Now! Then! 2024! - Yorkshire On This Day

Excerpt

After the jury had been in deliberation for nearly two hours, the foreman said their verdict was as follows: “That James Gibbs was killed by a bullet wound inflicted by soldiers firing into a crowd in Green Lane from Ackton Hall Colliery, after the Riot Act had been read, on Thursday evening last, and that since James Gibbs was a peaceable man and took no part in any riotous proceedings, the jury record their sympathy with the deceased’s relatives and friends. The jury also find that if the whole district had not been deprived of police, who had been sent to Doncaster races, there would have been no necessity to call the military at all, as the police would have been assisted by miners and others resident in putting down the disturbance created by outsiders.” As a rider they added, “That, seeing Mr Holliday had sworn on oath there was no further disturbance beyond stone-throwing after eight o’clock, the firing on the crowd, who had been got off the premises, was deeply to be regretted, and also that such extreme measures were adopted by the authorities.” The coroner said that was scarcely a sufficient decision for a verdict. He asked if they found there was wilful murder. The Foreman replied in the negative. Coroner: Or that the killing was justifiable? Foreman: They were not in a position to say that. Coroner: You must do one or the other. Foreman: We cannot come to that decision. Coroner: Do you agree that the deceased was shot by the military during a riot? Foreman: We don’t say that. Coroner: Was it justifiable homicide? Foreman: That we cannot say. Coroner: Then your verdict will simply be an open one. Foreman: We think it is sufficient. Coroner: There is no doubt about that, but was the firing legal or illegal? Foreman: The jury do not feel at liberty to say that. Coroner: Well, it is my duty to record the verdict you return. Foreman: We shall be glad if you can help us. Coroner: I cannot say more than give my opinion on a riot. I believe if the authorities had not interfered the mortality would have been greater. It is an unsatisfactory verdict. Foreman: If we stay here till Christmas we can do no more. The coroner then entered a verdict, “That deceased on the 7th of September was shot by the military from the Ackton Hall Colliery after the Riot Act had been read, whereby he died.” The foreman wished the press to state that the jury was a representative one, and had had great difficulty.

Comment

Comment

From the Spanish Civil War I’m familiar with deals where people from place A sin in place B, and vice versa, in order to avoid recognition, but I don’t get the impression from the articles in the Mercury that the troublemakers were all strangers, though it may have been convenient to say so – perhaps in order to maintain Lister’s commitment to the pit.

How to construe “queer”? Irvin Saxton, who has done a brilliant job of collecting material relating to the history of Featherstone, says the jury was chosen by Sergeant Sparrow and included miners, checkweighmen, deputies, a builder, a timekeeper and a postman (Saxton 2021/03). What does “chosen” mean, etc. etc.? And oh! to have been a fly on the wall as they balanced truth with expediency!

Saxton cites Asquith, home secretary in Gladstone’s 1892-95 Liberal government, and his self-justification is also interesting:

The Featherstone Riot … aroused considerable controversy at the time, and earned for me for some years in the rhetoric of the Labour platform the designation of “Asquith the Murderer.” It came about as follows. A miners’ coal strike had been for some time going on at or near Featherstone in the West Riding of Yorkshire. Its progress was marked by growing disturbances, which developed into organized violence and arson. The local magistrates, with whom the responsibility for the preservation of peace and the protection of property primarily rests, were soon brought to the end of their resources; they tried in vain to supplement their own police by borrowing from adjoining areas; and at last, in response to their repeated appeals to the Home Office, I sanctioned their applying for the necessary help from the military forces in the neighbourhood, whose legal duty it is, according to the Common Law of England, as citizens, to come to the aid of the civil power in such an emergency.

Their intervention put an end to the whole disturbance within forty-eight hours. A magistrate was present with the troops; he made no fewer than seven appeals to the crowd, who were armed with sticks and bludgeons, to discontinue the work of destruction, much valuable property being already ablaze; the Riot Act was read; a bayonet charge was unavailingly made; and as the defensive position held by the small detachment of soldiers (fewer than thirty men) was becoming untenable, and the complete destruction of the colliery was imminent, the magistrate gave orders to the commander to fire. Two men on the fringe of the crowd were unfortunately killed.

As I was not satisfied, after a careful study of the evidence given at the two inquests, that all the facts had been adequately investigated, I took the unusual course of appointing a Special Commission to examine and report upon the whole affair. The commissioners whom I nominated were Lord Bowen, one of the most eminent of the judicial members of the House of Lords, Sir Albert Rollit, a solicitor of wide experience and a Conservative M.P., and Mr. Haldane, then a Liberal member, and afterwards Lord Chancellor.

No one disputed the impartiality and competence of the Commission, and after an exhaiistive inquiry at Wakefield they made a Report, setting out in detail all the facts, defining in a passage which has become a classic in our law, the respective duties of the civil and military powers in such cases, and completely justifying in every respect the action both of tlie magistrates and of the officers and rank and file of the soldiers. The matter was then fully debated in the House of Commons, when I challenged in vain my accusers to prefer and make good any charge which they thought fit to make.

It took years, however, to dissipate the legend, assiduously circulated, mainly by ejaculations from the back benches of so-called “Labour” meetings, that I had sent down the soldiers deliberately to help the owners in the dispute and to thin the ranks of the strikers.
(Asquith 1928)

Guardian opinion:

It is with a kind of despair that those who have hoped that this dispute might end with some concession on the part of the coal-owners now see a small reckless percentage of the colliers throwing away tactical advantages. Hitherto public sympathy has been remarkably evenly divided between the parties. The miners’ refusal of arbitration has been resented by many; the abrupt and tactless demand of the coal-owners for a heavy [wage] reduction “in one piece” has been resented by about as many more.

