LEEDS MERCURY
Mallinson v. Carver & Driver
18 March 1843 Supplement. page 10, col. 2.
NISI PRIUS COURT, Friday, March 10. [Before Mr. Baron Parke]
Mr. Watson and Mr. Hugh Hill appeared for the Plaintiffs; Mr. Knowles for the defendants.
The declaration was that certain goods were given to the defendants under contract to convey and to deliver them at Liverpool, and that they were not delivered. Defendants pleaded that there was no contract, and also that the goods were not the property of the plaintiffs, but of one George Bower, a bankrupt, to whose assignees they were delivered. This was denied. In May last year, many persons were emigrating to the United States from the neighbourhood of Huddersfield, and the plaintiffs, who had resided at Bradley Mills, also prepared to emigrate. They collected a quantity of tools, clothes, provisions, and other goods for themselves, their wives and children, and among them were a few things belonging to a person named Bower, son of the George Bower mentioned in the plea, who also was emigrating. These packages were delivered to the carriers for conveyance from Huddersfield to Liverpool, and the direction of Mallinson and Bower was put upon them. There was another small package of hardware belonging to Bower, not involved in this action. The plintiffs’ mother sent a person named Joseph Bower to desire the carrier’s man to call for the goods, which he did. The goods were worth from £40 to £45. The Mallinsons went to Liverpool, and having paid £33 for their passage money, applied to the carriers for the goods, when the delivery of them was refused, on the grounds that they belonged to George Bower, a bankrupt. Thus the plaintiffs lost their passage money and their goods, but the former could not be recovered. By the assistance of friends, the plaintiffs raised money for their passage, and went out.
To support the case, the mother of the plaintiffs was called, who confirmed the statement of Mr. Watson, and was examined by Mr. Knowles to elicit that George Bower, her brother, who was the bankrupt named, had been at her house about the time these goods were sent off, which she denied, and had himself run away to America about the same time. She enumerated many of the goods, and spoke to their value.
Joseph Mallinson, a brother of the plaintiffs, proved that he went with these goods to the carriers, and paid the carriage. Witness was asked by the carriers how they should be directed, and he said they might put Mallinsons and Bowers, for two Bowers were going with them.
Joseph Bower, uncle of the Mallinsons the plaintiffs, and brother of George Bower, accompanied the plaintiffs to the defendants’ warehouse in Liverpool, to demand the goods. In answer to their demand of the goods, the person at the warehouse refused to deliver them, saying he had orders not to do so.
Cross-examined by Mr. Knowles. -He could not identify the bookkeeper they saw. He denied that they said that the goods were not theirs, but belonged to their uncle. When asked why he went to Liverpool on that occasion, witness said, first, he went on business; then that he went pleasuring, and pleasuring was business. He was there three days before he saw his nephews, and he met them in the street. He left his nephews at the carriers’ warehouse, and returned home. He did not see his brother George in Liverpool.
Richard Ramsden, bookkeeper at Huddersfield to Carver & Driver, proved the partnership.
This was the case for the plaintiffs.
Mr. Knowles put it to his Lordship whether the contract was not with Mallinsons and Bowers?
His Lordship decided that it was not, and Mr. Knowles then addressed the jury for the defendants. He should show that the plaintiffs represented to the carriers at Liverpool that the goods were not theirs. As to their value, the property sold for £12 or £13. He should show that a creditor of George Bower’s, who lived near Holmfirth, went there to apply for money. He found that George Bower had gone to America, and that four packages of goods had been conveyed for him to Liverpool. Mr. Hague, therefore, went to Liverpool, and hearing at Carver and Driver’s of the goods, desired that they might be detained, and any person applying should be referred to the office of Mr. Cornthwaite, solicitor. The plaintiffs accordingly went there, and said, as he should prove, that the goods were not theirs, but their uncle’s. On this statement the defendants acted. George Bower was made a bankrupt, and the goods were seized by the messenger under the bankruptcy. The carriers’ clerk at Liverpool proved the demand by the plaintiffs of the four packages. They were desired to call, and did so, but witness had no recollection that Jos. Bower was with them. Witness went with them to Mr. Cornthwaite’s office, where they saw Mr. Pemberton, the clerk. They gave their names, and said they had no interest in the goods, which belonged to their uncle, George Bower, who was going to America, and that they were come merely to see him off, and that they were not going with him. They did not know where he was, as he had not yet arrived. Two or three days after they again came to demand the goods, and said the tools in the packages belonged to them, and were all that they wanted. He did not give them up, and saw the plaintiffs no more. Bower, the witness, was not with them on that occasion.
Cross-examined. - They had two offices in Liverpool.
Mr. David Hague proved the order to stop the goods.
Pemberton, the attorney’s clerk, also spoke to the conversation at Mr. Cornthwaite’s office, and an auctioneer proved that the goods sold for £13 odd.
Mr. Watson addressed the jury in reply, and commented upon the stoppage of the goods as an illegal act, and on the catechising of the young men without adviser or friend at the attorney’s office. He contended that it was wholly incredible that the plaintiffs should have said the goods were not theirs: they might have said that they were not going to America with George Bower, but they could not say that they were not going.
The Learned Judge proceeded to sum up, and told the Jury they were to decide whether the contract was with the plaintiffs jointly, and if so, what was the damage.
Verdict for the Plaintiffs; Damages £40.
[Tree 5b. George Mallinson, born 1780, Netherthong, married Ann Bower, born 1787, Holmfirth, 18 Feb 1810 at All Hallows, Almondbury. They moved from Townend, Wooldale to Bradley Road End between 1823 and 1825. George became Innkeeper of the Waggon & Horses in Leeds Road. He died 30 Jan 1841, aged 60, and Ann took over the licence. They had five sons, three of whom survived into adulthood: Jonas Mallinson, Slubber, born 20 July 1811 at Fearnought, Netherthong; George Mallinson, Joiner and later Innkeeper of the Waggon & Horses, born 31 Dec 1822 at Townend, Wooldale; Matthew Mallinson, born 1 May 1825 at Bradley Mill, died 30 Sep 1828, aged 3;twins Benjamin and Joseph Mallinson, born 29 Aug 1828 at Bradley Mill. Benjamin died 1 Oct 1828, aged 7 weeks. Joseph had multiple occupations, including cordwainer, greengrocer, railway porter and iron founder. Since he appears in the above case as a witness, the two litigious Mallinsons involved must have been Jonas and George.]
