The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1885-05-23 00:00:00

RETURN OF THE ROYAL MARINES.


-

A scene of exceptional character was witnessed at
Chatham on Sunday, on the occasion of the return
from the Soudan of a detachment of the Royal
Marines. The men arrived at Plymouth on Saturday,
inithe steamship Australia, and came on by train,
arriving at Chatham at one o'clock. The approach of
the train was signalled by the explosion of twenty fog-
signals placed on the metals. The station and its ap-
prbaches and the route to the barracks were crowded
with spectators, and the utmost enthusiasm prevailed.
General Monck and staff met the detachment at the
station, and five bands, representing the whole of the
regiments in garrison, headed the troops on their
march to headquarters. On reaching the parade
General Monck and Colonel-Commandant Bland
licit, R. 141., both addressed the men, and at the close
Of the inspection the whole of the rank and file were
, pOsertained,At;dintier. Of a total of 350 officers and
iv. contributed by the Chatham Division for s.ervice
he Soudan only twenty failed to answer to their
names owing to wounds or sickness. Sixty have been
left-With the,
Camel corpq at Fort
.11amilton. ,
forty wilt- flit) "Army Corps at Dongola. It is stated
that two officers of the detachment have been specially
recommended for gallantry, and that three men will
receive the medal for conspicuous bravery.

