The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-10-24 00:00:00

THE PRESTON STRIKE,

APPEALS AGAINST CONVICTIONS FOR INTIMIDA-

TION

The Court house of Preston was densely crowded on
Saturday last with-people aniious to hear a series of appeals,

by factory operatives against convictions by the Borough
bench, for various acts of intimidation committed during
the present agitation. Additional interest was imparted to
the proceedings by the fact that Mr. Sergeant Wilkins had
been specially retained on behalf of the appellants. Mr.
Aston, of Preston., was the learned Sergeant's junior. The
council for the respondents were, Mr. Segar and Mr. Whig_
ham 7 Mr. T. B. Addison, chairman of the Court, presided,
several other magistrates being in attendance.
The first case called on was that of Henry Holmes, whose
appearance at the l ar excited considerable surprise, he being
a very diminutive boy, apparently of about ten years old,
while the prosecutrix was a stout-looking young woman
upwards of 20.

-rln Compliance with the request of Mr. Sergeant Wilkins,
those Magistrates on the bench connected. with the cotton
manufacture retired. _

Mr. SEGAR, stated that the case against Holmes was laid
under the 3rd section of the statute 6th Geo. IV., and the
specific offence was that of obstructing and using violence to
Mary Leonard, a person employed in the cotton manufacture,
to compel her to contribute to a fund for the purpose of
obtaining an increase of wages for all persons employed in
the manufacture of cotton. The facts of the case were very
short. It appeared that the prosecutrix, Mary Leonard,
was employed at the factory of Mr. Hawkins, in Preston,
and had contributed for some time to the Weavers' Union;
but on the 10th Sep., she omitted to pay her contribution.
This became known amongst the hands on the following
Monday, and as she retired from her work in the evening, a
crowd assembled, hooted her, assaulted her, tore her apparel,
and chased her about the streets for a couple of hours. Now

the defendant, it would be proved, was one who took an
active part in that transaction ; it was true that the defen-
dant was a very young person, but he was old enough to
know what he was about ; and the bench were doubtless
aware that these offences were for the most part perpetrated
by juveniles, set to work or instigated by older people, that
in fact, they were excited and stimulated to commit such
offences by their seniors

: (to the appellant, who was at the bar)

and down my boy

Mr. Sergent WILKINS : I would rather he would stand
where he is, so that we can see what a formidable fellow he
is. (Laughter),
Mary Leonard deposed, that in the mouth of September
last she worked at Mr. Hawkin's mill, where she had been
employed for about twelve months, as a weaver. Previously
to Saturday, the 4th September, she subscribed to the
Trades' union—first ld, then 2d, and then 6d per week.
Remembered Monday, the 12th of September, when a dis-
turbance took place. Had not paid anything to the union
the Saturday before. She had contributed previously. The
name of the collector was " Joe" something; she did not
know his other name. He used to come round every. S-
aturday, and she subscribed to the funds for seven or eight
weeks. Paid the money for the support of the weavers who
had turned out for an advance of wages. About six o'clock
in the evening of the 12th Sept., there were many people at
the gates of the factory—men and women, lads and lasses ;
and when she attempted to leave her work, this crowd of
people began shouting, calling. her " knobstick," and saying
she had not paid to the union on the Saturday. They
shoved her along with their hands into Tenior-street ; and
she tried to get into a public house, but the door was shut
against her. They pursued into Adelphi-street, and she
took refuge in the shop of Mrs. Crook. She was followed
into the yard by the mob, who kept hooting her. She went
into the privy, which was surrounded by her pursuers, who
forced open the door, and ejected her. They then followed
her down Byrom-street, where she was felled to the ground
once or twice. 'Did not know who knocked her down. Her
dress was torn in that street. She next went towards the
Moss factory, near to which she took refuge in a cottage
house, but was expelled in consequence of somebody being
ill. The crowd pursued her through various other streets;
until she was rescu2d by two men and escorted home ;
whither also the mob followed her, hooting, and calling her
a " knobstick." They said she was a four-loom weaver,
and had never paid more than a penny. Had only missed
paying on one Saturday. Said if they would fetch the col-
lector she would show them whether she would pay or not.
Her dress, bonnet, and petticoat were all torn, and she was
knocked down three or four times altogether.
Mr. Sergeant Wirairtis : You were examined before the
magistrates, you know ; and—now don't nod at me ; we
are not acquainted. (Laughter.) Who told you to say
anything to-day about the crowd charging you with not hav-
ing paid your subscription ?
Mr. SEGAR objected to the form of the question. His
friend assumed that somebody had told the witness some-

