TRADE UNION OUTRAGES.

SPEAKING at Sheffield, in the Economy and Science Department of the Social
Science Congress, on October 6th, 1865, William Broadhead, a man described as "a
saw grinder, Secretary of the Saw Grinders' Union, and Treasurer of the
Associated Trades of Sheffield," rose in his place in the Hall, and said he was
very glad such outrages as Mr. Tom Hughes had referred to on the previous day
were becoming very rare in Sheffield. Certainly no one could regret more than he
hearing that any had occurred. Mr. Hughes' reference was to many curious
statements which he had heard respecting Trade Unions in Sheffield, and the way
in which money was extracted for Union requirements, and he added that he
understood that one rule was to the effect that "no beard or moustache was
allowed to be worn by any member." As to the previous part of his speech, he
could only hope that what he had been told was not true. It was hereabouts that
William  Broadhead's  personality began to obtrude itself in local affairs.  He
was at that time landlord of the Royal George Hotel in Carver Street, and, on
the evening after Mr. Hughes' speech before the Congress, he called at the
offices of the Telegraph, saying that he was quite prepared to give the fullest
reply to the statements Mr. Hughes had made respecting the Trade Unions of the
town. How thoroughly he and the Societies of the town were trusted at this time
may be gathered from the fact that when the annual dinner of the Organized
Trades of Sheffield was held on October 25th, 1868, at Broadhead's house, the
Royal George Hotel in Carver Street, Mr. Samuel Plimsoll, then residing at
Whiteley Wood Hall, was in the chair. On March 22, 1866, a mass meeting of Trade
Union delegates, representing men on strike, was held at the Royal George public
house, 110 being present, representing 40 trades. Though not invited, Messrs. W.
A. Jackson, Gamble and W. K. Peace were allowed to be present during the
meeting, which, commencing at 7 p.m., was not over till half an hour after
midnight. The delegates said the question of the introduction of machinery was a
side issue, and the one question which governed the strike was that of wages. On
the following day 3,000 workmen in the Temperance Hall refused to listen to
arguments respecting machinery, confining themselves purely to the question of
wages. In the meantime outrages of every kind went on, and the Rev. Newman Hall,
at a packed men's meeting in the Temperance Hall, in connexion with the
Conference of the Congregational Union, spoke on them.  He declared that the
tyranny of the working man who never made any profession of freedom was a very
despicable thing, he could not find words with which to denounce the tyranny of
men who were always denouncing tyranny and had no breadth of vision.  His
allusions to the blowing up of Fearnehough's premises elicited "terrific
cheering again and again renewed," as the newspapers of the following day had
it. On the other hand Mr. Thos. Hughes (author of Tom Brown's School Days)
followed up his speech at the recent Social Service Congress in Sheffield with a
letter to the Spectator, in October, 1866, from Lincolns Inn, in which he
referred to an interview he had had in Sheffield the previous year with the
working men, at which they had produced evidence as to their innocence in the
matter of rattening, and, so far as he was able to do, he had examined them.  He
had come to the conclusion that the leaders of the Sheffield trades had done
their utmost to bring the perpetrators to justice and to rouse a healthy
abhorrence of the crimes.

A rattening case occurred at William Darwin's, in Trinity Street, on the night
of August 1st, 1866, and the accused were brought before the Police Court the
following day and subsequently sent to the Assizes.  The outrage in New Hereford
Street, in which Fearnehough's house was wrecked, occurred in the first week in
October, 1866, and led up to a gradually overwhelming cry throughout the country
for some procedure to be adopted whereby such practices might be stopped.
Rewards amounting to £2,000 were offered for the names of the perpetrators of
this outrage, but without success.  The Town Council took official notice of the
outrage in New Hereford Street at its meeting in October, 1866, the Mayor
expressing the general views of the town on such matters, and within a week of
the crime the list of subscriptions for relief of those concerned had reached
the sum of £1,500.

A meeting of the Organized Trades Association was held at Broadhead's house, the
Royal George, on October 11th, 1866, all the members of Executive being present.
 An official statement was agreed to, that Association could not but regret what
had occurred and protested very strongly against such crimes, not only for their
inherent heinousness, but because they tended to damage trade unionism and trade
societies of the town and country. The Association was prepared to defend those
principles and to offer a reward for capture of the perpetrator of the recent
outrage. On the same day a person accused of rattening was refused bail, Mr.
