The Sun.
London, England, 1867-09-05 00:00:00

mined. Therefore if any person, whatever outrages
he might have been a party to, would make a full
disclosure of all he knew he would be saved from
any criminal proceedings in respect of these outrages.
The names of many such persons were known to the
commisssoners, and it was to be hoped that they
would avail themselves of the opportunity now
afforded them, not only of obtaining indemnity for
past wrongs, but of making, by a candid confession
of all they knew of how such outrages as they might
have been engaged in had been promoted or encou-
raged, the best atonement in their power for their
past transgressions.
The first witness examined was
Thomas Meadows, a master brickmaker, at
Stockport. lie said he was in partnership with his
brother, and had carried on business at Stockport
for eight years, and previously at Re Wish.
They employed about 100 men, of whom 24
were members of two unions--those of Stockport
and Oldham. The wages of the men varied from
30s. to 50s. a week. In June, 1864, witness made
an alteration in the shape of the bricks he manu-
factured, so that they might fit a hand machine.
This alteration effected a saving of 10d. a thousand,
and some of the union workmen came to witness
and said they might make the alteration if they
would give the men the 10d. John Jackson, Wm.
Fox, George Bailey, and three others came to wit-
ness, Jackson and Fox being the spokesmen. Wit-
ness refused the 10d., but offered to give the men
6d. The result was that the 24 union men struck
work. The strike lasted three weeks, but before
the end of that time three men came to the firm and
accepted the 6d. Soon after this three of the strike
men came and asked witness if he had given the
men who had come back the 10d. per thousand, and
witness said he had not. The other union men then
offered to return to their work if witness would
turn away the three men who had gone back. Wit-
ness refused to do this, and subsequently the union
meu returned to their work at the terms offered
them. The three men whose dismissal had been de-
manded were named Wild, Child, and Fallows. At
1 o'clock on the morning of the 3d Aug., after the
strike, witness was called to Wild's house, and found
him in bed with his legs and arms badly burnt.
Cheetham and Slater, two of the union men, were
apprehended the same day on the charge of having
assaulted Wild. Witness was examined afterwards
at the trial, and was asked by some union men to
sign a memorial for a commutation of the sentence
on Cheetham and Slater. Wild was ill for a long
time after the assault. Recently witness and his
brother began to build some houses, and their men
" turned out" in consequence of witness and his
brother having set a brick. Witness sent for the
turn-outs, and they sent a man who demanded on
their behalf a penalty of £2 10s. before the men
would return to work. Witness paid the £2 10s.
on condition that it was to be returned if it were
found on investigation that the men were in the
wrong. A similar demand was made against
a contractor employed by witness, but he refused
to pay, and gave up the contract in consequence.
Witness had only set one brick, and his object was
to give the man a treat, because it was an under-
stood thing that if the master set a brick he should
spend half-a-crown or so among the men. For a
fortnight after the last strike witness was prevented
from obtaining bricks in the neighbourhood.
Thomas Wild, a brickburner, stated that in 1864
he was employed by the last witness, and was a
" contribution man" in the Stockport Brickmakers'
Union. That was to say, he paid ls. per week, but
received no benefit from the union. Remembered
leaving when the men turned out in consequence of
the dispute about the 10d. per 1,000. Witness was
paid 6s. a day, and bad nothing to do with the price
per 1,000. He was out about five weeks, and went in
again with Child and Fallows. On the night of the
2d August witness was at the kiln, and about 12
o'clock he was attacked by six men. Before the
assault one of the men had asked if he and his mate
lie down for an hour or two, and witness said "Yes,"
and went to show him where to go. Slater was the
man who spoke first, and witness directly afterwards
recognised Cheetham. The other four came round
then from an adjoining building. Cheetham then
took up a lump of wood and struck witness with it.
Slater pulled wi•ness down, and the others joined in
the attack, the result of which was that witness's
right arm was broken in several places, and his leg
and face were injured. Was in Stockport Infirmary
for about six months after the assault. Cheetham
and Slater were convicted, and sentenced to 20
years' penal servitude. Believed he was assaulted
because be had gone to work before the remainder
of the union men. Humphrey Holmes and William
Potts told witness, after Va.) conviction of Slater and
Cheetham, that they could guarantee him £2O if he
would sign a paper they brought to him, and state
that he did not know Slater and Cheetham. They
said the papers had come from London, from Mr.
Watkin, M.P. Witness afterwards received a
paper signed by Holmes, Potts, and William Brown,
guaranteeing, on condition that he signed the
paper referred to, that he should be paid £5, and
reinstated in all the benefits of the Brickmakers'
Union. Witness consented to sign the paper in the
presence of a solicitor, and he and the others went
to the office of Mr. Andrews, a solicitor, in Bridge-
street, Manchester. The witness got a copy of the
paper, which he now handed in.
[The paper was read. It was in effect a memorial
asking for a commutation of the sentence on Slater
and Cheetham, and stating that witness believed
neither of them was actuated by malice towards him
personally, and that witness might have been mis-
taken in their identity.]
Witness went on to say that he signed this paper
because he was afraid he might otherwise get into a
hobble. He never had any doubt about the identity
of Slater and Cheetham. The promises made to
him were some inducement. He went to the office
of Mr. Watkin, M.P., on Bank Top, Manchester
before he signed the paper, and there heard Mr.
Watkin read the memorial. Mr. IVatkin said it

would do a deal of good, and asked whether the
men were the right men. Witness said they were
Witness was afraid the brickmakers would do him

an injury if he did not sign the paper. He had
heard that a man named Bailey had been threaten-
ing to set fire to his (witneses) house. Witness

was at present living under a feigned name in order
that he might be quiet. When he was living in
Regent-road, Salford, some men came to his house

,n the knight time, and kicked the panels of his

door in. They said if witness would go out they
would wash their hands in his blood. He believed

one of these men was a " committee-man" in the
union. Although witness paid a shilling a week he

could not participate iu the benefits of the union.
Sarah Wild, wife of the last witness, described
the injuries received by her husband on the night of
the 2d of August, 1861, and corroborated other
portions of his evidence.

William Singleton, brickmaker, formerly employed
in Stockport, and now in Redditch, said he was a
member of the Stockport Union, and was yesterday
made treasurer. Had been treasurer before. Thc
term of office only lasted three months. There

were 200 members of the union. William Slater,
the man who was imprisoned for the assault on

was now president of the union. Ile was

re-elected after he came out of prison, and had bee❑
president in 1861, the year in which the assault took

. _
place. Witness heard of the assault at the time.

Slater was not president of the union then ; he was
treasurer, and Cheetham, the other man who was

convicted of the assault, was president.

Witness

was in bed at nine o'clock on the night of the 2d of

August. Did not remember any meeting of the

union or of union men on the Ist or 2d August.
Witness was pressed somewhat closely on this
point, and on being cautioned by the Chief Com-
missioner as to the consequences of his refusal to tell

she truth as far as he knew it, and told that he

would receive an indemnity if he made a full dis-

closure of all he knew, he admitted that he had some
conversation on the night of the Ist August with
some of the union menabout the men who had gone

back to work during the strike. Could not say
whether Slater was present and took part in that

conversation. Cheetham was not there. Cheet-

ham's defence was paid for out of the union funds.

Witness did not take an active part in getting up the

petition for a commutation of the sentence passed on

Cheethanl and Slater. Did not know why Wild