thing.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS : Well, has nobody told you that
when you came before the court, you were to state that the
crowd charged you with not having paid on Saturday, the
10th ?—No. Why, did you say one single word about it
before ?—Yes. Wm. Tou sw_ar that? Telco oaro what you
are about, young woman. Did you say, when you were
before the magistrates, that the people in the mob said one
word to you about your money ?--Yes. Do you mean to
swear that ? I have got your evidence, so take care. Did
you say a single word before the magistrates about the people
in the crowd having charged you with not paying your
money ?—No. (Sensation.) Now, I ask you if you were
not directed to tell the court here that the crowd charged
you with not paying money ?—No. How many times have
you seen the lawyer ?—I don't know. A dozen ?—No.
Ten ?—No; two or three times. Have you seen him half-
a-dozen times ?—I can't say. Did you see him yesterday ?
—Yes. Where ? At his own house. How long were you
with him ?—A few minutes. Did he write down what you
said ?—Yes. Although you had given your evidence before.
What do you understand by the term Knobstick ?" One
who under-works other people. Look at, this gentleman
here, (pointing to the boy Holmes, amid laughter,) did you
see him at all ? Yes ; I saw him the day I was followed by
the crowd. I live with my mother and sister. I was ren-
dered unable to work for a fortnight. I could walk about,
but not work. My leg got injured by a fall when I was
knocked down.
William Stewart, aged 12, was the next witness. He
said—l know Mr. Crook's house ; the yard belonging to it
is next but one to our yard. I remember Monday evening,
the 12th September. After the factories had loosed, I saw
a' great crowd in Crook's yard. Saw; the last witness go
into a privy there. The crowd hooted her, and forced open
the door. Saw Holmes, the appellant, there ; he was on
the top of the door, trying to open it. The witness cor-
roborated the prosecutrix relative to her persecution by the
crowd. Holmes shouted " Hoo, " but witness did not hear
him say anything else. Saw him attempt to leg prosecutrix
down. Heard the woman called a " Knobstick " many a
time. She said if they would let her go, she would pay one
shilling the next Saturday,
Mr Sergt. Wira TiNs. —Well, my [little man, you were in
the crowd ?—I was watching them. I work in the factory,
and had been at my employment that day. You did not
shout at all ?—No. Who told you what to say before the
magistrate ?—Nobody. What ! did you. not say before the
magistrate that a policeman told you ?—Yes : he said if we
would tell all we knew we should be let off. (Cheers by the
spectators.) Who are "we?"—Gifford and me. When
was Giffoi-d with you ?—When the policeman fetched us.
You never stated before th 7 magistrate about the woman's
offer to pay a shilling on the Saturday : how came you to
forget that ?—I don't know. Did that policeman tell you
to say it to-day ?—No. Who did ?—No one. Have you
been to the lawyer ?—Yes ; two or three times. How
many times have you told your story. ?—I don't know how
many times, Now when you were before the magistrate,
did you say one single word about Holmes having tried to
leg that young woman down ?—I think I did. I don't
know whether I did or not. I knew Holmes before ; he
lived in the same street.
Mr. SEGAR.—That is the ease.
Mr. Sergeant ;WILKINS, then rose and addressed the
Court on behalf of the appellants. He said : Certainly I
have been powerfully reminded of an old story I once heard
when a boy, by the circumstances connected with this ap-
peal. It is said, once on a time, when a boy, the same age
as that boy, was walking by the road side, he encountered a
flock of geese, and the gander gave him a nip in the leg.
He stood for a long time shaking his head at the gander,
but at last he kicked • one of the goslings, and the man who
was driving the geese said " you young fool, why did you,
kick the gosling ?" and the answer was, " wha did uz fay -
ther beite me for." (Great laughter.) I have been power
fully reminded of that story, by the dignified proceedings
which I presume the masters of the town of Prtaton
had taken with reference to the present state of things in
this important district. I am not going to say one word
in aggravation, either on the one side or on the other, be-
cause every worthy citizen must be most anxious that the
parties who are now at variance should be brought together,
and both of them should make mutual concession as well for
the individual as for the aggregate weal; and, therefore, I
should be ashamed of myself, because I don't understand this
complicated question at issue between the masters, and those
whom they employ—l would be ashamed of myself in my ig-
norance of the present complicated state of the question to
decide who is wrong or who is right. Nor will I say
one single word that would tend to produce an angry
disposition either on the one side or on the other, but I
cannot help thinking whoever advised this prosecution in
the first instance acted with a great deal more zeal than'
discretion. Because, here they have elected out three per:
sons—they may have been engaged no doubt on a particular
day, illegally engaged in interfering with. other parties in
the discharge of their duties— they have selected out a
child tp meet a charge which he cannot understand
and in order to meet the purpose of this pro-
secution they have given him credit for discrimination
and powers of mind which belong to few, even of a more
advanced age than himself. Let me invite attention to the
conviction, and submit to you they have made out no case
so far as this conviction is itself concerned. The learned
sergeant here read the conviction, directing particular at-
tention to the following part of it, " On account of the said
Mary Leonard not having contributed to the common fund
to obtain an advance of wages; to wit, on account of the
said Mary Leonard not having contributed on the 10th
Sotember,--1858, to a -certain 'common fand-to obtain an
advance of wages of workpeople employed in the manufac-