3 October 1846 Supplement page 1, col. 4.
GUILDHALL, Saturday Sept. 26 - Magistrates present - J. Armitage, W.W. Battye, J. Sutcliffe, S. Starkey, and J. Brooke, Esqus.
Mrs. Mallinson, of the Waggon and Horses Inn, was fined 20s. and costs 9s for suffering tippling in her house on the previous Sunday forenoon during the hours of divine service.
Election of the Huddersfield Improvement Commissioners.
15 September 1849 page 10, col. 2.
On Thursday, the first election of Commissioners under the Huddersfield Improvement Act, took place in the Guildhall, before Joseph Brook, Esq., the chairman of the commission and also returning officer as such chairman under the act. The first body of eighteen Commissioners having been selected by ballot out of a list of twenty-five, chosen and voted unanimously at a public meeting of the owners and occupiers of property were named as such in the act itself; and at one of the early meetings a ballot was taken to determine the order in which the gentlemen so named should retire, the full period of service for each gentleman elected or named being three years, with the provision that one-third of the entire should retire annually. It was to fill up the vacancies occasioned by the retirement of the first six drawn on the ballot that the election on Thursday was held. Active preparations for a contest have been made for some time, and considerable exertions used by the friends of the respective parties to procure their election. First, a list was put forth of six gentlemen, and recommended to the ratepayers without the authority or recommendation of any portion of the voters assembled for that purpose; and even in some instances without the knowledge or consent of the parties named. After the publication of this first list, a meeting of a considerable number of ratepayers was convened by circular addressed to 300 parties, with a request that each party so addressed would invite others to confer together, and determine on the selection of a list to be recommended to the general support of the ratepayers. The meeting was accordingly held, and attended by a large number of respectable ratepayers, and the decision was to recommend five of the retiring commissioners for re-election, and Mr. Henry Charlesworth to supply the place of one of the retiring commissioners, who was leaving the town. This decision giving umbrage to the party who had originally put out a list without consultation or meeting at all, they designated the meeting as a hole-and-corner one, and represented the proceedings taken to prevent the intrusion of uninvited parties to a private meeting as despotic and arbitrary; and for the purpose of procuring a real expression of public opinion, a requisition to the Constable was signed and presented, and a public meeting of the inhabitants called. At that meeting, which was certainly not one of the quietest and most orderly, a list of six gentleman was agreed upon, being a selection from each of the previously published lists; and yet, strange to say, the parties who had so loudly complained of hole and corner meetings, and of dictation, and of excluding the public from their legitimate influence and expression of opinion, set their own public meeting at defiance, and in their voting papers and addresses and printed recommendations included the names of those who had been deliberated by the public meeting, and excluded those parties on whom the choice of the public had fallen. On Thursday the poll was taken, the proceedings and modes at the election of commissioners under the Huddersfield Act being in nearly all respects similar to the elections under the Municipal Corporations’ Acts; the voting being by means of a voting paper presented personally to the presiding or returning officer, and each male person rated to the general rates under the Improvement Acts, being privileged to vote for as many persons as there are vacancies to fill. The proceedings throughout the day were of a quiet and orderly character, but still of sufficient interest to cause no little degree of speculation as to the result. The hours of voting were from nine to four, and the poll proceeded at a tolerable pace all day, but particularly so during the dinner hour. At four the doors of the Guildhall were closed, the public having up to that time been admitted to witness the proceedings; and about six they were again thrown open, and a goodly number again assembled to hear the declaration of the election. After a little more time had been occupied in counting up the poll books, Joseph Brook Esq., the returning-officer, stated that having taken the pains to ascertain the number of votes given for each candidate, he was enabled to state the result as follows:
Mr. Hy. Charlesworth 400
Mr. Thomas Firth, jun 396
Mr. Thos. Mallinson 385
Mr. Jereh. Riley 357
Mr. Wm. Paul England 324
Mr. John Firth 319
Mr. Samuel Routledge 309
Mr. Joseph Shaw 289
Mr. Samuel Hirst 276
Mr. John R. Machin 248
Mr. Robt. Spivey 235
Mr. Jas. Brook 213
And he therefore declared that the first six above named were duly elected improvement commissioners for the town of Huddersfield for the next three years. A vote of thanks was unanimously passed to the returning-officer for the impartial manner in which he had conducted the election, and the proceedings thus terminated. Three of the gentlemen above selected, Messrs. T. Mallinson, T. Firth, and W.P. England, were retiring commissioners, and the other three are gentlemen of station and influence in the town, who will, no doubt, endeavour to carry out the important provisions and powers devolved upon them in an impartial and single-minded manner for the public good.
[Tree 4. Thomas Mallinson, Woollen Merchant, born 24 April 1812, christened Abraham Thomas Mallinson 10 May 1812 at Queen Street Methodist Chapel, son of George Mallinson and Elizabeth Ashton, died 9 April 1863, aged 50, buried 15 April 1863 at Edgerton Cemetery. The Board of Improvement Commissioners was authorised by Act of Parliament on the 14th August 1848. The government of the town passed to twenty-one commissioners. Sir John Ramsden appointed three and the rest were elected annually by the ratepayers, six to retire each year by rotation. To be eligible for election one had to be rated at £30 or receive not less than £50 a year in rent from property in the town, or hold at least £1,000. The Board’s two most important achievements were the opening of Edgerton Cemetery in 1855 and the Model Lodging House, Chapel Hill, in 1853.]
