The Sun.
London, England, 1864-08-24 00:00:00

THE BELFAST RIOTS.

DUBLIN, Aug, 22.
The adjourned inquest on the body of John M'Connell,
who was shot by the police in Sandy-row on Tuesday, was
held on Saturday at 10 o'clock, in the Corn Exchange. One
half the jury were Protestants and the other half Roman
Catholics, making them six to six. The result of the pro-
ceedings was sent yesterday, but the following is added as
a specimen of the manner in which the investigation was
conducted :
Sub-Inspector Caulfield and the party of police who fired
upon the people on the day in question were present during
the inquest.
Mr Alex. O'Rorke, solicitor, and Mr John Seeds, solici-
tor, appeared for the police; and Mr John Coates, solicitor,
acting for Mr James M'Lean, solicitor, represented the next
of kin of the deceased.
John Williamson was examined, and stated—l live in
No. 6. Sandy-row, My mother keeps a public-house there,
and i manage it for her. I remember this occurrence on
Tuesday. I was standing behind the bar when I heard a
noise, and I ran to the door. The police were coming down
the street, and appeared to be in pursuit of the mob, who

were rushing down to the bridge. There were women and
children in the mob. Previous to the firing no stones or
firearms were used by the mob against the police. When
the police commenced firing the first thing I saw was a man
falling. The crowd then separated, and left him by him-
self. The man was John 111‘Connell. I had known him
before. He was not taken up until after the police had
done firing the second time.
several other witnesses deposed that the crowd did not
conduct themselves so as to justify the use of firearms
against them.
Inspector James Duff, a local Dogberry, then gave the

following evidence :—I was on duty on the morning when
John WConnell was killed. I was stationed opposite
Durham-street. Three of the inspectors had 19 men in
charge. I was there a little before 9 o'clock. I proceeded
in company with two of the men to what is termed the
Boyne-bridge. What drew my attention to it at first was
about 12 or 14 of the constabulary, who were stationed at
the Durham street side of the bridge being clodded by a mob
off the street, and about half way down Glengall- street.
At the time the police were ordered to load was there any
provocation given to them, or were there any stones thrown ?
—Stones were thrown at them when they were ordered to
load. The mob went over the Boyne-bridge. There were
a number of people throwing stones at the officer and police.
There we sno magistrate present that I am aware of. I did
not hear the Riot Act read.

Were the police aad their officers in any danger of losing
their lives ?—Not that I saw, except from stones.
Do you think it was necessary to have fired
Mr O'Rorke objected.
The Corrner said it did not much matter, as the jury
would form their own opinion from the evidence.
Mr Coates—From your experience, and being there at
that time, do you believe, on your solemn oath as a public
officer of the peace, that those men were in danger of their
lives at the time they fired on the people?—What their
opinion was I don't know; but had I been in charge of the
police I should not have fired.
Do you believe it was necessary for the preservation of
their lives that they should fire ?—Well, as far as I could
see I think that the number of police was able to drive
away the crowd with fixed bayonets.
Did the police caution them to go away ?—Not that I
heard.

Did you see guns, or pistols, or swords at the time with
the mob ?—I saw nothing but sticks and stones,
Did you eee the police struck ?—I do believe they were
Struck, for the stones came amongst them. I did not go to
the top of the bridge, and cannot say how far the police
were from the people when they fired.
Do you say it was judicious to fire ?—I have seen more
stones thrown without firing.
Were they in danger F—Well, a man's brains might be
knocked out with a stone.

Why didn't you bring your own force up when you saw
the crowd pelting the police with stones ?—I selected two
men—Moffett and Wiley.
And you left the whole body of men standing at Christ
Church ?—They were all there.
And you saw this outrage being perpetrated on the con-
stabulary, and you left your whole force and did not bring
them to their relief ?—I did not.

You went yourself F—l did. I considered h was not ne-
cessary to take the the force up.
Although you saw the constabulary pelted with stones?
—Yes.

Tell the jury the reason you had for this, You have
thunderstruck me. Have you any explanation to give ?
I consider that two men going up to the same crowd was
better than taking a whole body.
Do you swear to the Court that you think two of the
constabulary force would have been sufficient to quell the
riot ?—I state on my oath that three of us did stop them.
Do you swear upon your oath that two or three of the
constabulary would have been capable of quelling that dis-
graceful riot 1)-1 do not think they could.
But " two of us" could do it ?—Three of us did do it.
Three of the local police.