THE DYNAMTE OUTRAGES.
THE DEFENCE.
At the Centnel Criminal Court last Friday, before
Mr. Justice Hawkins, the two prisoners, Cunningham
and Burton, were again put on trial upon the charge
of treason-felony. The AttorneyaGeneral,the Solicitor-
General, Mr. Poland, and Mr. Wright prosecuted;
Yr. H. C. Richards and Mr. Duke defended Cunning-
Ontm, sad Mr. Little appeared for Burton. Colonel
Ford, inspector of explosives, Dr. Dapr6, of West-
minster Hospital, and Inspector Vorner having givee
evidence, the case for the prosecution closed, and Mr.
!Richards, who remarked that he would only make
one speech, said he would proceed to call his ,
witnesses before doing that. Mary O'Brien, of
11, Tenter-street, Whitechapel, proved that on
Christmas morning she saw Cunningham at
thnrch. On .the night of the Gower-street
explosion he was at his lodgings, and did not go
out that evening at all. In cross-examination the
witness said that five weeks had elapsed before she
heard that he was charged with being drunk in the
train at the time of the explosion. Her attention
was first called to his being at home on the night in
question by Mr. Quilliam, the prisoner's solicitor.
She only knew Cunningham as Gilbert, and only saw
hiin about eight times, speaking to him but once.
Re examined: She sold him a paper upon that occa-
sion.
Catherine White, also residing with the prisoner's
landlady, gave similar evidence as to Cunningham
being at home. In cross-examination she said it was
when Mr. Quilliam made them acquainted with the
fact that it was first brought to her memory that
Cunningham was at home on the night in question;
but this was not until some weeks afterwards, and
when he (Cunningham) had been charged at Bow-
street. In a statement she had previously made at
the Treasury she said she had seen the prisoner
during the week, but could not mention the day.
Mr. Little then submitted that there was no evi-
dence to show that the prisoners conspired together to
commit such overt acts as would amount to the levy-
ing of war. It was necessary to prove motive, and
none had been shown.
The judge said that the points mentioned were such.
as might be urged by the jury in regard to the insuffi-
ciency of the evidence, and he overruled the objec-
tions.
Burton then stated that he was entirely innocent of
the charge of levying war against the Queen. He left
New York, as stated, and landed in Southamptcn in
February, 1884. He came to England entirely for
the benefit of his health. The doctor told him that
the sea voyage was necessary to build up his constitu-
tion. When he reached Southampton he heard of a
fatal accident to his brother on the Hudson
River Railway, and it was necessary that he
should go back to America without any delay.
He made inquiries in 'Southampton as to the
best way of getting back, and was recommended to go
to Havre, as he would there find a ship without having
to wait. He remained in Southampton one night, and
stayed with a young man, occupying the same bed-
room. On the voyage his portmanteau got broken,
and as he was buying another bag his shipmate told
him to buy one for him, telling him that he only
wanted a second-hand bag, as he should not require it
again after joining his friends in Durham. The wit-
ness Thomas took him, as described, to purchase the
bags. After that he gave the man back his own coat,
which he placed in the bag. The following day his
shipmate left for London, and the day after he went
to Havre, where he :remained until March 1, when
he sailed for New York, as stated. After
having seen to his brother's affairs he re-
turned to Liverpool, and on the way to
London he met a gentleman who told him of the ex-
plosions in London, and that it was dangerous to carry
black bags, as they were all searched. The gentleman
recommended him not to go to London, and promised
to find him employment, giving him his name. He
did not mind who saw what he had in his bag, ana he
left it at Euston Station. He left Gower-street for
Aldgate, where he took lodgings; but afterwards he
lost the ticket for his bag. After detailing his move-
ments, and his efforts to get employment, he said
he returned to America to vote for the President
of the United States, and then returned to Eng-
land, landing in Liverpool on the 24th of Decem-
ber. He again endeavoured to get work at the
place where he had been employed before he
went away. He was returning an umbrella that
he had borrowed from his former landlady when
he saw a man with the brown American trunk
in Great Prescot-street. He spoke to him, and, after
some conversation, the man agreed to sell it to him
for Bs., and, having procured a cab, he took it home.
When the explosions took place at the Tower and
Westminster he saw the advertisements as to the box;
but it did not strike him that it was the one wanted.
He should have given it up if he had believed it was
the one required. When the police came he answered
their questions as far as he could.
The Attorney-General said that he proposed to put
in evidence an affidavit made by the prisoner's solicitor
when asking for a postponement of the trial a month
ago.
Mr. Little objected.
The learned judge ruled that the affidavit was ad-
_---
missible as evidence.
now adjourned for luncheon;
and, on resuming,
The Attorney-General stated that, on considera-
tion, he and the learned gentlemen who were acting
with him had decided not to press for the reading of
the affidavit.
Mr. Little said that he had just had an opportunity