The Expelled Wesleyan Ministers at Huddersfield
24 November 1849 page 7, col. 1.
The Rev. Messrs. James Everett, Samuel Dunn, and Wm. Griffith, the three ministers expelled from the Wesleyan body by the Conference held at Manchester during the present year, attended at Huddersfield on Wednesday evening, for the purpose of giving to the Wesleyans of that district a viva voce statement of the proceedings connected with their expulsion. The three Rev. Gentlemen took tea with their friends and sympathisers, to the number of about 600, in the Philosophical Hall, and afterwards the tables were removed to make room for the crowd that sought admission. Soon after the time appointed for the commencement of business, the hall was crowded to excess, the orchestra, saloon, and gallery being densely packed from that period till the close of proceedings, at a quarter past eleven o’ clock. There was a good sprinkling of ladies present in the orchestra and in the front seats of the saloon; but the bulk of the audience were of the other sex, and we have no doubt from what we saw and heard, a very large proportion of them were members of or connected with the Wesleyan body in some other way; indeed the tickets were reserved for Wesleyans till all who wished to be present had been supplied. The appearance of the audience, too, was highly respectable, as well as numerous. The hall, as we have said, was densely packed, and we are told that it is calculated to hold from 1,000 to 1,500 persons.
The three expelled ministers had a most enthusiastic reception, while the sentiments they uttered met with a no less hearty and ready response. In fact, they so completely carried the meeting with them, that when resolutions in their favour, and conemnatory of the proceedings of Conference, were put to the vote, only one or two hands were held up against them. The following gentlemen, most of whom are members of the Wesleyan body, were present at the meeting, and with the exception of the Rev. Amos Learoyd, and a very few others, they are all said to sympathise with the expelled ministers: Joseph Webb, Esq., the chairman; Messrs. George Mallinson, Joseph Sykes, Wm. Swain, Wm. Mallinson, Robert Butterworth, and Joseph Brierley, circuit stewards; Benjamin Hey, Samuel Booth, Jonathan Wrigglesworth, Joseph Darley, John Kaye, Joshua Kaye, Edwin Lister, Wm. Lidster, John Dyson, John Bennett, John Haigh, solicitor, John Berry, Edwin Jowitt, Robert Owen, John Jepson, John Wrigley, of Lindley, Mr. Carter, of Kirkburton, Mr. Joseph Oddy, Mr. Alfred Smith; also the Rev. Wm. Leigh, Primitive Methodist.
From the Buxton Road circuit - The Rev. Amos Learoyd, T. Mallinson, Esq., circuit steward; G. Brooke, Esq., society steward; Messrs. Joseph Bentley, John Carr, John Taylor, Benjamin Vickerman, Jas. Dyson, Wm. Haigh, solicitor, Thomas Wilkinson, Richard Tinker, James Cocker, Richard Roberts, George Lockwood, Frank Vickerman, Wm. Smith, John Sizer, Joshua Riley, George Atha, Simeon Shaw, of Lockwood, - Hanson, John Kirk, Thomas Wigfield, of Rotherham; also, Messrs. J. Jeffreys, J. Wiseman, J.W. Walker, J. Kellett, T. Mitchell, H. Taylor, J. Patchett, J. Dodgson, from Halifax; C.S. Floyd, Esq., solicitor, Holmfirth; S. Routledge, Esq., &c.
On the motion of Mr. Samuel Booth, surgeon, seconded by Mr. Jno. Kaye, Joseph Webb, Esq., was unanimously called upon to preside.
The Chairman, on assuming the post of president, was very loudly applauded. He said - In consenting to take the chair this evening, I have had to do violence to my own feelings, inasmuch as I feel myself incapable of filling that post as I should like to have seen it filled, and as it would, I believe, have been filled, if Mr. Mallinson’s state of health had been such as to enable him to preside. (Hear, hear.)
I have had to do violence to my feelings also, because many who will disapprove of our meeting together to-night are my personal and esteemed friends, those whom we think it our duty to oppose, from one of the missionary secretaries down to many, very many, who hold minor posts in Wesleyan Methodism. (Hear, hear.) Many of those friends I was associated with, and am glad, and shall yet be glad, to call my personal friends, though at the same time I shall be obliged to differ with them in the views they take and in the acts they have done, and yet I should not look for a breach of that friendship. (Hear, hear, hear.) It is very likely some here may differ with those of us who sympathise with our three worthy friends, but should there be any - I believe they will only be a few - (hear, hear, and applause) - but should there be any, I hope they will think and let think, which is nought but principle. (Applause) I am sure it shall not break in upon any personal friendships I have, so far as I am concerned; and if any estrangement takes place it shall be on their part and not on mine. (Hear, hear, and loud applause.) You are well aware the object which has brought us together to-night is to sympathise with the three individuals present, two of whom I can call personal friends of my own; one I have met for the first time to-night, but whose character I have well known; and I should not be going too far to call those three individual ornaments of that body which has expelled them. (Much applause) I know many persons will blame them for the part they are now taking, but they should remember that it is a very convenient thing for any one who has unjustifiably thrown an opponent down to ask him to be very quiet and say nothing at all about it. (Laughter and applause)
I for one don’t blame the three reverend gentlemen for bringing their case before the public. (No, no, and applause.) I think it will be attended with good. That is the reason they are here to-night; that is the reason I have subscribed towards supporting them. (Applause.) It is true, no agitation can take place without being attended with some evil results, but if a greater evil can be checked by the lesser one, good must result from the movement. (Hear, hear, hear.) I believe, I have always thought, and have invariably shown it by my conduct, that Wesleyan Methodism is one of the finest instruments that Providence has called into use for the evangelization, not only of our own country, but of the world. (Hear, hear.) And believing this, I have thrown my energies and so much of my property as I could spare into that channel, but there has nothing occurred which to my mind is so much calculated to mar this instrumentality for good as the recent proceedings, and that spirit which has of late manifested itself in our body. (Hear, hear, and applause.) That to which I allude is the centralization of power in the hands of a few individuals. (Cries of “That’s it,” “Capital,” “Hear, hear,” and much applause.) That spirit, in fact, which we have seen to be the ruin of every political party or system which have adopted it. (Hear, hear.) Take France, for instance. And this spirit of centralization has been creeping steadily on, but with very sure progress, in the Wesleyan body for the last fifteen or twenty years. The individuals who have thus been favoured with power, have manifested the greatest impatience of all opposition, and the slightest opposing remark on their proceeding - the slightest demonstration unfavourable to them has been marked by them with the greatest disapprobation. (Hear, hear.) Whatever has been the respectability of the minister or the layman who have expressed opinions at variance with their own, he has been marked - (hear, hear) - he has been shunned - (hear, hear) -he has been stigmatized, and he has, in many instances and by many of the party alluded to, been unchristianized. (Hear, hear, and loud applause.) These are reasons which have induced me to stand here to-night, and we are all called upon, if we have any love for a system calculated to do great good, to see that it is not marred by such proceedings as I have alluded to. (Hear, hear, hear.) Our object is to sympathise with those three gentlemen. They have been un-reverended so far as Conference can do it, but as far as my feeling goes, and as far as the feeling of the great majority of this meeting goes, they are still reverend to us. (Loud responsive applause.) It must be cheering to them to find wherever they go, that such respectable, intelligent, and large assemblages are ready to receive them and to