The Liverpool operative ship-carpenters have long been noted for their dictatorial conduct in more ways than one, and there can be little doubt but they have acquired many false notions of their own importance from the manner in which they have heretofore been treated during election times, especially when “the free and independent burgesses” had full sway in Liverpool, a vast number of the freemen being carpenters
The manner in which they have attempted to coerce their employers and fellow work-men has caused many disturbances in
On Monday last, several parties appeared at the Police Court to obtain summonses against a number of men who had assaulted and threatened them whilst at their work
It appeared that the ship-carpenters, in consequence of the present distressed state of the trade, had determined that none but freemen should be employed in this port, and consequently they were resolved, either by violence or intimidation, to force all others to quit their employment. When the mandate was resisted, they commenced an attack with stones upon those who had the courage still to continue their employment, and in some instances the men were seriously injured. Mr RUSHTON granted warrants for the apprehension of the parties, and the cases were heard on Tuesday. Mr JAMES, barrister, and Mr LEATHER attorney, appeared on behalf of the complainants and master shipwrights, and Mr VENABLES, barrister, and Mr GROCOTT, attorney, appeared for the defendants The first man placed in the dock was George SMITH, who was charged by John TREVANNAN.
Before the case was gone into, Mr VENABLES said he was instructed to appear for the defendants, who were charged with attempting, by assaults and threats, to prevent workmen from following their lawful occupation. To this charge he felt it impossible to offer any defence.
The men had desired him to say they were extremely sorry that they had been led into this error. They had laboured under the conviction that nobody but freemen had a right to work as ship-carpenters in this town. They had found out they were wrong, and they were very sorry for it They extremely regretted having been led into this error, and they were willing to plead guilty, and to enter into their own recognisances to appear at the sessions when called on. He (Mr VENABLES) thought this would answer the ends of justice in these cases, and the prisoners would throw themselves on the clemency of the court. Mr JAMES said he was not prepared to accede to all that his Learned Friend had proposed. There were one or two cases in which he would make a distinction, for a large body of men had been combined together, and only a certain number had been selected from amongst them. The prisoner having pleaded guilty, Mr RUSHTON said, in order that none of the men might plead ignorance as to the law, he would read them the clause, which stated that any person using threats or violence, to induce journeymen or workmen to leave their employment, were liable to be imprisoned for three months. He stated, also that men in their situations in life, whether natives of the town or strangers, were all of them entitled to sell their labour at whatever price they pleased, and any man that interfered was a tyrant and an oppressor; and he (Mr RUSHTON) and all the magistrates, were determined that there should be none of that interference with the rights of the industrious classes They should labour for whatever they thought fit, so long as they conducted themselves properly and orderly in the town of Liverpool.
The prisoner entered into his own recognisances in £50, and was then discharged, Mr RUSHTON remarking, that if none but natives of this town were allowed to work, two-thirds of the people might leave it – John HAMILTON and John THRELFALL were then charged by John APSLEY, and Mr JAMES acceded to the proposition by Mr VENABLES. Mr Rushton said it would be a painful matter for the magistrates to deal severely with men who had many difficulties to contend with at present, from the want of work, but the law would not permit them to act as they had done towards the other men.; and they would find that if the course was persisted in, they would be dealt with to the limit of the law, and in cases of assault they would be sent to trial – Robert LATHAM was allowed to be discharged on entering into his own recognisances – Two men, named DWERRYHOUSE and CARMICHAEL, were then charged by John LOUGH, a respectable looking elderly man. Mr JAMES said this was one of the cases in which he must press for a difference. Mr VENABLES said he could only follow out the instructions he had received, to plead guilty for the prisoner, and submit to the leniency of the court. Mr James proceeded to state that the complainant was employed at his work, and was in the act of throwing a noosed rope over the end of a plank, when DWERRYHOUSE took hold of the rope, threw it over LOUGH’s head, and the mob proceeded to drag him away from his work. He was nearly hanged, but succeeded, by a great effort in extricating himself, and then
They were warned in time of the foolish course they were persuing; but the tempting bribe and the influence of strong drink prevented them from paying any attention to that warning, or from “cutting their own throats” and they are now reaping the fruits of their own folly and venality, many of them being dependant upon the parish for relief, and employed in breaking stones for the highways. Misconduct brings its own punishment.
Caryl Williams www.old-liverpool.co.uk Old Liverpool