The Sun.
London, England, 1867-05-10 00:00:00

THAMES.

RIOTIOUS SCENE IN THE EAST INDIA DOCK.—
Dennis Conolly and Timothy Purcell, touters, were
brought before Mr. Paget charged with forcing
their way on board ship in the East India Dock
before she was safely moored.

Yesterday afternoon the ship Swiftsure, from Mel-
bourne, was being hauled into the East India Dock
when a great number of Jews, outfitters, crimps,
boarding-house keepers, touters, and others at-
tempted to board her to solicit custom of the sailors,
carry the passengers luggage on shore, and for other
purposes. Mr. De Brock, the chief mate of the
ship, warned them off, and after a scene of commo-
tion and violence the prisoners, who refused to leare
the ship, were given into custody.
The defence of the prisoners was that they were
called on board and were looking out for a job.
Conolly said he was dragged into the cabin and
beaten by the chief mate, and Purcell said an at-
tempt was made to drown him.

Mr. De Brock said he took the prisoner Conolly
into the caddy to secure him, but he did not strike
him.

Several witnesses deposed to the violence and
disorderly conduct of the mob in the East India
Dock while the Swiftsure was coming in.
Mr. Charles Douglas, the assistant chief con-
stable of the East and West Inclia Docks, said no
more force was used than was necessary to eject the
people from the ship, and prevent others from
boarding her. There was quite a riot at the dock
in endeavouring to take possession of the ship
stones were thrown, and the clamour was dreadful.
Those scenes had been of frequent occurrence when
ships were coming into dock.
Mr. Paget said it was very important when ships
were coming into dock that order should be
preserved. Danger and inconvenience were caused
by the practice of boarding ships by hosts of per-
sons when they were coming into dock, and to
prevent robberies, confusion, and danger, the act of
Parliament he was about to put in force was passed.
If people had jobs to execute for seamen and pas-
sengers they must execute them at the proper time
and place. He had the power to inflict a fine of
£2O, and if these cases became frequent he should
continue to increase the fines and the imprisonments
until he reached the maximum. He fined Conolly
205., and, in default of payment, seven days' impri-
sonment, with hard labour. With respect to the
other man (Purcell), who3e conduct was very im-
proper, and who had no right on board when ordered
away by the mate, it appeared he was hangin.,
on by the railing of the ship, and a con'
stable named Charles Freelong endeavoured
to loosen the prisoner's hands, and to
compel him to let go. If the constable had suc-
ceeded the man would necessarily have fallen into
the dock, and he would have been drowned. The
same constable had also attempted to take off the
prisoner's hat. The dock constable was armed with
the authority of the law, and he ought not to have
acted as he had done. The conduct of Freelong
was very reprehensible, and he had exceeded his
duty. It was fortunate the constable had not suc-
ceeded iu his attempt to drown the man, and he
hoped he would not repeat such highly blameable
-conduct. The conduct of the chief mate, Mr. De
Brock, was very right. He should discharge Pur-
cell, and if he attempted to board ship again at an
improper time he was to be brought before him or
any other magistrate for punishment, but his life
was not to be put in jeopardy.