Stockport bru-kmakers that as long as they had men of their own out of employ tho masters should not employ men from of her towns. When they did so it was •Mp.is'hed by destroying their property. Holland Cheetham, another of the pardoned convicts, was examined by Mr Barstow, after a severe caution that hemustmaken full disclosure. Both the destruction of Simpson's bricks and the attack on Wild were planned and sanctioned at a council meeting of the society. He denied that he took part in either affair, although he had been present at other outrages. Took part in the attack on Thorniley's brickyard at Heaton Mersey, 1864, which was determined on by the council in consequence of Thorniley not employing union men It was a short time before Wild's affair. Witnpss, Slater, Hulme. Potts, and .Tames Kay met at a publichouse in Heaton Norris one night, and went to the yard of Thorniley, where they destroyed about 40,000 bricks, which would be worth £15 or £20. His share of remuneration for this job would be about £2. Knew of no other outrages than those he had mentioned —Wild's, Simpson's, and Thorniley's. Joseph, Brown, secretary to the Stockport Brickmakers' Society in 1861. confessed that the outrages in that year were ordered by the society, and paid for out of the funds.

On September 6, George Hulme, brickmaker,,and treasurer of the Stockport Brickmakers' Union, confirmed the fact that the attack on Simpson because he would employ no union men was determined upon by the the council, and about £15 was to be given for the job. Himself, Garner, Holland, Slater, and Jackson were employed to do it. They were paid £10 for the job. Remembered Wild's case. They came to a resolution at a meeting that Wild should be beaten. Slater was the man to carry that out, and it was agreed to pay £14. Was at the meeting before Thorniley's attack, and £10 or £12 was to be paid for that. He and Slater and Kay and Potts were present at it. He communicated with Kay before then. They destroyed all the bricks they could. Slater paid on that occasion, and witness had his share. Had had to do with no other affair than that. Had not assisted in thrashing any man. These were the only cases he had heard of which were brought before the union.

Mr John Simpson, masterbrickmaker at Stockport-moor, gave evidence of the damage he had suffered through the destruction of his bricks, and also of the requirements of the union that he should not employ men of his own choosing.

Peter Piatt, Mr Simpson's watchman, stated that what happened on the night of the outrage was as follows:—"Late at night I was sitting in the cabin, with a gun and a revolver with six barrels, all loaded with ball. The gun was loaded with pellets. The dog was first disturbed, and I opened the door, when a man struck at mc, and told be to go in again. I saw the shadows of two men. I went into the cabin again and closed the door. One of the men then put his gun barrel through the window and fired into the place. I fired back with the revolver. They then went back by the kennel, which they had upset, and I went out and fired at them, and they took away down the road. I then saw men breaking down the walls of bricks and fired at them, and they made off. I then saw the shadow of men setting the shed on fire, I crept down by the walls and fired, and these men ran away. I saw seven men altogether, three knocking the green walls down, and two setting fire to the sheds. I then ran and called up my master, I found two bottles, and there was some naphtha left in one. I fired the revolver three times and the gun once. The man who attacked the place only fired once. William Slater was recalled in order to produce the books of his society. He stated that a cash-book and minute-book had been destroyed. There were things, ho said, in those books they did not wish to.be seen. A good deal of money had been paid away, and they did not like it to be known how. After his examination on Wednesday, Singleton and other members of the council came to him, and it was agreed to take away the books. It was because there were entries about sundry expenses which they did not like should be seen. He had no doubt most of the money was paid for outrages. Joseph Brown, secretary of the society in 1864, said he remembered outrages upon a bricklayer, named Brimelow, at Portwood, eight or nine years ago; upon the property of Thomas Clayton, at Gatley, four or five years ago; and on the property of Samuel Wilkinson and others at Bradbury, seven or eight years ago. Believed they were all committed by members of the Stockport union. The inquiry was continued on subsequent days to September 21, during which important evidence was given of! a number of outrages against em- j ployers for employing non-union men. One related to a case where two policemen having interfered, one of them was shot, for which two of the assailants, brickmakers, were found guilty of murder, and one executed at Liverpool. Evidence was also given of the ham-stringing of horses belonging to obnoxious employers, and to an attempt to set fire to an employer's house in the dead of the night, by throwing into it four or five bottles filled with gunpowder containing slugs, and also bottles containing naphtha. For these deeds, as well as for various others of a minor character, the Brickmakers' Union paid a regular scale of prices. If no injury resulted there was no pay, if injury was done the pay had relation to its extent or its effect.