cheer them on under their misfortunes - (applause) - and I believe that to-night they will be as much cheered as they have been elsewhere, and that they will feel themselves encouraged to bear up under what must be to them a great calamity. (Hear, hear, hear.) It may be necessary to remark, before we proceed further, that the heading of the placard calling the meeting may have misled some of you to-night. It is headed “Wesleyan Reform,” but we are not about to commence a campaign for reform, or to take you beyond the expression of sympathy with our Christian brethren, and the expression of our opinion on the proceedings of the late Conference. Our reason for doing this, at least my reason for it, and I believe I also speak the opinions of others, is that we may first try constitutional means before we proceed to ultra ones. (Hear, hear.) Every individual present who will look deliberately and clearly into the matter, will see that our best plan is not to put ourselves out of court, or by adopting such steps as will enable those who think that the recent proceedings are right, to say you have put yourselves out of court. It requires in any movement great patience under difficulties, forbearance under insults, and great perseverance; but to patient perseverance the prize is sure. (Hear, hear.) So it will be in this matter. (Applause.) If we want to accomplish our purpose, we must take great care that we do not commit ourselves, whilst at the same time we must take a bold, a firm, and an unflinching stand. (Applause.) We must in public at all times, as we do when we canvass the matter in private, for it is not by violence and clamour at the fireside, and by shrinking when we meet face to face those who are to oppose us, that our object is to be gained. (Applause.) The great danger of such movements failing is in shame-facedness in acknowledging our views, and in our being led into concessions, when attacked, which tramel us in our future exertions. (Hear, hear, and applause.) Our friends, Everett, Dunn, and Griffith have come here to give us a statement of the whole case of their expulsion. This meeting has been called to hear them, and I place myself in the hands of the meeting, asking you to assist me in keeping order. (Hear, hear.) If we are to allow of questioning during their speeches we shall have the whole thing interrupted. I have noticed from the reports which have appeared, that at several meetings this kind of questioning has been allowed. What has been the result? The opposers have gained their point, and our friends, the three expelled ministers, have not been fully heard, because the party opposed to them, and who questioned them, would not allow them to be heard, which led to an interruption of the proceedings. If, therefore, this meeting will support me, and I only take the chair on the condition that I am supported, we will give these three gentlemen a fair and patient hearing, and we will first learn what the Conference has done which deposed them. (Hear, hear, and applause.) The Conference, you are aware, sits with closed doors. We have had reports of their proceedings in the newspapers, but they deny their accuracy; they say these reports are partial and culled. Now I believe if these three gentlemen would have told a lie they would have been able to keep their position in Methodism. (Cheers.) I believe if they had been capable of uttering an untruth they would have then been triumphant, and have retained their status in the denomination. (Hear, hear.) I don’t mean to insinuate that they were the authors of the “Fly Sheets,” or that they had been guilty of uttering anonymous slanders, but if they could have lied they might still have been recognised ministers standing forth to preach the Gospel of truth. (Hear, hear.) Seeing then they have sacrificed their prospects of living in the world, seeing they have thus sacrificed their status in the Wesleyan body rather than swerve from the truth, we may surely believe them to-night; - (hear, hear, and loud applause) - and if the whole of those ……. *respect, but are mostly on the opposite side to myself, were to take an oath that they would not believe them, I believe that men who have made such a sacrifice for truth will not tell you a lie. (Great applause.)
[* There is a curious lacuna in the syntax here, as though an entire line of text has been lost in making up the printing forme. Insertion of a phrase such as ‘whose views I …’ before ‘respect’ would repair the overall sense. The word ‘respect’ begins at the start of a new line, following a rather curiously narrow indent.]
You will, therefore, have an opportunity of hearing and of judging for yourselves. I read the account of their expulsion as published both in the Wesleyan Times and in the Watchman, and even if I had language and ready utterance at command I could not find words strong enough to express my feelings of abhorrence and repugnance at the proceedings of the body. (Hear, hear, and much applause). These proceedings are at variance with every feeling of my own, and must be at variance with the feelings of every right-minded man in this room, and you will, therefore, I doubt not, afford our friends all that sympathy which will enable them to bear up under the crosses and the opprobrium which will be thrown upon them. (Hear, hear, and applause.) They have taken a step which will bring upon them the ire even of many good men, and they will have to bear under many an insult grounded on such a calamity. (Hear, hear.) Now, then, for a word on the other side. I believe, as I have before said, Wesleyan Methodism to be the best system which man or Providence has devised for advancing the work of God in the world. It has its defects, and what institutions are without? We Methodists, as a people, are not so much under the trammels of the preachers as the public believe us to be. There are many Wesleyan Methodists who don’t know their privileges, and consequently don’t use them. Our preachers have not much power in our local churches; not more than ministers of the Gospel ought to have, with some few exceptions, which I will name hereafter. We have amongst ourselves the appointment of all our officers. (A voice - “Who nominates?”) It is true they are first nominated by the ministers, but the appointment of all leaders is with themselves, and if the nomination of the ministers does not suit them, they can refuse to appoint. I name these things that we may move with correct feelings and views. (Hear, hear.) All the officers of quarter-day are appointed in the same way, the nomination being with the preacher, and the appointment with the leaders, local preachers, and trustees. Then, our preachers have no control over the finances of our circuits or chapels. Our trustees have the absolute control over the chapels, with the exception of the appointment to the pulpit; the veto on this is left to the Conferences. I am not going into any lengthened detail on these points, but I wish our people to be informed on both sides of the question, for as we shall be seeking some reform or other, it will be better to come to an unanimous understanding on the subject, that we may all be seeking the same reform, and then we shall be sure to get it. (Hear, hear.) But if one class be seeking one thing, and another class another, those who do not wish to grant anything will take advantage of the difference, and pit one section against another. (Hear, hear, and applause.) But, after all, the power is very much more evenly balanced between preachers and people, than we as Wesleyans have supposed; and so far as my own views go, I think our wisdom at present will be to seek a check on the exercise of that power which at present is absolute. The Conference is really an absolute power, and it has shown it in the dismissal of these three gentlemen from the body. It moves when it suits its pleasure; it has no law or usage to guide it, but dismissed these three gentlemen without a law and without an usage, - (hear, hear,) - and at the mere pleasure of its will dismissed them from all their privileges, and from all their prospects of a living in the world, except so far as you and others sympathize with them. (Hear, hear, and loud applause.) Now, then, as I have entered so far into the subject, I will give you my views as to the checks I think we want; not that we are