The Express.
London, England, 1867-09-10 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER "10, 1867.

TRADES OUTRAGES COAIMISSIO.V.

MANCLIFATER, 31wmAY.

The proceedings opened at eleven o'clock today,
and considerable interest was manifested, as the evidence
referred to a murder fm which a man named Ward was
executed, while a confederate—Burke—who was also sen-
tenced to death, was, for lemons which were never very
apparent, afterwards reprieved.
George Halm), inspector of police at Droylsdcu, said
he was on duty on the liSth of June, in loh2, and on duty
with hiw was Constable William Jump, at Small Shaw.
Saw a eight teen going towards the Oldham-road.
They hail sticks and staves, and some hail masks on. It
was two o'clock and a dull morning. Before they came
up they left the footpath, and walked in single tile. Asked
the last but one what was the meaning of it. Told the
man if he had done nothing wrong he need not be afraid.
He called out, " Now, men," and witness got hold of him
by the collar. They then collected together. Saw Burke,
who said something he did not understand. Burke had •
pistol and discharged it, catching witness over the right
eye and knocked the staff out of his band. Two more
shots were fired over, and the other on one aide of his head.
Jump seemed to be engaged with the others. Witness had
a desperate struggle with three of them. He dropped one of
the men and hit another, and bearing a discharge of fire-
arms went towards Jump. He went to him, and found him
couched down under the stile. He was shot in the breast.
Sent for a doctor, and when the doctor came be was dead.
Six men were taken, and Ward and Burke were committed
to Liverpool summer assizes, convicted, and sentenced to
death. Hipwell, Barlow, Ryan, and Toole were acquitted.
Two of the met, Dansoo and Gregory, could not be met
with. Toole and Ryan were discharged by the magistrates.
Further evidence turned up afterwards, but they could not
be (mud. Barlow and Hipwell were here. Barlow turned
Queen's evidence at the assizes. John Barlow told him
(witness) two months ago he had been secretary at the
time of this murder. Also told him he had been engaged
some weeks with Thomas Harrison in getting up the evi-
dence in the case in 1862. Heard afterwards that the men
that night destroyed about 18,000 bricks at Joseph Clif-
ford's brick croft, at Stalybridge.

By Mr. Commissioner Pickering—Droyladen was in the
Ashton district. Had heard masters complain that
bricks could not be sold out of the district.

By Mr. Bardow—lied learned since that the men appre-
hended were in the Ashton brickmakers' union.

John ,Foule—ln June, 1862 was manager for Mr. Clif-
ford. There was a quarrel at the time because Clifford
would not employ union men. Could not say the union had
sent or threatened him because he would not employ union
men. Left the prisoner on the 28th June, 1662, about
nine o'clock. Found at three o'clock next morning that
18,000 to 20000 bricks bad been damaged. The damage
would be about 71.
By Mr. Chance—Examined the bricks and found seven
or eight footmarks. . . . . .