of reading the affidavit, and he had no objection to
its being put in.
The Attorney-General said the affidavit had been
objected to, and they had decided not to put it in.
Mr. Justice Hawkins remarked that the Attorney-
General must exercise his own discretion; but he
must again say that it was admissible as evidence.
Mr. Little then addressed the jury on behalf of the
prisoner Burton. The first part of his speech was
taken up with an explanatory statement of the legal
construction of the charges upon which the prisoners
stood upon their trial. One of the first things which
the jury had to decide in this case was whether there
was an intention in the general body of the conspira-
tors to depose the Queen from the style of the Impe-
rial Crown of the United Kingdom, or of any of her
Majesty's dominions. The next intention was to levy
war against her Majesty. He would ask the Crown
to put an informer into the box to prove that there
was a conspiracy with any of the intentions mentioned
in the indictment. He would submit that whatever
might be the intention and meaning of that horrible
series of explosions, there was no man whom the Crown
could call who would prove that there was any intention
which the Act required to constitute crime. In this
case, from beginning to end, there had not been
proved against Burton one single document of any
description; and the jury could hardly believe that a
man could have been engaged for a series of months
in conduct of this sort without, at some time or another,
or in some place or another, some document having
been mislaid and discovered by the detectives. There
was no evidence to show that Burton had anything to do
with the great majority of the series of explosions,
and there was a weight of evidenee to show that he
had nothing to do with any of them. With regard
to the statement of the prisoner, it was the duty of
the jury to test it in every possible way. When
weighing the circumstances, he asked the jury not to
forget the statement of Burton to Thomas, that he
wanted to buy a portmanteau for his mate, and that
it was not only possible, but probable, that he dis-
posed of that portmanteau to another man. The
learned gentleman terminated his address by asking
the jury to weigh all the evidence carefully, and to
exercise their common sense in coming to a verdict.
The court then adjourned.
On resuming the ease on Saturday, Mr. Richards,
in the course of his address for the defence of Burton,
said he was deeply sensible to the responsibility which
rested upon his own shoulders and those of the jury.
They had ranged against his client all the forces which
the legal department of a powerful Government could
range against him to support charges in the web of
which he thought they would have seen many defects,
and in the story of which there were many missing
links. The jury would not hear from his lips any
defence of the outrages—or any apology for what had
followed. Fortunately for himself and the party to
which he belonged, they had never countenanced, or
in any degree exhibited their sympathy with outrage or
violence of any kind; but they were there to try the
prisoners upon charge's in regard to which if the
accused were found guilty they would be condemned
to a living hell. He proceeded to deny that Cun-
ningham had any knowledge whatever of the detonator
which was found in his box, and the only evidence upon
which the Crown asked the jury to come to a conclusion
that' Cunningham was guilty was the American trunk
—a description of trunk which might be seen in
dozens in the holds of American steamers or in the
streets of New York. There was not a thread of ar-
gument to connect his client with the outrages men-
tioned in the indictment, and he thought that the
judge would when he came to sum up the evidence
tell them to discard altogether that part of it. He
argued that the police and other witnesses were mis-
taken in their identity of Cunningham as being
in the train at the time of the explosion
near Gower-street Station. As to overawing the
Houses of Parliament, they had seen an attempt to
overawe one of those Houses not very long ago, and
yet no one had been placed in the dock to answer for
so serious an offence. It was perfectly ridiculous to
think that a man living in a third-floor back room at
ss. per week could levy war against the Queen, or
overawe the two Houses of Parliament; and the
Americans must be the greatest fools among fools if
they supposed that such results could be attained by
such instruments. The police had even analysed the
dust in the trunk; but with such a microscopic exami-
nation nothing to tell against the prisoner Cunning-
ham could be found. Irishmen were watching the
course of this trial with great interest, and he asked
the jury to show that there was nothing to fear from
the prejudices of a British jury.
The Attorney-General, replying for the Crown,
said his position was very different from that of his
learned friend. He had no occasion to appeal to their
feelings; his simple duty was to present the facts
before the jury and to point out their relevancy to
the charges laid in the indictment. He contended
that the evidence entirely established the case for the
Crown. The circumstances as to a conspiracy were
beyond, dispute, because they bad evideneconcertea
action to cause explosions at a particular time, and
with regard to the explosions at the Tower and West-
minster they occurred within a few minutes of each