Albert Smith, Clerk to the Magistrates, declaring that the Magistrates must act
as though martial law prevailed in the town. On Oct. 22, 1866, the Telegraph, in
one of many leading articles on the outrages, said, "we have been employed for
some days past in gathering evidence and have no moral doubts that, if this work
of tracing backwards is done by a Commissioner, revelations will ensue such as
will startle the whole nation.  Various outrages preceding that in New Hereford
Street were wrapped in mystery at the time, but, at this hour, they are capable
of being made guiding links in a curiously welded chain." Elisha Parker,
formerly member of the Saw Grinders' Union, declared on October 21, 1866, that
the procedure at meetings was that an employer went before the meeting, found
his views did not suit, left it determined to pay no more subscriptions to the
Union,  "but you don't pay any more and Mary Ann comes and takes your bands off
or smashes your tools. If you don't pay then you're blown up, that's all."  He
gave his reminiscences later, speaking of himself as saw grinder, farmer and
postmaster at Dore. He had then been a saw grinder for 34 years, and his first
experience of rattening was in 1853 at Newboulds, where he earned, with his lad,
£4 a week, and paid to the Society 3/6 in the £. After standing out for 21 weeks
he left the Union and went to his old work where non-Society men had been
engaged.  He was duly warned by "Mary Ann" that he must not work with
non-Society men, but took no notice. The first result was the hamstringing of
his horse at Dore, which cost him £20, the second an attempt to blow his house
up on the night of March 7, 1864, and the third on WhitSunday night when he was
shot at and severely wounded, so that he had to be in the Infirmary for eleven
weeks.

"A WONDERFULLY GOOD PROPHET." Another of the Telegraph's leading articles about
this time showed very clearly how close to the root of the matter Mr. Leng had
got.  He wrote "Broadhead, though often a wonderfully good prophet in cases
where wheel bands had been returned after due payment of arrears, must have been
astounded at so many coincidences." In the opening of the 'sixties, when there
were many cases of rattening, the firms duly advertised for apprehension of the
thief after their wheel bands had been taken, though, when they issued the
advertisements, they knew quite well how it had been done, but the advertisement
was simply part of the game.  It was part of the price they paid, but towards
the end of October, 1866, the position had become so acute that every effort was
made to obtain the appointment of a Commission to enquire into the whole
question, one which should "set up a searching and thorough enquiry into the
whole art and mystery of rattening." On October 27, 1866, appeared a long letter
by John Wilson practically accusing Broadhead of being the author or instigator
of the outrages, and it recalled  about  that  time  that  in  the  middle 
'fifties  threatening  letters were received by many firms and individuals,
amongst them Mark Firth, G. Beardshaw & Sons, Crookes, Roberts & Co., and Saml.
Lowe, Dore, and in 1860, when the works of Wheatman & Smith were blown up,
letters from "Mary Ann" were received by Peace, Hobson, Joseph Myers and others.
Eventually deputations were appointed to wait on the Home Secretary and
endeavour to get a Commission appointed.  That of the town consisted of Messrs.
F. T. Mappin, Joshua Tyzack, W. K. Peace, and J. H. Waterfall; of the Town
Council, Ald. J. Brown, Ald. R. Jackson, Ald. Hy. Vickers, and R. T. Eadon;
whilst that of the workmen and Trade Associations consisted of W. Dronfield and
J. Austen of the Organized Trades of Sheffield, R. Applegarth, of London, of the
Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners, Powell, Assistant Secretary of
the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, Odgers, Secretary of the Trades Council,
Coulson, Secretary of the Operative Builders Society, Lawrence and Mackay, of
the West End Tailors Society, and Cope, of the West End Boot Closers
Association. Each of these deputations had interviews with Mr. Walpole, the Home
Secretary, who said decision would have to be postponed until the proposal had
been before the Cabinet. The editor of the Sheffield Times at the beginning of
November wrote in article on the proposal to obtain a Commission, and was
promptly served with a letter from "Mary Ann," another being sent to the
reporter, Mr. Thwaites.

THE HYPOCRITE'S PART. Broadhead played the hypocrite's part when he wrote a
letter which appeared in the Telegraph on October 12, 1866, in which he said
that "the foul deed in Hereford Street adds to the fearful catalogue of such
things which are disgracing the fair fame of this largely increasing and
prosperous town.  All will join me in condemning this foolishly insane and
wicked practice, and, personally entertaining such a view, I am subscribing five
pounds for the discovery of the offender." Two days later in the same paper
there appeared a letter signed "Constant Reader," which said, " Let Mr.