Frederick Hipwell, examined by Mr. Pickering,
after a caution to make a full diaclosure tin which
case only ho would have an indemnity)—Was at the
time a brickmaker. In 1862 was a member of the Ashton
l'nion. The meetings were held at the house of Ralph
Barber, sometimes weekly and sometimes fortnightly.
Thomas Harrison was the secretary. The books were kept
at the same public-house. Did not remember that there
was a president ; but there was a treasurer. Clifford's
not employing union men was mentioned at the meetings,
but could not say how long. It was not long before action
was taken that he heard John Ward mention it. Henson
and others were there : they met in • hatshop. Hewes a
district man ; lot Clifford's yard was not in his district.
John Ward ifid John Henson summoned him to the
meeting at the hatahop. They and he were employed to
warn people. Ward, Damon, and Henson were present.
It was at 10 o'clock on the night of the attack they met.
He did not know what they were to receive, but
should suppose about M. or 61. Never received anything.
Might have engaged in a job of this sort without stipulat-
ing
what they should receive, trusting that the usual
rate would be paid. Never received as much as ss. for
himself or on behalf of others. They separated after
agreeing where to meet. Near the old church John
Henson and himself had some gin on their way. He
carried a stink, and Henson • pistol. Thomas Barlow
carried a stick. They were good serviceable sticks. Burke
had a pistol and Ward had one. Those who carried
pistols had sticks also. Got to Clifford's yard about 12 on
the 28th June. There was a policeman and two or three
men with him at the kiln. There were in the company
Michael Burke, Thomas Barlow, Robert Ryan, John
Foule, John Henson, Gregory and himself. The police-
man and others at the kiln could not see them owing to
the kiln fire and the darkness. They trampled on the
bricks, and destroyed about 18,000. In coming home they
met with two policemen. Witness engaged with Hamm,
and threw • large boulder stone at him. Ward
or Henson were to have paid him, but he
did not let him. In November. 1861, an outrage
took place at the house of John Tetlow, a master brick-
maker at Ashton, who had offended by employing non-
union men, Renshaw, Barlow, Ward, Ryan, Schofield, and
himself. Witness got a pound himself for that job. They
met before going in the waggon road out of Charles-town
to agree upon it. Renshaw warned him to come to the
meeting, which was at • public-house he could not re-
member the name of. That was the night they made the
attack. It was the 6th November, 1861. They were to
bottle him. Witness had • bottle given him. They used
gill bottles. The bottles contained naphtha and blasting
powder, but he could not;say` whether they had shwa in
them. They had fates. They reached Tetlow's about
midnight. He saw one bottle go through the window of
the bedroom Tetlow was supposed to be sleeping in.
Four were thrown. He threw in his bottle through a
window down stain. Two of the combustible bottles were
thrown at the bed rooms. He heard one explode
in the bedroom, or two. One man had a dark
lantern, and the fusee was lighted, and the
bottle was then thrown. Did not know if Tn.-
low's bricks had been destroyed since. Knew of an
outrage in November, 1861 at Newton Wood, in case.
quencelof employing non-union men. Henshaw and John
Ward and himself, and Thos. Barlow and Charles Barlow,
Robert Ryan and Burke, and John Tonle were employed
for that. They met at Guide-bridge, and agreed to go and
destroy the bricks. They had only sticks that night.
Could not remember how many bricks were destroyed,
but there were a good many. Could not remember what
he was paid, but they all shared alike. Remembered the
case at Dukinfield in 1861, at Blocksey'a place. Himself and
Thomas Barlow Michael Burke, John Hensor and others,
to the number of eight, went there. Some of the men
might have had pistols in their pockets. They knocked
down the walls and spoiled all the bricks they could. Was
paid for that. Supposed the union found the combus-
tibles. Remembered Smethurst's case at Guido-bridge.
All the men who went were union men. The offence was
the same—employing non-union men. They were
mostly the same men, and they destroyed
as many bricks as they could. They were
paid, he believed, according to what they spoiled.
Remembered the cue of Shepley, at Hyde. Thomas Bar-
low, John Ward, and himself watched with John Hensor
outside the stable. John Ward took • razor, and he and
Thomas Barlow went in. They had settled they should
hamstring the bones. They came out and said they bad
done the job—hamstrung the two horses. Sam the razor,
but could not say as to seeing the blood. They bad 101.
for it, or 2/. 10e. each. The razor was thrown into the
canal. Had heard of John Rogers being shot at, but was
working at Oldham at the time. Thomas Barlow told him
be was one who did it. It was not Rogers, but Mr.
Rogers's watchman who was shot at. Believed Mr.
Rogers was • brickmaker, but did not know of his quarrel.
Did not know. but had beard of Sutcliffe's horse being
hamstrung. Thomas Barlow told him he and Ward were
drinking at a public-houses, and if Ward did it he must
have done it whilst ho (Barlow) was fetching a gallon of
beer. Knew of Charles Barlow's place, and heard of the
attack there, but was then at Oldham.
By Mr. Chance—Did not doubt but there were slugs in
the bottle* thrown into Tetlow's house. Did not know
what they were for. They might be to frighten, but he
had no doubt they would hurt if they hit any one.
John Tonle recalled, by Mr. Barstow—Clifford's pro-
perty was injured three times before Jump's murder, and
twice since. Application was made to his men to go into
the union. The heat time (in 1860)15,000 or 16,000 bricks
were destroyed. In October everything on the premises was
burnt. There were planks, barrows, a new shed which had
just been built, boards, and shovels burnt. The damage
amounted to about 401. A bottle of naphtha was after-
wards found on the premises. There must have been eight or
ten men employed to do it. It was done at 6 o'clock in
the evening. There were no bricks on the premises then to
spoil. There must have been many men engaged, because they
had to carry the planks a good way to the place where they
oollected them for burning. A reward was offered, but the
men were not detected. There was another murder before
Jump's murder. He thought it was in the summer of
1862, when 13,000 or 16,000 bricks were destroyed. The
value would be about 5/. No one was apprehended.
There bad been two attacks on the same premises since
the murder, but witness could not give any details.
At this stage of the inquiry
Mr. W. P. Roberts said he had an application to make
on behalf of the Manchester Brickmakers' Burial Society.
It was that there was an examination every day—a private
examination of witnesses before the court assembled and
after it adjourned, by the officers of the court: and having
no legal adviser there the society wished to have the pro.
tection of one at such examinations, lest advantage might
be taken of their ignorance.
Mr. Commissioner Pickering said it was • most improper
application, and he would not listen to it.
Mr. Roberts thought it was a very proper application,
and he protested against such private examinations,
Mr. Pickering thought no man need be afraid of it when
all he had to do was to tell the truth.
Thomas Barlow sworn. Examined by Mr. Chance—
He war present at the attack on Mr. Clifford's yard in
June, 1862, and generally corroborated the evidence of
Hipworth. He was engaged in the attack at Tetlow's.
Hipwell was there, and Toole and Ryan. They intended
to bat him he supposed if they met with him. The attack
was because be employed non-union men. He believed
there were four or five bottles filled with naphtha, powder,
horse-nail stumps, and otbertbings. One bottle was filled
with naphtha only. He carried a bottle of naphtha. He
threw a bottle of naphtha through the window down stain.
He did not know what it was for, only to '
frighten them a bit. He believed Hipwell, Ryan,
Ward, and another each threw a bottle in. Did not know
Tetlow was • married man, and that his wife was sleeping