~

I other. The ease, however, had entirely altered since
the statement of Burton, because he admitted
I nearly all that had been previously denied on his
behalf. For instance, he now admitted that he
was in Southampton, as deposed to by witnesses,
ancl he also admitted that he purchased the
portmanteaus. With regard to the coat, he seemed to
suggest that it belonged to the man for whom he
bought the bags. He (the Attorney-General) drew
attention to the discrepancies in Burton's statement
as compared with all he had said previously, and he
contended that his explanations could not be true, or,
if true, that some one had committed a grave blunder
in not supporting his statement by evidence. The
case against Cunningham was rather different, be-
cause he was proved to have been present in the
Tower when the explosion took place. Ho earned
less than £4 while in England, and yet they found
j him in possession of ample means. The jury should
' pay particular attention to the discrepancies in his
statements. The Attorney-General terminated his
address to the jury at three o'clock, and the court
adjourned until Monday.
In summing up the evidence to the jury, Mr.
Justice Hawkins said it had seldom fallen to the lot
of a jury to discharge a more important duty than
that which fell to their lot that morning. The case
was of the greatest importance to the prisoners, who
stood charged with a crime of a very diabolical cha-
racter, and who, if they were guilty, must expect to
receive the punishment which the law awarded to
such crime. On the other hand, to the public the
matter was of equal and vital importance. If a
crime of this sort had been committed, and if it had
been proved, to the satisfaction of the jury, that the
accused were guilty of it, they must honestly dis-
charge their duty by pronouncing the decision which
their conscientious convictions led them to form from
the evidence which had been given. The prisoners
had been most ably defended, and nothing which
could be done on their behalf had been left undone.
On the other hand, the Crown had most fairly placed
the case before the Court, only giving that evidence
which beyond doubt they were entitled to give, and
withholding that, although they were strictly entitled
to tender it, the giving of which would seem to
I imply that they were pressing the case too much
' against the accused. Should, however, the jury be of
opinion that the facts produced did not bring home
to their minds the conviction that the case had been
established, they would not give the prisoners the
benefit of the doubt (he did not like the hackneyed
expression), but do that which the prisoners were en-
titled to—acquit them. He proceeded to explain the
law of treason-felony, and said that he entirely agreed
with the law as to the levying of war as laid down
, in that court by the :Lord Chief Justice, the Master
of the Rolls, and Mr. Justice Grove. His lordship
next referred to the overt acts upon which the prose-
cution re:ied in this case as showing the intention on
the part of some one to levy war--namely, the explo-
sions or attempted explosions at Victoria Station,
Gower-street Station, Westminster, the Tower, and
the other places mentioned in the course of the
inquiry. In several of these cases there was exactly
the same machinery used to bring about the explosions;
and in at least four bags there was deposited exactly the
same number of cakes of dynamite. Could any one doubt
that, considering the identical means taken to effect
the explosions, a most diabolical conspiracy existed
to spread destruction and dismay? Dealing with the
explosion at Westminster, the judge said that if a
man deserved the name of hero it was the constable
Cole, who so bravely attempted to remove the ex-
plosive to a place where less damage would be done.
It was quite certain that whoever took the explosive
into the Tower concealed it about the person, because
the defence had elicited the fact that all bags and
bundles were taken from persons at the door. Out
of the 220 persons in the Tower Cunningham was the
only one who made an inconsistent statement. At
the Tower they had him wearing the overcoat sold to
him by the witness Chambers, as he (Cunningham)
said for the purpose of wearing over another overcoat.
Cunningham, when arrested, was wearing the overcoat,
but not another overcoat. Complaint had been made
as to the questioning by the police at the Tower, but
he saw nothing unusual in what took place. On the
contrary, he thought they would have failed
in their duty if they had not actel as they did.
The most important piece of evidence in the whole case
was the finding of the detonator in the box belonging
to Cunningham. If the jury should come to
the conclusion that the police put the detonator in
the box, the jury would have to find the police guilty
of about as wicked perjury and conspiracy to destroy
a man as ever anyone was guilty of. He was struck
with the way in which the counsel for the prisoner
had dealt with this part of the case. If the evidence
on the point was manufactured, nothing would have
been easier than to have found also a little bit of

dynamite in the box. This would have completed
the case against the prisoner. The great strength of
the case as put by the prosecution against Burton
was his conduct in relation to his connection with
the portmanteau at the Charing-cross station • and
every single circumstance of his explanation militated
against its truth.
The jury retired to consider their verdict. After
fifteen minutes' deliberation they returned into court
rsf
Cunningham said he was innocent, and defied any-
one to prove that he had ever caused any explosion
in any part of the country. He was very much
obliged to those friends who had looked after him,
and he was willinp to go to penal servitude for life or
do anything; but, thank God, they could not touch
his soul.

Burton thanked the jury for their attention to the
case, but said that one day his innocence would be
established. The whole case rested upon circum-
stantial evidence, but this was not to be relied noon.
Whatever sentence was passed he should have to
bear, lie was suffering from the prejudices of the
people against him.
Cunningham denied that he knew anything of the
detonator.