Broadhead lose no time in producing all his books for two years previous to
Linley's death, and up to the present time, before the magistrates and John
Jackson, or stand condemned. No shuffling, no grumbling, no stating that the
books are lost or destroyed.    Also let him state to the magistrates who have
constituted the committee in those years and the secret committees during that
time." The curtain was almost up, the stage very nearly set, for the great
tragedy of "Broadhead at Bay"; but Broadhead was supremely clever. Mr. Leng
threw himself into the matter with great zest and determination.  Probably he
was actuated first of all through a sound and genuine desire to serve the town
which had done so well for him and for which he had secured a very real
affection, but it is impossible to get away from the notion that he also, with
his strong instinct as a journalist, realized in this mystery, and the despair
of the town's authorities, a chance for his paper. It was at all times " my
paper" first with him, personal benefit counted little. On the eve of the much
advertised Saw Grinders' meeting, on October 17th, 1866, he wrote in a leading
article, "The law respecting Unions can no longer be silent.  We cannot be
content with wordy disavowals, windy declamations on the part of the suspected
trades. We must in self defence put these professions to the proof and insist on
tests, for we owe this to ourselves and to the inhabitants of the town.  If
there really be a secret machinery which puts a premium on theft and offers
specific money rewards for murder, the sooner we help the hangman to his
rightful dues the better for the character and welfare of our town." Charles
Bagshawe presided over a big meeting of trades delegates held at the Royal
George Hotel on October 17th, 1866.  Broadhead spoke at the very start, saying
it was the business of the meeting as honest men to say what animated them.
Speaking of the acts committed he said, "It has been inferred that I have
justified them. If I could lay my hands on the perpetrators I would show you how
I would justify them."  He referred to a letter which had appeared signed "XYZ,"
in which occurred the following: " I have been connected with the Saw Grinders'
Union all my life and have sat on the Committee many times, and such cases as
Fearnehoughs are often up.  At the end of the discussion an old saw grinder will
get up and say they saw the need of such a thing but that they'd better leave it
to 'the moon,' and the 'moon' generally came down  and did what the saw grinders
required." The way it was done was by a black bag with a black ball in it, and
the one who got the black ball did it or got someone else to do it. Broadhead,
commenting on the letter, said as soon as he saw it he went straight to the
Telegraph office, and after a long time got the name of the writer from Mr.
Leng.  The name was Joseph Ibbotson, a saw grinder, who repudiated the whole
thing.  Then he (Broadhead) took Ibbotson down to the Telegraph office and he
there denied having anything to do with the letter, which Mr. Leng then said had
been brought into the office by a boy who left the name "Ibbotson" when asked
who had sent him.  "I believe," said Broadhead, " that the statements in the
letter are libellous and if they "have my shirt from off my back I'll have what
the law affords on this matter."   In due course came the strange theory that
the Fearnehoughs blew themselves up, imagining that they had become outlaws !

THE ROYAL COMMISSION. Mr. Walpole, the Home Secretary, duly asked for leave to
bring in a Bill to the House of Commons for appointment of a Royal Commission to
enquire into the Sheffield Trade Outrages.  That was on February 9, 1867. He
said he had in his hands a list of 200 cases of outrage- threatenings, thefts,
or worse.  Mr. Hughes, Q.C., spoke on the immense gravity of the enquiry to be
opened, and Sir F. Crossley, of Halifax, pointed out that the law allowed every
man to buy and sell labour on the best terms he could and without molestation,
and the Bill was brought in. In due course the constitution of the Commission
was made known. It consisted of 11 members--Lord Lichfield, from the House of
Lords, Mr. J. A. Roebuck, M.P., Sir Daniel Gooch, M.P., Lord Elcho, M.P., Mr.
Tom Hughes, M.P., with Sir Edmund Head, Mr. James Booth, Mr. Herman Merivale,
Mr. W. Matthews, Mr. F. Harrison, and a President in Sir W. Erle, late President
of the Court of Common Pleas.  It was specifically mentioned that the Commission
would not sit in Sheffield, and the forming of  the Commission was warmly
approved by the Trade Union Congress which met in London in the same month. The
Commission began taking evidence in London on April 7th, 1867, but it was
quickly found that doing so at such distance from the principal seat of evidence
was a cumbrous operation, and no great surprise was shown, in Sheffield at all
events, when, on May 17th of the same year, three Commissioners were appointed
to facilitate the work of taking evidence, their sittings to take place in
Sheffield or the neighbourhood.  The three were Messrs. William Overend, T. D.
Bairstow, and George Chance of the Oxford Circuit, the appointments being made
by the Home Secretary. They were given power to enforce attendance of witnesses,
to examine on oath, to compel production of documents, and to punish contempt of
court by imprisonment for not more than three months.  Mr. J. E. Barker was
appointed Secretary to the Commission, and the inaugural sitting was fixed for
June 2nd.  The Mayor in the meantime had advised the Home Secretary that the
Council Hall and the Mayor's Parlour would be open to the Commission, and it was
reported that 200 cases had been sent in extending over a period of 10 years.