Well. when it occurred to you that two or three of you
could do it, would it not have been better to have brought
the whole body ?—lt would not.

Have you brought any of the parties to justice that you
saw clodding stones P—lf I had made an arrest I don't be-
lieve I would have been able to bring the party out of the
mob.

How long was this disgraceful clodding going on ?—II
was going on from the time I left Christ Church till I wen'
to the bridge.

How did the three pat a atop to it? Put me up to the
secret of it:—lt was done by us.

Did you say, " Brother, don't now ?"—lt was done.
Was that expression used ?—lt was done.
Coroner—l am afraid we are wandering from the in•
quirt'. _ _

_ .
Mr O'Rorke—Were three shots fired:?—Nose that
heard.

You heard the police fire ?—I did.
And they were pelted at the time they were going up the
bridge P—Yes.

And they were pelted by the other portion of :the mob
that got into the railway ?—yes,

They were pelted from behind and before ?—Yes ; and
after the police returned, and were coming down Durham-
street. a shot came after them.

Several constables proved beyond any possibility of refu-
tation the ferocious character of the mob; that they were
pelted with stones ; shots were fired at them, by which
some were slightly injured ; and that the men called upon
their officer not to let them be murdered. They were
unanimous in asserting that if the mob had been let to
surround them their lives would have been sacrificed.
The jury could not agree, and had to be discharged with.
out finding a verdict, as already stated.

NARROW ESCAPE.—On Friday evening, about
6 o'clock, the Rev. J. P. Langley, Mrs. Langley,
Mrs Allen, and Miss Iliffe, of Olney, Buckinghamshire,
were in a boat, rowing on the river Ouse. They had pro-
ceeded about a mile from Olney, where the river is narrow
and shallow, so that it is very difficult to get past without
lightening the load in the boat. The three ladies left the
boat and walked along the river bank until they could
again enter it. On getting into the Weston water, which
is both wide and deep, Mrs. Langley was the first
to got into the boat. She seated herself at the
rudder. Mrs. Allen also got in and held out her hand
to assist Miss Iliffe, when all three ladies were thrown
over into the river. Their crinolines fortunately assisted to
buoy them up, but Mr Langley was unable to aid them
beyond so placing the boat as to get them as near the bank
as he could, and two then held by the boat, and one by the
bank, their feet partly resting on the shelving bank. Mr
Thomas York, of Emberton, who was in his meadow, and
Mr William France, of the Emberton turnpike gate, who
was fishing near, heard their cries for help, and hastened to
their assistance, and, not without much difficulty, succeeded
in rescuing them from their perilous position. They were
thus most prcvidentially saved from being drowned, as they
could not have remained much longer above water.
THE STRIKE OF THE DOCK LABOURERS.—Since
the strike of the Grand Surrey and Commercial
Docks has commenced between 20 and 30 of the A Reserve,
comprising a picked body of men, have been stationed upon
the ground. Their conduct on all occasions has been so
forbearing that we the more regret to record that on Satur-
day night Robert Stewart, 499 A, was so seriously injured
in the neighbourhood of Grove-street by a body of dock
labourers as to be entirely crippled for life, if he should sur-
vive the injuries he has received. It appears that a disturb-
ance took place and a fight was being concocted, when 499
A interfered for the purpose of preventing a breach of the
peace. He was knocked down and trampled upon, and one
man jumped violently upon him and rendered him in-
sensible. He was pronounced dead, nevertheless, one of
the attacking parties kicked him violently in the side.
Several of his brother constables came to the rescue, and he
was conveyed to Guy's Hospital, and afterwards to his own
house. Some of the delinquents were taken into custody
and conveyed to the police-station at Greenwich, but we
learn, that the man chiefly to blame is still at large. In the
meantime, numbers of the men on strike are going into
work, and this morning between 200 and 300 will bo en-
gaged at the Commercial Docks. In the Grand Surrey
Docks the contractors are acting as sorters, and ordinary
manual labour is employed to some extent. A perfect sur.
veillance is kept by the police over each dock entrance, and
an extra body of police have been placed upon the spot
since the outrage of Saturday night. Previous to this affair
(which may not have been directly connected with the
strike) the men have been very prderly.