going to vote upon these things, but that you may consider them, for you may have to go on after those who will try constitutional means. It is only a select few who can do this, therefore I would let this select few ask the Conference to do what they and you approve of before taking any ulterior steps. It will be our wisdom to do this, beacause I believe if there are symptoms shown, of a wish for change, they will wish to get rid of all of us, - (laughter and applause,) - and it will be very unwise to place ourselves in that position. (Hear, Hear.) Methodism is ours, not exclusively theirs (the preachers). Methodism has cost the bulk of those I see before me much both of money and exertion, whilst those we have to oppose live by it. (Hear, hear,) Certainly it is exceedingly ungenerous of those living on our bounty, and who have shared our property, to say to me or to you, “If you don’t like it, leave it.” (Hear, hear.) It is true we can better turn round and live than they can; we can turn ourselves and accommodate ourselves to circumstances with greater ease than they can; but it is also true that that property and that Methodism which they ask me to leave is my property and my Methodism, and I repeat it, it is exceedingly ungenerous to ask any of us to leave that which we have been building up from our youth. (Cheers.) It is true the Conference have held this power before; but they make use of it now in a way they never did before in the days of our fathers, and stigmatize me in their ulterior acts; therefore, if I am asked to walk out and leave all that I love, I tell them I will not. (Much cheering.) Then, what would I ask them to do for me? I would give you a few instances showing that we are not, perhaps, quite so powerless as some people think we are, but I am keeping you too long. (Loud cries of “No, no,” “Go on, go on,”) Well, then, what should we ask for? I would ask, then, that each quarter-day meeting should send to sit on a committee, at the same time that Conference sits, one member, this committee to have the entire control of all the finances of the body; this committee should be the guardian of the rights of the people, and no acts of the Conference should be valid unless also sanctioned by this committee. (Hear, hear, and “That’s a House of Commons.”) Then I would ask that every circuit-steward interested in the change of a minister should attend the Stationing Committee, and also that he should have a vote when it came to be a disputed point. (Hear, hear.) If we take these matters up, we shall ultimately gain them, but it will only be by patient perseverance. (Hear, hear.) We have seen, not long ago, a successful agitation to repeal the Corn Laws. That repeal was not got by any violent demonstration or threat; the champions of that cause appealed to the understandings of the people, and convinced the judgment of those who opposed them. Now, what I ask of you, and what I am willing to go with you in, is, that we should pursue the same course. (Hear, hear.) I am aware that agitation is baneful in its influence, and that it will behove the whole of us who take any part in this movement to put a watch on our spirits. I would therefore ask every one, office-bearer or private member of society, to look into his own mind and see what effect this agitation has upon them; if it should be damping your spirituality, if you feel less pleasure in doing those things which promote the cause than before, be suspicious of yourselves, and rather let us go on in thraldom and slavery than damp out the cause of Christ. I believe this is not a necessary consequence, but at the same time double care and greater watchfulness will be needed by you all. (Hear, hear.) In reference to the matters before mentioned, I have been of the same opinion I am now expressing, for several years. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) Long before our respected friend felt the weight of that power which is doing as it liked, I have observed acts which I saw sooner or later lead to this state of the connexion. (Hear, hear.) The Conference broke faith with the people in the matter of the children’s fund, which first made me what would be termed a reformer, or an advocate of change. We have a system, so complicated as a whole, that it can only be understood by those who are brought within the inner circles to work it; but, from a boy, I have been mixed up with the management of Methodistic affairs in this town. There is no office short of that of a local preacher which I have not filled, and there is no matter connected with Wesleyan Methodism I am unacquainted with. (Hear, hear.) I felt, and still feel, a deep interest in the proceeding of the body. I have read the whole of the large minutes up to the present time. I copied every law which affected the circuit in my own handwriting, and in some measure I made myself a Wesleyan lawyer. (Hear, hear, and aplause.) I say this to show you I am not speaking of matters of which I am ignorant. (Hear, hear.) The connexion, some time ago, formed and applied a fund for children, called the children’s fund, and the amount was calculated at six guineas per annum for each child; each circuit detained so much of that fund, at the rate of six guineas for each child belonging to the preachers in their circuit they had to support, and remitted the balance to the general or district treasurer, who paid it over as it was required, the number of members in society being taken as the basis each circuit should keep. In our itinerant system the minister, with a large family, was difficult to place in any circuit, for, however useful and good a preacher might be, the circuit objected to him if he had a large family. To meet this difficulty the usage was established amongst us. I always said from the beginning of this fund that if any inroad was made towards taxing the Wesleyan people it will be through that. What is the fact? Conference felt themselves pinched at Woodhouse Grove, and with a single vote they placed all the children there on this fund, taking out of your fund at the rate of six guineas for each child. (Shame, shame.) This, perhaps, is not so objectionable as some may think, as the children would have to be supported if not kept by the circuits. By and bye, no remonstration being made, and this fund being found a convenient sort of thing, the Conference placed the whole of the children of the supernumeraries upon it. (Hear, hear, and shame, shame.) This I noticed at the time, but said nothing, at what in the beginning I thought not an improper thing in itself; for the children must be kept, whether the parents be living or dead, and it is a bounden duty we owe to those whose ministers they are to keep their children, - I say this might be proper, but the Conference should have asked the people about it. (Hear, hear.) Well, they found themselves pinched again in a few years, when they took from this fund £500 or £600 to pay for the education of certain classes of children. Now this was as foreign to the purpose for which this fund had been placed in their hands, as if they had taken £6,000 or £7,000 and appropriated it to the missionary fund. (Hear, hear.) I am particular in stating this, because it opened my eyes. I am to this day a thorough preachers’ man. I would make them comfortable in my own family, and also in their means; and I believe we have in Huddersfield at present as fine a class of ministers as ever graced any parish. It has, therefore, pained me to stand here, but both I and you have a duty to perform. Let us perform it manfully, with patient perseverance, and we shall yet come off conquerors. (Cheers.) I would advise you should be careful not to offend those who differ with you, and you will succeed the better by doing so. After some further remarks, in the course of which he stated that he was opposed to stopping the supplies, the Chairman concluded by repeating that he should not allow of any interruption from any person until their three friends had addressed the meeting; they had given a challenge to the whole world, and would not shrink from answering any question which might be proposed. Perhaps, as their friend Mr. Mallinson was in that state of health that he might not be able to remain the whole time, the meeting would hear a few words from him before their other friends commenced. (Loud cheers.)