Immediately prior to the first sitting, the Commissioners advertised the fact
that each person making full and true confession and disclosures would receive a
certificate protecting him against all civil and criminal proceedings in respect
of the subject matter of his disclosures. Though the hall was only half full of
sightseers, the Commission was welcomed by a very representative attendance of
the leading gentlemen in the town.  The local Outrages Committee was represented
by Mr. Chambers, and the Trade Unions by Mr. Sugg, Mr. Overend making a simple,
straightforward speech in opening the proceedings,- and setting forth the aims
of the Commission.  The first witness was John Platts, a scissor-grinder of
Mitchell Street, whose bands had been taken, and then came James Pryor, a
scissor-grinder of Carver Street, whose bands had also been taken and
afterwards, through the intervention of " Mary Ann," found in a coke oven. On
the second day came Robert Booth, a scissor-grinder of Brightmore Street, George
Colley, of the same trade of Allen Street, and Joseph Thompson, of Allen Street,
Secretary of the Scissor-Forgers Provident Society.  The evidence of the last
named gave the first fillip of interest to the onlookers.  He admitted that
rattening was a coercive power used to compel compliance with the Society's
rules, and, advised to tell the truth, made various admissions, his evidence
extending over six columns of the papers.  On the following day, in further
searching examination, Thompson stated that where there was no Union in
Sheffield, wages often fell as much as from 40% to 50%. Thomas Holmshaw,
President and Treasurer of the Scissor-Grinders Union, on the same day admitted
that he was quite aware that the Union had no legal existence, but it was a
power.  He did not "know" that bands were taken, though he admitted that he had
often heard of such cases.  He knew nothing of the cause.  Speaking generally on
the practice of the Unions, he said it often happened that masters were called
upon to contribute to the funds, and it was also a fact that no apprentices were
allowed who were not sons of members of the Union.  He did not know how stolen
bands were returned, but it was a common practice to remove them when a person
was in arrears.  George Platts, recalled, denied the whole of this evidence.
Joseph Gale, Secretary of the Grinders Union, admitted that rattening was a
common practice, and a man then dead (Joseph Parrott) had committed very many
offences of that kind, simply actuated by pure love of the Union and charging
the Committee nothing for what he did.  He had not known one case of personal
violence in connexion with his trade. On the fourth day, Joseph Staniforth,
ex-Secretary of the Saw-Grinders Union, said he had often been rattened.  On one
occasion he paid 25/- demanded, and then went to the Royal George and "waited
for Mary Ann."  Broadhead came in from the bar, exclaiming "What have we here?"
and picked up a paper from the fender with the words on it "You'll find the
bands in -- and --."  He had connived at rattening when Secretary of the
Society, and had paid money to men for taking the bands.   The expenses of "
Mary Ann" were about 5/- per head. At the close of this examination, Broadhead,
rising in the body of court, pledged himself to prove all that witness had said
was untrue. Further evidence on this day was taken on the question of rattening,
Mr. Joseph Wragg detailing the experiences of Slack, Sellers & Co., where he was
manager. Mr. David Ward entered the witness box on the fifth day to give
evidence respecting Union interference with trade. He declared that on a certain
occasion he was anxious to engage a famous workman, a medallist at the Paris
Exhibition, to make his carving tools. The Union refused to permit the
engagement, though he offered a premium of £15.  However, the engagement was
made, the result being that sixteen grinders, also in his employ lost their
bands and nuts, and the expert workman had to be discharged and be recompensed.

GROSS PERJURY. On the sixth day of the hearing, George Shaw was guilty of what
the Chief Commissioner said was gross perjury, and the Commission was adjourned
from that day, June 8th, to the 13th, the town buzzing over the seriousness of
the business in hand--only then beginning to be realized. Up to that point the
various sittings of the Court had been interrupted by very frequent laughter and
general indications of  light-hearted men, but sterner and darker days were near
at hand. When the Commission resumed its sittings on June 13th the Chief
Commissioner said the evidence had been interrupted, so that advice should be
taken in  London with  regard  to the  perjury  committed by Shaw-the grossest
perjury he had, personally, ever known.  Speaking on his oath, and asked whether
he had ever seen Broadhead on a certain morning when the Commission was sitting,
Shaw had sworn that he had not, yet plenty of evidence had been given showing
that, on his way to the Court, Shaw had actually called at the Royal George
Hotel in Carver Street and there spoken to Broadhead. George (alias "Putty")
Shaw then came back to the witness-box, and Mr. Overend--speaking in very solemn
tones--said he would be given a chance to save himself from the punishment for
perjury which the Commissioners had at first made up their minds to inflict.
