The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-10-22 00:00:00

MR. BRINDLEY AND THE SOCIALISTS

About half-past one o'clock on Wednesday last, Mr. John
Brindley, the distinguished controversialist against socialism,
appeared at the Poice-court, and, handing Mr. Rushton a
book containing the rules and regulations of a society esta-
blished by the socialists, denominated " The Benefit Society
of Rational Religionists," asked whether an opportunity was
afforded to persons for obtaining money back from the soci-
ety in question, which professed to be enrolled under the act
of parliament for the establishment of general benefit clubs ?
He said that many persons had paid sums of money into it,
and that when they wanted assistance, in cases of sickness
or want, it appeared to him, after a perusal of the rules, that
they had no power of obtaining such assistance.
Mr. Rushton asked what object the society professed to

have in view ?
Mr. Brindley said the parties called it a " benefit society,"
but he could see no definite pledge given by them of benefit.
Mr. Rushton said that if it was a benefit society it must
have been enrolled under act of parliament.
Mr. Brindley said that Mr. Tidd Pratt had signed the do-
cuments as being in accordance with the act of parliament.
Mr. Rushton said he observed a clause in one of the rules
whereby all disputes were referred to arbitration.
Mr. Ellis, magistrate's clerk, informed the court that there
was no dispute at present.
Mr. Brindley restated that his object at present was to
ascertain whether the money which had been subscribed
could be got back, and to see whether any benefit existed.
Mr. Rushton said that so far as he could make out the ob-
ject of the society from the rules, it appeared to be composed
of persons calling themselves " rational religionists, for the
purpose of getting contributions of capital, and forming a
common property.
Mr. Brindley said there was one rule which laid it down
that the parties subscribing were to have assistance in cases
of sickness and want. There were a great many persons who
had contributed to the funds, and some of them largely,
during the last five or six years, but finding now that they
could claim no benefit, they were desirous of knowing whe-
ther they had any power to claim their money back. If the
question could be answered it might have the effect of pre-
venting persons from joining a society of the kind. There
was one case in which two poor women, whose husbands had
contributed largely to the funds, were desirous of recovering,
if they could, some of the money, and he feared there were
many more similar cases. He believed that societies of the
kind were calculated to do a deal of mischief. Hundreds of
persons had subscribed in the present instance, and the fact
of parties having stated that the society had been formed
•under an act of parliament had given some pretensions to
the thing.
Mr. Rushton said the objects of the society appeared to be
fully set forth in the ninth rule. One object was that of
universal charity. It professed to afford rational employment
and peaceable changes in life. The funds were to be raised
from time to time for mutual assistance, to afford education

to the members, and relief in cases of sickness or other na-
tural ailments. He asked whether any of the parties were
sick ? whether any natural contingencies bad arisen ? and
who were the officers of the society? _ . . .

Mr. Brindley saldil;ai3ll.T'inc appeared to be the prin-
cipal officer. He observed that if Mr. Rushton would keep
the book, look it over, and give au answer to the question,
he would be doing a great act of kindness to numbers of per-
sons who had subscribed.

Mr. Rushton promised to do so, but said that he could see
nothing, from the cursory view he had been able to take of
the book, which would give him jurisdiction in the matter.
Mr Brindley asked when he should wait on the court again?
Mr. Rushton replied the following day.
Mr. Brindley then retired.
[Nothing further took place yesterday, Mr. Brindley, for
some reason, did not appear in court.]

COMMITMENT.-Yesterday, at the police-court, an
abandoned woman, named Catherine Hughes, was com-
mitted for trial at the sessions for robbing a sailor of
.£4 10s. 6d., and pawning some of his clothes. The poor
fellow was imprisoned and fleeced by a gang of women. The
pawnbroker, Kewley, of Marlborough-street, was severely
reprimanded, and cautioned for taking in the :clothes from
such a character.

CHARGE oF ASSAULT.—Mr. Anderson, Clerk of the Cole-
brook Iron Company, appeared to answer a charge of assault,
to be preferred against him by Mr. Marcus, tobacconist, &c.,
Church-street. The complainant said, that being employed
at the Chronicle office, he had occasion, on Friday week, to
go to the Colebrook Company's office, to solicit for an ad-
vertisement for the Chronicle, which had appeared in some
of the other papers. He found the defendant there, and
asked for permission to insert it. The defendant said he had
given it for the Journal, and made a remark to the effect
that the Chronicle was not one of the best conducted papers
in the town. Complainant said that was no business of his
(defendant's).—Mr. Rushton : " Yes, but it was : he went
to solicit a favour, and he should not have used such an ex-
pression."—The complainant continued :—He (defendant)
said he would not give the advertisement, and complainant
remarked that the Journal was a Catholic paper. and had a
very different circulation from the Chronicle. Whereupon
Mr. Anderson said, " What is that you say about the Ca-
tholics ?" and then going up to him, knocked off his hat,
which contained his papers, and struck him. In cross-exa-
mination, complainant denied that he had been ordered to
leave the place, or that he had said he would stop there as
long as he pleased. The defendant had also accused him of
being drunk at the time, which he could prove was untrue,
by parties who had seen him just before and after the assault.
He had at first put the case into the hands of an attorney,
but did not prosecute it in that way, because he could not
find a witness who saw the assault, and had given his name,
and because he could not himself be heard as a witness in a
civil case. The same reason had caused the delay in bring-
ing it into that court. The defendant did not order him out;
and he (complainant) heard all that was said. He admitted
that he was a little dull of hearing. The defendant seid
that, when the complainant asked him for the advertisement,
he told him he had already given it to the Journal, and did
not wish it to appear so often in the same week. The com-
plainant then said, " Oh, you support the Catholics, do
you ?" He was told that that was no matter of his, and he
then threatened to strike him, (defendant,) putting himself
in an attitude of fighting. Defendant then told him to go
out, and he refused askinhim if he were a principal. The
reply was, that he had themanagement in the absence of his
employers. He then pushed him to get him out and a
scuffle ensued, in which his (complainant's) hat fell off. He
(complainant) also took up the mat that was at the door, and
endeavoured to strike him with it. He afterwards called on
Mr. Ross, who said that his statement altered the com-
plexion of the case. Mr. Rushton said that the better way
to conduct business was with civility—refraining from re-
marks that might give offence. It appeared that the com-
plainant had not done ad, but had given considerable provo-
cation, and that the defendant had properly removed hiip
from the premises with no more force than was necessary for
that purpose. The case was accordingly dismissed.