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. He said he was in partnership with his
brother, and had carried on business at Stockport
for eight years, and previously at Reddish.

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 503. 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

be 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 103. before the men
would return to work. Witness paid the £2 10s.
on condition that it was to be returned if it were

ound on investigation that the men were in the
A similar demand was made against

wrong.

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 is. per week, but
received no benefit from the union. Remembered
leaving when the men turned out in consequence of
the dispute about the 101 per 1,000. Witness was
paid 6s. a day, and had 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 witness 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 he had gone to work before the remainder
of the union men. Humphrey Holmes and William
Potts told witness, after the crnviction 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. Ile 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. Watkin said it
would do a deal of good, and asked whether the
men were the right men. Witness said they ware
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 (witness's) 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
in the .night 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 in 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, 1864, and corroborated other
portions of his evidence.
William Singleton, bricktnaker, 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. The
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
Wild, was now president of the union. He was
re-elected after he came out of prison, and had been
president in 1864, 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 re►nember any meeting of the
union or of union Inen 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
the 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 men about 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
Cheetham and Slater. Did not know why Wild