Thereupon Shaw undertook to reveal everything, and, in the Court, laughter and
light-heartedness gave place to a tragic stillness.  Shaw said he was originally
apprenticed to James Linley, who was afterwards shot by an emissary of the
Union. The Secretary, William Broadhead, was then known by the nickname of "
Smeeton," and it was in Broadhead's house, the Royal George, that Dennis Clark
asked witness if he would "do a job."  Asked what it was, he was told to blow up
"Old Topsy"  Helliwell at the Tower Wheel, a man not in the Union.  He was
offered £3 for it, went upstairs to see "Old Smeeton" and came down with three
cans of gunpowder. Then he blew Helliwell up and got 30/- as his share from
Clark. In all his evidence Shaw implicated Broadhead so seriously that the
investigations of the Commission became very greatly narrowed, and Broadhead's
amazing coolness and sang-froid began to weaken, though he still sat and
listened to witness after witness piling up the evidence against him, under the
Commission's promise of indemnity. Shaw, once more giving evidence on the 17th,
said that, because he had given evidence against that great man Broadhead, he
had reason to believe that his life was in danger.  Other witnesses about this
time were Joseph Wilson, saw manufacturer, as to the blowing up of his house and
his receipt of threatening letters, and Dennis Clark. The last named, very
obviously, had a story to tell, but he proved a great trouble to the Commission,
fencing with every question, and wasting a great deal of time.  He denied most
of the story told by Shaw, but admitted several things under extreme pressure. 
One of these was that the Unions made great efforts to gain what were known as
"knobsticks" as members, a fact which was not without its significance with the
Commission, and he also admitted that he had been "on the box" for eight years,
and in that time had drawn £200 from Union funds. Isaac Taylor, who had had his
nuts taken, told Broadhead he proposed to get along without them, but found that
would not suit the Union book at all, and Broadhead told him he was a rogue and
a fool for thinking he could do without his nuts.  Later, the witness paid
Broadhead a sum of £2 and asked for a receipt.  "No," said Broadhead, " that
would be quite out of reason."  At the proper time, after paying the £2, he
found his nuts in a stable behind Broadhead's house in Carver Street, and
foolishly admitted that he had also seen six driving bands there at the same
time. His own bands disappeared very soon afterwards. George Naylor, a saw
manufacturer, who had his bands taken in 1862, declared that Broadhead then told
him he could have them back for £2, and gradually the evidence deepened so far
as the landlord of the Royal George was concerned, and the closing act of the
drama begun.

THE SHY MAIDEN. That came with the evidence of Joseph Hallam, on the 13th June,
a saw-grinder and a very unwilling witness.  He only entered the box under the
influence of the Chief Constable, Mr. Jackson, in a promise to that gentleman to
tell all he knew.  Once in the Court, however, courage  failed  him;  he  could 
only  speak in a  whisper, and  his  "evidence " consisted of a straight denial
that Broadhead at any time got him "to do any job" for him. At the end of the
day he was committed to Wakefield for six weeks for contempt of Court. On June
17th, 1867, Mr. Sugg, who represented the Trade Unions before the Commissioners,
refused to accede to their request for production of the Union Books, though
asked to do so in open Court but, pressed by Mr. Overend to give no trouble in
the matter, altered his attitude and the books were obtained. In the meantime
William Hearnshaw, foreman for Mr. Beardshaw, had given evidence respecting "the
Shy Maiden," and her notes telling where stolen bands might be found--and where
they actually were found.  The lady in question usually added to her an apology
"for the little interruption caused." At this point Broadhead himself was
examined by the Chief Commissioner in regard to a statement by Joseph Chapman
that Broadhead had shown him a book with an  entry in--" this means to be got by
force." Broadhead denied  the existence of the book, but  admitted  using  the
words  "by the  best  means we can employ." This was a fairly quiet day though
tremendous interest was shown when Broadhead answered Mr. Overend, and by this
time the attendances which had been quite small in the first few sittings had
grown so much as to crowd the room inconveniently.  However, all that had gone
before paled into nothingness by the crush for an inch of room on the morning of
the 19th, when Joseph Hallam was brought back. He had not been sent to Wakefield
in compliance with the order of the Court: like a strong man who followed the
position right through, the Chief Constable simply kept Hallam in one of the
police-court cells, and there gradually brought a semblance of manhood back to
him by kindly advice and assurances of protection. All this transpired later;
the packed and sweltering multitude in the room believed they saw before them a
prisoner brought back from Wakefield gaol and going there again so soon as the
Commissioners had done with him.  He entered, a veritable wreck, leaning on Mr.