George Mallinson, Esq., then came forward, and was received with loud and reiterated applause. He said, I feel greatly obliged to the Chairman for having rendered it unnecessary for me to say anything on the subject, he having taken it up so fully and so ably, that if ever he takes again the liberty of saying again what he said at the beginning, and if it is polite to do so, I shall take the opportunity of contradicting him. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) He said, Mr. Mallinson would have done a great deal better in the chair than I can do. I dissent from that opinion; I protest I could not do half so well. (Laughter and applause.) My Christian friends, I feel myself in a position to-night I never expected to be placed in - (hear, hear,) - I never wished or sought to be placed in, by circumstances and persons over whom I have no control. Our Chairman said the object of the meeting was to sympathise with three expelled ministers, and I say it is to sympathise with three of the excellent of the earth. (Hear, hear, and applause.) I have been personally acquainted with two of them for a number of years, and I never saw any thing wrong, I never knew any thing wrong by them; one has been in the ministry 35 or 40 years, and the other about 20 years, and I have never heard a single word against their morality. (Hear, hear.) I believe the greatest fault one of them has committed is that of being too honest - (loud cheering); he has been too sincere, too conscientious, and in all movements it can be clearly proved that he has injured himself. (Hear, hear.) Now, I can tell you he is a Conference man to the backbone, but he has always told them what he thought of their proceedings, and could he have taken a different course to what he has done, he would still have been minister, for after all he is not one of those failures sent to Grassington, Settle, and other places of that sort. (Cheers.) I can tell you if any of you have a heart not capable of sympathy I don’t want it - (hear, hear, and laughter); - if you have got a heart which will not sympathise with these ministers, when you clearly understand their position by being expelled in this manner, your heart be your own for ever. (Loud cheers.) These gentlemen, before Conference, were placed in comfortable circumstances, and in comfortable circuits, for I tell you who don’t know it, that it is a nice sort of thing to be placed in a good circuit. (Laughter.) I say these gentlemen have been in circuits in which they had provided for them all the necessaries of life, a good house to live in, well furnished, and with means to procure as many of the luxuries of life as any man ought to have. (Hear, hear, and applause.) But what is their position now? A Methodist preacher is not like some of you, who build your country houses, and furnish them with easy chairs, sofas, and every comfort, and from which you cannot be turned out without a bed or a penny in your pockets. (Hear, hear.) What is the fact? These gentlemen, who before Conference were placed in comfortable circumstances, are all at once, without receiving a landlord’s notice, without an ejectment, are turned out from a comfortable home, and from all the necessaries and luxuries of life. (Hear, hear.) And what is worse, they are separated from friends they would otherwise have been united with; but thank God, if they have lost some friends they have gained others. (Loud cheers and cries of “They have.”) I say if I had a heart which would not sympathise and feel for them under such circumstances, and something more - I mean practical feeling - if I had it in my power to assist them and refused them that sympathy which belongs to them, I should begin to suspect myself whether I had not lost all the religion I ever had. (Hear, hear, and much cheering.) As the Chairman said, I hope every thing will be done without excitement. (Hear, hear.) Some of our friends are absolute teetotallers; I am a moderation man. (Laughter.) Let us, therefore, do all we engage in with dignity, moderation, and temperance. I don’t appear here as the enemy of Methodism. (Hear, hear.) You would laugh at me if I said I did. (Hear, hear, and applause.) You would tell me I had been for forty years a plodder for Methodism. It has had the vigour of my youth, the strength of my manhood, and if they don’t reject it, it shall have the decrepitude of old age. (Hear, hear, and much cheering.) The chairman observed that it had been said, “if you don’t like it, leave it.” Say this to me any man who dare. (Laughter and loud cheers.) I will tell that gentleman, whoever he is, that he is taking a very great liberty with me, - (hear, hear,) - and, if he has no objection, I will take the sense of the town in which I live upon it; - (hear, hear;)
- we will have a vote upon it; - (hear, hear;) - we will have a vote upon it, and see whether George Mallinson is to be so unceremoniously dealt with. (Loud cries of “Hear, hear,” and “they dare not.”) But I have not said “I don’t like it.” (Hear, hear.) I do like it; there is no better ism then Methodism in the world. (Hear, hear, and loud applause.) God’s cause is mine - I am identified with it - my heart is in it - and the little property I could spare is in it. (Shouts of applause.) A pretty matter this, that I, nearly the oldest partner in the concern, - (hear, hear,) - should be told by the younger partners, who have come in since, “If you don’t like it, leave it.” (Much cheering.) I say to them, who are you? (Laughter.) Where do you come from? What property have you in the concern? (Applause.) I say to such gentlemen, “If you don’t like it, you may leave it;” I took you into partnership for your ability, and now you want to turn me out. (hear, hear, and applause.) I say again, I do like it. But I don’t like the ejection of these three ministers; - (much cheering;) - I enter my solemn protest against the unceremonious manner in which they have been sent about their business: - (hear, hear, hear;) - as, but for the sympathy which exists for them - I am glad it has been so strongly manifested here - but for this, they might have had to apply to a parish workhouse. (Hear, hear.) They never will! (Immense cheering.) But I don’t approve of the manner of their expulsion. (Cries of “Hear, hear.”) I will go on the broad grounds of supposing that Mr. Everett is the writer of the “Fly-Sheets.” I don’t say he is, but I go on that ground. (Yes, yes.) Well, he has as much right to publish anonymous slanders as that Vates. (Hear, hear.) They say one is an anonymous slanderer, and I can prove the other is. (Laughter and cheers.) I read the publication of this Vates, and I have an entry in my book which I keep to enter such things in. The entry is this, - “This man might be converted when he entered the ministry, but the writer of such things has lost his religion.” (Hear, hear.) Well, but I assume that Mr. Everett is the writer of the “Fly Sheets,” and I say, if a man has done wrong, bring that man to the judge. But you must have a charge against him. (Hear, hear.) You would cut a pretty figure in a court of justice if you took a man as a criminal there, and had no charge to prefer against him. (Laughter.) I say they have not gone about it in the right way. If he had done wrong, let them bring Mr. Everett to the judge. (Hear, hear.) They proved nothing against him. He was told by the secretary, “We have no charge against you; we only wish to ask a few friendly questions.” (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Mr. Everett said if you have a charge against me I am ready to meet it. Show me mine accusers. They said, we have no charge against you, but we are wishful you should have something against yourself; have you, brother Everett, a charge to bring against yourself. (Laughter, and hear, hear.) The speaker next referred to the statement of the Rev. Samuel Dunn in Exeter Hall, to the effect that after four or five times being refused the liberty of stating to the Conference his reasons for the way in whidch he was about to answer the questions put to him, the President exclaimed, “Brother Dunn has had full liberty of speech.” The correctness of this statement had been denied, and he wished Mr. Dunn would refer to it again, and to say whether, after all these weeks and months, he saw any reason to unsay what he said in Exeter Hall.
