The Sun.
London, England, 1867-08-23 00:00:00

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.—This Day.

OLD COURT.
(Before Baron Bramwell.)
THE TAILORS' STRIKE-JUDGMENT.
Samuel Partridge, Alfred Bailey, Peter Sherrocks,
William Glenden, Zolu Morris, Robert Knox, Ed-
ward Ormerod, Alfred Shermer, Thomas Geary,
Thomas Flood, Christopher Winterton, Robert
Druler, George Templing, Robert Newbury,Edwari
Stokes, Drewett, Adamson, and Lawrence surren-
dered for judgment upon the indictment of unlaw-
fully conspiring together to injure and impoverish
Henry George Poole and others in their trade as
tailors, of which they had been found guilty.
Mr. Poland, on the part of Drewett, Adamson,
and Lawrence, handed in an affidavit, stating that
they were not responsible for what the other defen-
dants had done. An undertaking had been given
by them on the last occasion that they would not as-
sent to a renewal of the picketing system, and to that
agreement they had adhered. They had endeavoured
to disuade in the most earnest manner possible from
a renewal of the practice, but without success.
Mr. Ribton, on the part of the other defendants,
said he had to inform the court that from what had
transpired at the trial they had determined to dis-
continue the picketing system, as it had been said
the law did not sanction such a proceeding, although
they still entertained the conviction that they had
not so conducted the practice as to bring them
within the scope of the law. But feeling that the
practice could not be continued without leading to
an infringement of the law as it had been laid
down at the trial, they had come to the con-
clusion, notwithstanding the opinion they still en-
tertained, of discontinuing the practice, and they
were ready to give au undertaking to that affect,
and to bow to the decision of the jury, which had
been pronounced adverse to them.
The learned Judge said, before he passed sen-
tence, he would consult the Recorder, and quitted
the bench for that purpose, and on his return he
said the defendants had all been found guilty, and
it now became his duty so pass sentence on them,
the result of their proceedings. Before doing so he
asked them to listen to a few observations he should
make, and as they came from a perfectly disinte-
rested man—one who was neither an employer of
labour nor a receiver of wages—he hoped they would
not allow them to fall unheeded on the ground. The
jury had found a verdict against them, and there
could be no doubt it was a true verdict, as the law
was decidedly against them, and so was also reason
and justice. What right, he would ask them, had
they to put a coercion on their fellow workmen as
how they should dispose of their labour? From
what had transpired in another part of
the country, the men at Sheffield supposed
they had a right to do so, and some such notion
appeared to have taken hold of certain people in
London, and the terms dishonourable workmen and
dishonourable masters had now become words of
frequent occurrence. What right, he would ask
them, had they to call upon either this or that
man to cast his labour into a common stock. Such
a notion was wrong, quite wrong. If the journey-
men tailors had a right to band themselves together
to procure a change, so also had shoemakers, car-
penters, argricultural labourers, and all other em-
ployments ; and by a parity of reasoning the same
right -would extend to the masters for the same
purpose, and he would ask them as reasonable men
whether they thought that such a proceeding
would be for the benefit of the public at large?
He would at once say he did not think they could
entertain the opinion. Every man had the right
to be left free and unfettered in the disposition of
his labour ; and they, as men of judgment, must
be aware of that. For more than forty years men
who they most admired had been engaged in re-
moving restrictions in trade, and at present there
was no law which gave one set of men an advan-
tage over another, but they (the defendants) ap-
peared to him to be attempting to legislate in a
different direction. Instead of admitting the free-
dom of action and the freedom of capital, they were
attempting to make laws in the opposite
direction. Take my word for it—you may
not put much value on it, but he spoke for
their benefit and well-being—that such a course
was utterly and entirely wrong. They could not
find one single public man, not one staunch and
true friend of the working, classes, not a single
public writer or man of known character and influ-
ence who could justify the course they had adopted.
He had considered the matter well, and he had also
consulted the Recorder and Alderman, and the con-
clusion he had come to was that they had done
wrong, but doubtless they had thought they were
only acting as fair men. But fair men did wrong
from entertaining an erroneous view of what was
just, and this was what each of them had done.
They have acted in ignorance of the law, but that
could not be taken as an excuse, yet it might be a
circumstance that might lighten sentence. Acting
on that belief he should not sentence them to im-
prisonment. Ile would take their words as honest
and honourable men that they would not repeat the
conduct that had brought them into this court, with
the exception of Knox. He had been guilty of
conduct that had been condemned by the counsel
retained for their defence, and he hoped that the
stinging reproaches of the learned gentleman would
have the desired effect. He should, therefore,
order them to enter into their own rccognisances
to come up for judgment when called upon, with
the exception of Knox, and him he should sentence
to three months' imprisonment.
The defendants all bowed respectively to the
learned judge, and having entered the required re-
cognisances, were liberated.

The action against the Duke of Rutland and
others, for an allegod malicious prosecution, which has
occupied Judge Pigott and a special jury since Monday,
was concluded yesterday at the Leeds assizes, and resulted
in fauttr 471 tIIQ CligeAdAllte.