Jackson. For some time not a word could he speak, but Mr. Overend was
consideration itself and, at last, with hands upraised, Hallam broke out with a
fierce enquiry whether he would be safe if he told all he knew. He was assured
that was so and that, if he told all, neither criminal nor civil proceedings
would be taken against him.   How about accomplices? asked Hallam, and he was
told that they too would not be proceeded against.  At that, without further
ado, Hallam fainted away and, taken into an adjoining room, simulated seizure by
a fit and then attempted self strangulation with both hands.

A GREAT CHIEF CONSTABLE. In that he was prevented by Mr. Jackson and constables
present, and ultimately, after a long absence---  the crowd seething with
excitement--  he was taken back, the Chief Constable walking immediately behind
him, having promised Hallam that if, as he feared would be the case, anyone
fired at him, the shot would go through his (Mr.Jackson's) body before Hallam
was touched. As he stood there, with Mr. Jackson virtually at his side,
Broadhead at the other side of the table more than once unnerved Hallam by the
constant and concentrated malignity of his gaze, and the evidence came slowly
and under continual pressure. It was a long and dreadful confession that Hallam
made.  He related how Broadhead supplied him with money for the powder wherewith
he was to blow up Wheatman & Smith's works.  He had Crookes with him when the
bargain was made with Broadhead, and the works referred to were wrecked by the
gunpowder Broadhead's money had bought. More than that, it was Broadhead who
paid them for their work, saying it had been "done very well." Afterwards
Broadhead engaged the same two to "make Linley so that he wont be able to work
any more," offering £20 for the job.  It was Hallam who bought the revolver with
which to shoot Linley, and the pair dogged Linley's footsteps for weeks without
finding a convenient chance for the murder.  Later they decided that a revolver
was dangerous because of its noise, and an air gun was purchased. And then came
the climax. Linley had been tracked from the American Stores to the Crown Inn,
Scotland Street, and there, as he sat in a back room, he was shot in the head by
Crookes.  For his share Hallam got £4 10s. from Crookes and £3 from Broadhead.
Hallam declared that the reason he had previously denied complicity in the crime
was his desire to shield himself and Crookes.  The same pair waylaid Sutcliffe,
a surgical instrument maker, and attacked him with a life preserver, that also
being done for Broadhead who gave them £6. Broadhead also made overtures
respecting an attack on Fearnehough's, but said it would be better to delay it
until the Social Science Congress meetings had been held in the town.  Hallam
definitely promised to blow Fearnehough's premises up but the matter was
deferred. The Congress meetings closed on October 8th, 1865, and the outrage
occurred two days later. At the close of his evidence Hallam turned to the
Commissioners and pleaded to be taken back to the cells-- a request which was
complied with. After this came Samuel Crookes.  He confirmed Hallam's story in
every detail, and had come straight from his wheel to do so.  At the end of the
day-- surely historic in the records of the town-- Mr. Overend said the court
did not know what course it would have to take with respect to Broadhead. On the
following morning Broadhead was not present in Court. Mr. Sugg opened with a
decision by the Union Defence come to at a meeting held the previous night at
Broadhead's house, the Royal George, deciding to hold itself aloof from the Saw
Trade Union until the charges had been further investigated.  The Committee was
astounded at the revelations made during the enquiry, believing when it joined
in the appeal for a Royal Commission that such things were not connived at or
countenanced by officers of the Union. Broadhead  came  in   later  and, 
without  preamble,  the   Chief  Commissioner advised him to take advantage of
the leniency of the Act of  the Commission and obtain a certificate of indemnity
and, after some hesitation, Broadhead agreed. He confessed that questions such
as those mentioned during the Commission had not gone before his Committee; he
admitted the outrage on Linley, and was prepared to admit, in substance, the
evidence given by Hallam and Crookes. He "regretted" to say that he did hire
Crookes to shoot at Linley on two occasions.  Broadhead gave his evidence in
marked clearness, and gave many indications of being a very able man, but at
these admissions there was a great scene in Court, and for some minutes he was
assailed by storms of hissing.