The Rev. Samuel Dunn then rose. He was received with very loud applause., and spoke for an hour and a quarter, referring to some of the various proceedings connected with his expulsion by the Wesleyan Conference, and which have been before reported in this paper. He observed that during the three months which had elapsed since Conference, he and his colleagues had been listened to by tens of thousands, they had met with a most cordial reception, and ninety-nine out of every hundred of their audiences had justified their conduct, whilst they had condemned the acts of Conference. Amongst those who took part with the dominant party they found themselves slandered both in pamphlets and at the tea table; there was however a melancholy paucity of argument, and there appeared to be nothing left but for their opponents to attack them personally. They had challenged them to meet them as they did again that night, but not one of the Conference men had since his expulsion met him in the face to prefer any charge on the points to which he had referred. (Hear, hear.) He pledged himself to the accuracy of his statements, and if any preacher objected to anything he had to say instead of endless tittle-tattle behind his back, let them appoint a time, and he would meet them in order to give them an opportunity of overturning any statement he made. The Reverend Gentleman then referred to the cases of the Rev. Daniel Walton, the Rev. James Bromley, the Rev. Mr. Birdsall, and his own. In reference to Mr. Bromley’s case, he said when at his house last week he saw a copy of a letter which that Rev. Gentleman had sent to Conference the day after the expulsion of himself and Mr. Griffith. In this letter the writer declared that he would never answer any question on the law of 1835, that he would never be a party to a trial on this law, and that unless the Conference would send him back with his status unimpaired there was no alternative but they must expel him. Mr. Bromley also showed him the answer he had received from Conference, stating that they were perfectly staisfied with what he had done, that they did not intend to institute any further proceedings against him, and that the feeling expressed was cordial and shared by the Conference. Thus Mr. Bromley, who had been more contumacious than any of them had been sent home to his circuit with flying colours, whilst they had been expelled. Mr. Dunn then repeated the statement he had previously made at Exeter Hall, in reference to his own case, and asserted that it was perfectly true in every particular; that the President said full liberty of speech had been given to him, and that on his denying it, he was assailed with cries of “Turn him out.” As to the contradiction alluded to by Mr. Mallinson, all that was said by parties opposed to them was, that they did not hear it said.
The Rev. Wm. Griffith here rose and said, I was in Conference, and did hear it.
The Rev. Amos Learoyd, who was in the body of the meeting, said, I was in the Conference, and did not hear it.
Rev. S. Dunn, - What of that. It is only saying you did not hear it; others might.
The Chairman said he could not allow the ministers to be interrupted, and whoever it was who would not allow them to proceed, he must go out. (A voice- “Turn him out;” and “No, no.”)
Rev. James Everett said - Whilst sitting here close to the Chairman and watching the proceedings, I had to ask what the Chairman had said in reference to something I did not hear. But because I did not hear it that was no proof that the Chairman did not say it. (Hear, hear.)
Rev. Mr. Dunn. - I give Mr. Everett credit when he says he did not hear what the Chairman said, and I also give Mr. Learoyd credit for stating that in the midst of 200 voices crying out “Turn him out,” he did not hear this from the President. This was denied in the Watchman, but John Walters wrote to that paper stating that he did hear it. (Hear, hear, and applause.) The Rev. gentleman then resumed his address, which concluded at half-past nine o’clock, and sat down amidst loud applause.
The Rev. James Everett was the next speaker, and was received with most unmistakeable demonstrations of sympathy. He said the sight of so many cheerful faces did him good, though he stood in a different relation to them than he did when he assisted in the opening of their chapel in Queen Street.