The Judge, in passing sentence, said: James Gl-
bert Cunningham and Harry Burton, you have been
severally charged with and found guilty of the crime
of treason-felony. The crime of which you have
been convicted is about as wicked and cruel a crime
as could be imagined in the heart of man. For the
purpose of carrying out your wicked objects you have
not hesitated to procure large quantities of the deadly
material you used, and to place it, or caused it to
be placed, in situations where by its means
almost incalculable mischief might have been
done. you have in the course of your operations
caused explosions which nearly killed, but fortu-
nately for you they did not, some poor creatures
who were within reach of the explosive matter
which you caused to be ignited. For that crime you
now stand convicted. You were reckless of life,
reckless of property, reckless of whatever injury you
might do to man, woman, or child, and all for what?
The jury have found that you have attempted by your
wickedness and your cruelty to intimidate the Crown,
its advisers and Parliament. It ought to be well
known that neither her Majesty, nor her advisers, nor
the Houses of Parliament, are likely to be, or could
be, intimidated by such wickedness as you have per-
petrated. If people want reform in the laws of this
country or in any of its dependencies there is a mode
by which reform, if desired, may be obtained—that
is, by peaceful measures and means. But those who
think that by forcible violence such as you contem-
plated they can overawe the Government or overawe
the Houses of Parliament are very much mistaken.
Terror cannot be listened to as a reason for any altera-
tion; indeed, it is more likely to delay any reform
which you or those who are acting with you and are
like minded with yourselves, desire to bring about.
It would never do to allow the notion to prevail that
such person as you could overawe by your wickedness
those to whose government the welfare and the safety
of this country are entrusted. You might have been
punished on the facts which have been proved against
you for the crime of high treason. Had you been so
indicted and found guilty,yourlives must undoubtedly
have been forfeited. But the humanity of those who
have conducted this prosecution against you has ad-
vised them to present your crime in a more mitigated
form. Instead of being charged with actually levying
war against her Majesty, you have beau charged and
found guilty of devising and intending so to do. The
difference in your punishment upon an indictment so
framed is that your lives are spared. To my mind
the verdict of the jury is the only one which, under
the circumstances, they could have pronounced.
One of you, in his address to me, made some obser-
vations as to circumstantial evidence, and I think
it right to say that it is well that the cir-
cumstances have sufficiently established on you
guilt of which no human being could have any
possible doubt. It is well that those who are en-
gaged in such practices should know that it is not
necessary, in order to induce a jury to discharge
their duty, that there should be direct eye-witnesses
or eer-witnesses of your wicked conspiracies in order
that your wickedness may be brought to light and
established by cireurnstances which leave the jury no
alternative than to find a verdict of guilty. I have
now only one dutf to perform. It is impossible that
I should allow you, or either of you, again to be at
liberty; and, therefore, the sentence of the court is
that you be kept in penal servitude for the term of
your natural lives.
o,
The prisoners were then removed, and his lordsfhip-
thanked the jury for their services in considerationof which he ordered that they should not be ;called
upon to serve again for six years,

The learned Judge read a presentment from ibe
grand jury expressing their appreciation, of the
services of Inspectors Abberline and Jarvis and the
otheuolice officers engaged in the case, and suggest-
ing that those services should receive recognition.
The grand 'jury also complimented General Milionan
and the officers under him on their foresight in'cros-
ing the gates of the Tower directly the explosion
occurred. •
The Court then rose.
The verdict of the jury was published in New York
by the United Press Association of America at
10.16 a.m. (American time), i.e., within six minutes
of,its announcement in court; the actual time occupied
by the Direct United Stzttes Cable Company in cabling
the message being only 20sec. The sentence Was
transmitted by the same company in 18seer.

"Bind worclii'neirer die." How bitterly does atm
realise that truth when he sees all the kindest words
he ever used in his life gla4ng at him from his pub.
Lobed letters in a breach-of-promise suit.