| | 1830 |
One or two cases having been disposed of the prisoners for breaking the thrashing machines were placed at the bar. Wm. Spicer, 33 ; John Paterson, 26; David Arnold, 20; Edward Reed, 51 ; and Stephen File, 25, all labourers, were the first arraigned, for having, on the 29th of August, with others, destroyed one thrashing-machine, of the value of 5l., the property of John Hambrook, at the parish of Newington, in this county: a second count charged them with damaging, with intent to destroy the said machine ; and two other counts laid the property variously. By the Clerk of the Arraigns.—Win. Spicer, are you guilty or not? Spicer.—Yes, I broke it. (There was a considerable noise in the court.) The chairman.—Do you say you are guilty or not? Spicer.—I was in company with those who did it. The chairman.—Then you are as guilty as those who actually broke it in the consideration of the law. It would be my duty in all ordinary eases where a prisoner pleads guilty, as you have done, to advise him to retract that plea, and go to trial to see if there be legal proof of his guilt; but I will not adopt that course on the present occasion, because I am inclined to think that, in acting as you now do, you are adopting the wisest and best course. I shall not, therefore, advise you to withdraw your plea, because I think your conduct now arises from a deep conviction of your guilt; and, let me add, what I hope also, from your contrition for these offences. The prisoners Arnold, Patterson, Read, and File, then pleaded Guilty to the indictment, which pleas were recorded. Henry Read, 50, David Arnold, 20, and Charles Carswell, 28, were arraigned, for that they and others, on the 20th of September, in the parish of Barham, broke a similar machine, the property of John Sankey, and the counts were laid as before. Read and Carswell pleaded Guilty, but Arnold Not Guilty. Henry Read, 50, Edward Read, 51, Charles Carswell, 28, and Stephen File, 23. were then arraigned for similar offence, at Lower Hardres, on the 28th of August, the property being laid in the names of John Collick and Cooper lnge. They all pleaded Guilty. William Spicer and Edward Read were then finally arraigned for a similar offence (2 machines), on the 18th of September, at Upper Hardres, the property of William Dodd. They each put in a plea of Guilty. David Arnold, 20, who had pleaded not guilty to the indictment for breaking Sankey's machine, was then given in charge to the jury for that offence. Mr. D. Pollock, who conducted these prosecutions on the part of the gentry of the county, said it would have been his painful duty under other circumstances than those which had arisen on the arraignment of the prisoners, to have entered into a detailed statement of the fact of these cases; but he felt pleasure that he was relieved from such a task in all but this instance. In the present case the prisoner stood indicted for that he was in company with others when this machine was destroyed. He had, however. pleaded guilty to another similar charge, although from some indistinct and unfounded notion existing in his mind, but not in law or fact, he had refused to follow the same course with respect to the present indictment. He (Mr. Pollock) should not trouble the jury by calling witnesses to substantiate the charge, which he could do if necessary, and it would be their duty under these circumstances to acquit the prisoner. The jury, under the directions of the chairman, acquitted the prisoner, who was put aside. The magistrates then retired to their private chamber to discuss the modus of punishment to be awarded to the prisoners. They were absent about an hour, and on their return the seven prisoners, Spicer, File, the two Reads, Arnold, Patterson, and Carswell, were again put forward, when Sir Edward Knatchbull addressed them at some length upon the heinous offences which they had committed; after which the worthy chairman said—The sentence is that you be each imprisoned in the county gaol of St. Augustine (and mind the court does not adjudge you to hard labour as an adjunct of its sentence) for the space of three days, and after that term has expired that those guilty of a second offence be each imprisoned one day more. Let what I have now stated make a due impression on your minds and I hope that the course which this court has thought fit to pursue will have the effect of putting an end to those atrocious proceedings which have for some time past kept this part of the country in a state of insubordination and disturbance. The prisoners seemed evidently affected with joy at the unexpected lightness of their sentence.
London Standard - Monday 25 October 1830
|