He first referred to the many unfounded rumours circulated by the dominant party, who had not the moral courage to meet the party against whom these insinuations were made, face to face. These persons, in making their statements, often adopted the hypocritical sigh, and pretended to be sorry for what they said had occurred, but better would it be were they sorry to utter it. In his own case, when before Conference, Dr. Hannah asked him to give evidence against himself, in fact, to criminate himself. Seeing the nakedness of the land, said the Rev. Gentleman, and the situation in which I was placed, I determined the Conference should do its own work, and have the glory of its transactions before the Bristish public. (Applause.) That was my resolution. (Hear, hear.) Was it right? (Loud cries of “Yes, yes,” and “You acted like a gentleman.”) The sentence of expulsion sent to me, signed by the President and Secretary, noticed no charge on which I had been tried, and none on which I had been expelled, except that of contumacy. Now that arose, if at all, during the trial, and was afterwards cooked up in true Hudsonian style, in order to get rid of me. (Loud cries of “Hear, hear.”) It was a cowardly, dastardly, and unmanly act committed by an arbitrary, uncontrollable, and despotic power. (Applause.) I was not tried for contumacy; that was a mere manufactured piece of business. The Rev. Gentleman then proceeded to show that his expulsion was a violation of all justice, both ancient and modern, and quoted from Moses, Solomon, Jesus Christ, Paul, Rome, Seneca, and John Wesley, to prove that the guilt of any party charged with an offence ought to be proved by witnesses, and that no party ought to be required to criminate himself. The speaker next referred to the Rev. Mr. Bromley, who he said was blamed by the Watchman for refusing to go to Conference until he had his expenses paid. The Watchman blamed him, and said he should have gone, and trusted to the honour of Conference for them. I, said he, trusted to the honour of Conference, and went on being summoned, but to this day I have not been paid a single farthing for my expenses. (Hear, hear, and shame.) Well, continued the speaker, but the laws of Methodism are peculiar, it is said. Aye, they are indeed. (Laughter.) The Wesleyan court is not to be judged by any other court or constitution. The more the pity. (Hear, hear.) Because the Mahommedans have a law to enable them to murder every convert to Christianity, and because that law is peculiar to them, are they to be justified? (No, no.) Because the Roman Inquisition, which doom men to every penalty, are they to be justified because of the peculiarity of its laws. (No, no.) Because the traffickers in slaves have laws peculiar to themselves, is that any reason why Queen Victoria should not send out ships to capture them? (No, no.) Why this very peculiarity of the law was its greatest guilt? (Hear, hear.) The Rev. Gentleman next referred to the law of 1835, which he said carried a lie upon the face of it. It was to be declaratory of other laws and usages in Methodism, but he defied any man to bring any other law which had a legal bearing upon it. In fact, it was nothing but a side-wind for a successful voyage to tyranny; it was a short and easy method, not with the deists, but to enable the malignants to get rid of the objects of their hatred and suspicion - (cheers); - it was a plea for false pretences; it was an adroit way of relieving the funds, as in his case. (Hear, hear, and applause.)
The Rev. Wm. Griffith, who was also very loudly applauded, addressed the audience at great length. He gave some very graphic descriptions of the proceedings in Conference, and by his forcible and pithy appeals to the audience, drew forth loud and long responsive applause. He complained of the inconsistency and partiality of Conference is rewarding Dr. Hannah, who had written the anonymous publication called “Vates,” before alluded to, and condemning him (Mr. G.) for refusing to give up the Wesley Banner, and reporting for the Wesleyan Times. The mission-house had circulated the slanders of “Vates” - John Mason had derived a profit from it - the superintendents had sold it - and yet the Conference professed to hold anonymous slanderers in abhorrence! (Hear, hear.) He also referred to the Mission-house business, observing that a part of the committee had, according to the Watchman, met two or three times, and done what they had often done before - passed a vote of confidence in themselves; they had, in fact, at two or three short meetings, professed to have satisfied themselves as to the accuracy of accounts, which a man in a large business had told him would take the greater part of a year to go through. The Rev. Gentleman also referred to the Wesleyan Times, which, he said, had been stigmatised as a lying paper. If this were so, the conductors of it must be liars. He then proceeded to put to the audience a number of inter-rogatories, asking them if they did not know the proprietor, and had done so from his youth; if he had not resided in the neighbourhood; and if they could not trust and believe him - to all of which there were loud responsive cries of “Yes, yes.” The speaker next contradicted several statements which had appeared in the Watchman, and concluded by remarking that the leaders in Conference first declared their intention of proceeding against thirty-six non-signers of the Osborn test, but, after declaring they would apply the thumb-screw to the whole number, they only did it to six. The Rev. Gentleman was loudly cheered throughout his address.
Mr. Benj. Hey, ex-circuit steward, local preacher and leader, moved the following resolution:
“That this meeting, having heard the statements of the Reverends Messrs. Everett, Dunn, and Griffith, in reference to their recent expulsion from the Wesleyan connexion, deeply sympathises with them, and declares its unqualified disapprobation of the proceedings of the late Conference, and regards such act of expulsion as contrary to the Holy Scripture.”
Mr. Joseph Sykes, also a leader and trustee, seconded the resolution,which was carried with only one or two dissentients.
Mr. Richard Tinker, a local preacher and leader, moved, and Mr. John Taylor, of Newsome, a trustee and leader, seconded the next resolution, which was carried as the preceeding ones.
“That this meeting, believing the law of 1835 to be an unjustifiable infringement of the rights and liberties of the preachers, and contrary to the New Testament, condemns such law, with any or all laws which sanction such acts of expulsion.”
Thanks were then voted to the Chairman, and the meeting separated at nearly half-past eleven o’clock.
[George Mallinson, Tree 4, Woollen Merchant of Newhouse, Edgerton, was born 27 March 1785 and died 15 August 1869, aged 84. He would have been 64 at this time. Joseph Webb, also a Woollen Merchant, was a close neighbour of George Mallinson, living in Belgrave Terrace. He would have been 40.
The Philosophical Hall stood next to the Ramsden Street Congregational Chapel. It was the largest venue for public meetings in Huddersfield at the time. Later, the Theatre Royal was built on the same site.
Queen Street Wesleyan Chapel was opened in 1819.
Also mentioned in the introduction are George Mallinson’s sons, Thomas, born 24 April 1812, and William, born 14 August 1816.
The reporter’s faithful rendering of these long speeches suggests he must have been using shorthand. Isaac Pitman’s ‘Stenographic Sound Hand’ system had been published some twelve years previously in 1837. The syntax clearly breaks down in the concluding paragraphs, particularly in Everett’s diatribe against Mohammedans, the Inquisition and the Slave Trade, but the text has been faithfully transcribed and the temptation to edit it resisted. The references to ‘the law of 1835’, ‘Hudsonian style’ and ‘the Osborn test’ have not as yet been explained. Help from Wesleyan historians would be most welcome.]
Copyright (c) 2000-2015 J.S.Mallinson. All rights reserved.