BROADHEAD IN THE BOX. Broadhead, however, stood firm, idly toying with his
eyeglasses, until the storm abated, and then callously went on  He told the
Court how various outrages had been arranged by him, and declared that, in
Linley's case, his orders were to wound-- not to kill. He felt the necessity for
the action he had planned believing that otherwise the power of the Union would
be destroyed, and it was only through considerations of trade that he had acted
as he did.  Presumably it was a despairing sop to the Union men before him, but
it failed. He denied the evidence given by Shaw with regard to Helliwell, but
admitted his engagement of Hallam and Crookes for the outrage at Wheatman &
Smith's works, and 200 was not an extravagant estimate of the number of
rattening cases he had arranged-- a remark which caused renewed storms of abuse
from a crowd which the many constables present could only hold in hand with
difficulty. He gave two names, one of a dead man the other that of a man who had
gone to the States, as carrying out most of the cases, and said that, even if
his certificate was refused, he could not for the life of him remember the name
of any other man he had employed. He referred to the Investigating Committee
formed in 1861, and detailed  its  mode  of  dealing  with  defaulters-
presumably  the  secret Committee alluded to in previous evidence. He had paid
three sums of as much as £20 for blowing-up cases. The income of his Society was
at that time £44 a week, and all the books referring to the period when Linley
was shot "had gone." At the close of this tale of horror the police found it
necessary in force to escort Broadhead through an infuriated and dangerous crowd
down Chapel Walk, with hooting and molestation all the way.  A cab was secured
in Church Street and "the chief monarch of the saw trade was taken home! " He
was in the box again the following day-- a broken and humble man, often crying
bitterly as he answered the questions.  He then admitted complicity in the cases
of Elisha Parker and Helliwell, the blowing up of Firth's boilers, a chimney at
Loxley, and of Holdsworth's works.   That was after he had been warned by the
Court, Mr. Overend saying he presumed witness had a coarse sense of honour. To
this Broadhead retorted: Can I rely on mercy to all I refer to? " Mr. Overend,
-"Yes."  "Then I will tell you all." After that the Commission did not sit until
July 2nd, when Mr. Overend appeared on crutches as a result of a bad fall. 
Robert Renshaw, a file grinder, confessed to the outrage at Wastnidge's house
whereby a woman, O'Rourke, was killed.  At that time Wastnidge was employed by
Mr. H. E. Hoole at the Green Lane Works. The Chief Commissioner said the work of
the Commission had been got through much quicker than had been anticipated, and
there were very few witnesses left. On the 8th the Commission was closed. Mr.
Leng on the previous day published the text of various threatening letters he
had received during the hearing of the evidence, and it is a fact that for some
time before the coming of the Commission and during its sittings, his return to
the office from his supper was with one police constable on either hand and a
third at the back, for those were no easy times for the solitary pedestrian who
had enemies in the town.  By this time Broadhead's house, the "Royal George," in
Carver Street, had earned the nickname of "the murderer's house of call." Very
many years later I spent an afternoon at Dore with Mr. Samuel Smith.  It was his
91st birthday and he, with all his faculties unimpaired, told me many things
respecting those terrible days in the town.  He was then a member of the
Sheffield Police Force; he recalled the dramatic sittings of the Commission in
the town-- his recollections were quite clear-- and declared that "it was only
Mr. Leng who saved Sheffield then.  There  was not a manufacturer," he added,
"in the town, not a public man or a  nobleman  who dared  say a word for fear 
of  his  life,  but  Mr.  Leng  spoke out straight and wrote straight in his
paper, and didn't care what happened to himself so long as Sheffield's name was
saved."  Mr. Smith was one of  the little bodyguard of constables who used  to 
escort Mr. Leng at night. A revival of rattening occurred in March, 1874, when
the little mesters along the Rivelin valley and up the valley of the Loxley had
their bands removed by mysterious visitants and could not understand it.  The
Rivelin workshops-- small, insanitary, and pitiable, until in their decay they
fell into strange lines of beauty-- were the cradles in which Sheffield trades
were rocked, and they were continued long after their trade had gone into the
big works of the town.  For all that, prosperity waited on those who persevered
in the valleys, which were very suitable places for the erection of the
necessary dams and certainty of a good supply of water at all times. They were
ramshackle workshops amid the most glorious scenery. The principal scene of this
renewed rattening was at Nethercut Wheel (Marshall's), where scythes and shears
were made and where non-unionists were openly employed.

SAMUEL CROOKES. Samuel Crookes died in Sheffield on May 19th, 1882, and it was
then recalled that, after the dreadful revelations of murder and other outrages
by him in evidence before the Royal Commission in 1867, my father, the Rev.
Robert Stainton, went to Crookes' employers, Messrs. Taylor, of Mowbray Street,
and persuaded them to reinstate Crookes in their employment.  It is a fact that
within an hour of the visit Mr. Leng went down to Mowbray Street from the
Telegraph Offices and told Messrs. Taylor that they must not think of
reinstating Crookes as the town would not hear of such a thing, but he was told
that the word of the firm had been passed and that Crookes would go back. This
created a very great deal of discussion, bitter and vehement, and the aid of The
Times was invoked to denounce what was being done. The fortnightlies also took
part, the matter was mentioned in the House, and when The Times stated that Mr.