But riots like this bring a mass of fresh public opinion to bear. The miners appear as wanton robbers and destroyers, the coal-owners as law-abiding men subjected to cruel injury.

For the sake of the miners and of trade unionism itself, we hope that every repetition of these blundering crimes will be repressed with more common sense than when soldiers were helplessly looking on for want of a magistrate to read the Riot Act.
(Guardian 1893/09/09)

A Mercury article published on the same day or shortly thereafter contradicts the Guardian line that three died: apparently Tomlinson survived.

Something to say? Get in touch

Original

After the jury had been in deliberation for nearly two hours, the Foreman (Mr. Higgins) said their verdict was as follows:- “That James Gibbs was killed by a bullet wound inflicted by soldiers firing into a crowd in Green-lane from Ackton Hall Colliery, after the Riot Act had been read, on Thursday evening last, and that since James Gibbs was a peaceable man and took no part in any riotous proceedings, the jury record their sympathy with the deceased, relatives, and friends. The jury also find that if the whole district had not been deprived of police, who had been sent to Doncaster races, there would have been no necessity to call the military at all, as the police would have been assisted by miners and others resident in putting down the disturbance created by outsiders. As a rider they added, “That, seeing Mr. Holliday had sworn on oath there was no further disturbance beyond stone-throwing after eight o’clock, the firing on the crowd, who had been got off the premises, was deeply to be regretted, and also that such extreme measures were adopted by the authorities.
The Coroner said that was scarcely a sufficient decision for a verdict. He asked if they found there was wilful murder.
The Foreman replied in the negative.
The Coroner: Or that the killing was justifiable?
The Foreman said they were not in a position to say that.
The Coroner: You must do one or the other.
The Foreman: We cannot come to that decision.
The Coroner: Do you agree that the deceased was shot by the military during a riot?
The Foreman: We don’t say that.
The Coroner: Was it justifiable homicide?
The Foreman: That we cannot say.
The Coroner: Then your verdict will simply be an open one.
The Foreman: We think it is sufficient.
The Coroner: There is no doubt about that; but was the firing legal or illegal?
The Foreman: The jury do not feel at liberty to say that.
The Coroner: Well, it is my duty to record the verdict you return.
The Foreman: We shall be glad if you can help us.
The Coroner: I cannot say more than give my opinion on a riot. I believe if the authorities had not interfered the mortality would have been greater. It is an unsatisfactory verdict.
The Foreman: If we stay here till Christmas we can do no more.
The Coroner then entered a verdict-“That deceased on the 7th of September was shot by the military from the Ackton Hall Colliery after the Riot Act had been read, whereby he died.”
The Foreman wished the Press to state that the jury was a representative one, and had had great difficulty. Notwithstanding the report that they were a queer jury, they congratulated the Coroner and Sergeant Sparrow upon their conduct during the inquiry.

498 words.

Tags

Tags are assigned inclusively on the basis of an entry’s original text and any comment. You may find this confusing if you only read an entry excerpt.

• Ackton (1) ·
• Coal mining (24) ·
• Doncaster Racecourse (4) ·
• Featherstone (1) ·
• Homicide (2) ·
• Horse racing (9) ·
• Inquest (14) ·
• Jury (7) ·
• Justifiable homicide (1), a defence to culpable (criminal or negligent) homicide ·
• Liberal government, 1892–1895 (1) ·
• Miners’ Federation of Great Britain (2) ·
• Murder (38) ·
• Picketing (2) ·
• Police (10) ·
• 📌Pontefract (19) ·
• Queen Victoria (9) ·
• Riot Act (7) ·
• Riot (22) ·
• Samuel Cunliffe Lister, 2nd Baron Masham (1) ·
• Staffordshire (2) ·
• Strike action (9) ·
• UK miners’ strike (1893) (1) ·
• William Ewart Gladstone (4) ·

All tags.

Similar

• 8 May 1849: Amid revelations of fraud at the York, Newcastle and Berwick Railway, Richard Nicholson, business partner and brother-in-law of the Railway King, George Hudson, drowns himself in the Ouse at York
• 27 July 1822: An inquest at York finds that John Furnel of the Queen’s Regiment of Foot died of flogging and resulting illness
• 29 November 1880: A Sheffield inquest deals less with the death of James Brady than with the storage of his corpse
• 5 November 1866: Bonfire Night firework riots at Halifax
• 25 March 1831: Esther Dyson of Ecclesfield (Sheffield), charged with decapitating her infant daughter, is judged insane because she is deaf-mute
• 20 October 1676: John Reresby of Thrybergh Hall (Rotherham) hears that the Duke of Norfolk is telling London that he killed a Barbadian servant by castrating him
• 3 August 1846: Aged one month, Frances Jane Campbell becomes the latest Leeds victim of the opiate epidemic
• 5 September 1860: Friends of Elizabeth Mitchell (14), murdered by a fellow-servant at Upton (Pontefract), bear her to her grave at South Kirkby
• 27 November 1833: Lewis Fenton, Huddersfield MP, falls mysteriously from the upper window of his house
• 27 August 1673: John Holden fatally mugs his wife at Lightcliffe (Calderdale), but witnesses are fearful, and the jury sees only manslaughter