Stainton was "a clergyman in Sheffield," two local vicars declared equally
erroneously that he was merely a preacher in a schoolroom. And this all arose
because Crookes who, on the promise of a free pardon had confessed his crimes,
was to be given a chance to reform and to maintain his wife and family, knowing
quite well that nowhere else in this country would he have the least likelihood
of employment, whereas Broadhead, the instigator and chief criminal, in esse if
not in posse, had been given a testimonial in order to leave the country and--
came back to Sheffield. This was fifteen years prior to Crookes' death, and
during those years he worked faithfully and diligently for his old firm, living
what the Telegraph itself described as "a quiet and decent life."  That was
precisely what those had hoped for who were responsible for securing him his old
position with Messrs. Taylor, and what they believed would happen, regarding
Crookes as victim of Broadhead and a mere tool in a strong man's hands. A
quarter of a century before the sittings of this Commission there had been
plenty of rattening in the town and its surroundings.  In 1840 John Lee was
committed to York for destroying machinery at the Old Water Wheel in Blonk
Street, being sentenced to one year's imprisonment. In the following year Thomas
Booth and John Gregory were similarly sent to York, each being sentenced to
seven years transportation for rattening at the Spring Grove Wheel,
Oughtibridge; in 1842 Mr. Dyson's wheel at Abbeydale was blown up by gunpowder;
in 1843 came an explosion of gunpowder at Globe Works, an iron pipe charged with
gunpowder being put through a window in the warehouse and fired by a fuse.
Various rewards were offered for information which would lead to conviction,
these eventually amounting to £1,000 in October, 1843. Three years later a
committee of masters and workmen commenced a series of discussions as to the
imputations which were made respecting Trade Unions as promotive of outrages and
the cause of recent explosions, and a year later Alexander and Thomas Heathcote
were convicted of rattening at Kelham Wheel, and each sentenced to seven years
transportation.

JACOB HOLYOAKE'S STORY. Most curious of all was a statement made in the story of
his life by George Jacob Holyoake. He came here in 1856 to test bombs. They were
to be used by Italian workmen for street fighting against their employers.  The
well-remembered agitator said that Sheffield was chosen because it was a noisy
manufacturing town in which the noise of the exploding  bombs  would  not be so
clearly  heard  as  elsewhere. He had "a dreadful journey" from London on a
third-class Midland train which occupied something like seven hours for the
journey, and all the way, in a crowded carriage, Holyoake sat with a bomb in
each outside jacket pocket, ready percussioned, and he sat wondering at what
precise instant the jog of a neighbour's elbow would set one or other of them
off. Even when Sheffield was reached trouble was not over. He dared not take a
cab for fear of an accident, he walked up to his lodgings carrying the bombs in
a little black bag, and there had them in front of him in the little black bag
with every meal he took. And when he went out lecturing the first evening he had
the bag in front of him on his little platform. When he went out the following
day to execute his commission he declared that  he  could  not  find  a  street
or road sufficiently straight for his purpose, for there were to be no houses
where the test was to take place.  He knew Sheffield quite well through his
friendship with Ebenezer Elliott, and eventually decided on a disused quarry. 
He confessed that it had villas quite close and that their gardens ran to the
fringe of the quarry; but it was the only suitable place he could find, and he
threw one of his bombs down. The reverberation was terrific, and people came out
of nowhere to find out what had caused it.  Holyoake, however, had sauntered
away quite satisfied with the one test, and that night he wrote to his friends
in London the following letter: "My two companions behaved as well as could be
expected. One has said nothing, perhaps through lack of opportunity, and the
other on being put on his mettle went off in high dudgeon.  He was heard of
immediately afterwards, but has not been seen since." William Broadhead returned
to Sheffield in February, 1870, from the States, where he had been unable to
secure employment.  He had lost the license of the "Royal George" Inn, No. 60
Carver Street, as the result of the findings of the Commission, and, later, at a
meeting of those who had subscribed to enable the ringleader to emigrate, the
Rev. J. F. Witty, then vicar of S. Matthew's Church, said three classes of the
community had subscribed to the fund: one because it admired his acts, a second
because of his wife and family, and the third because it wished to get rid of
him.  Broadhead died in March, 1879, when 63 years old, after a long illness,
and it is said that after his return from the States, he was, in Sheffield, "a
very lonely and much-avoided man."