28th September 1817: Viscount Lascelles writes to Lord Sidmouth about the plight of the Croppers

My dear Lord.

In the course of the last Session of [Parliament] your Lordship may recollect that I together with a Deputation from the Cloth Workers, or Croppers, waited upon you upon the subject of an alteration of the Laws respecting Emigration―The ground upon which the application which deprived the Clothworkers of their usual means of employment. The machinery applicable to their particular branch of trade are the Gig mill for raising cloth, and the Shearing Frames for cropping it when raised. Your Lordship well knows that considerable objections have existed in the minds of this class of workmen to the establishment of these machines; that in 1812 some deluded persons attempted by intimidation to restrain the use of them, and that application at different times has been made to [Parliament] for their abolition, but without success. In the last Session of [Parliament] a petition was presented to the House of Commons upon the subject, setting forth, in the most respectful manner, the effect likely to be produced upon the interests of the Petitioners by the increasing use of these machines. A numerous meeting was held in order to discuss the point in question―;and the Parties were unanimously recommended not to incur the expence of proceeding in furtherance of the petition; in consequence of the general opinion which seemed to prevail that [Parliament] would not sanction the abolition of the machines, or lay a restraint upon the fair employment of capital. In failure of the accomplishment of their wishes, the Parties were desirous of being allowed freely to emigrate: and it is upon this part of the question I take the liberty of troubling your Lordship: for I am informed that no expectation is now entertained by the Clothworkers of accomplishing their object. It cannot be doubted that the use of these machines is rapidly increasing throughout the West Riding of Yorkshire, and that they supersede the manual labor of a body of men, amounting, as I am informed, to about 3,500, who have been regularly and almost exclusively brought up, to the exercise of this trade. A Deputation waited upon me last week, and I promised to communicate with your Lordship upon the subject of their present wishes, in order that they might have an opportunity of being considered by Government previous to a more regular application. The persons who communicated with me, allow that the Woollen Trade has considerably revived, and that reasonable hopes may be entertained of its progressive amendment; but that notwithstanding these circumstances, their particular situations will not be improved since the use of machinery deprives them of their usual employment. In all changes of this nature, altho’ considerable inconvenience may be experienced in the first instance, the population affected will generally find employment in other branches of the business, and I make no doubt this will be the case very shortly with some part of the Clothworkers; but still a strong desire is expressed by them to have the assistance of Government in conveying such of them as may wish to emigrate, to North America. According to my own calculation this body may be divided into three parts: that which will find employment in other branches of the Woollen Trade: that which wou’d endeavour to find employment in any Trade or Business rather than emigrate; and that which would prefer emigration as affording them the fairest prospects. The Parties are aware of the regulations furnished by the Colonial Department respecting emigration; but according to them, Individuals must bear the expences of the voyage, which the greater part or perhaps all these persons are unable to do: and the Articles furnished by Government when Grants of Land are made, being according to the means of cultivation possessed by the Grantee: the prospects of an advantageous settlement in the Country are quite hopeless unless Government should, under the particular circumstances of the case, think proper to render them such assistance as will enable them to remove; and secure to them both assistance, and protection for a certain time after their arrival in North America. It must be recollected that the population already engaged in the different branches of the Woollen Trade is probably, uner the present circumstances of that Trade, fully sufficient to supply the demand for labor.

I am aware that difficulties may present themselves in fulfilling the wishes of the Parties, but if they can be overcome I am persuaded the number that will emigrate will not be large. The restraints imposed by the Laws do not appear to be as necessary now as at the time they were made, because not only in Europe, but in other parts of the World, improvements in manufactures are no longer unknown.

I remain
My dear Lord
Your faithful and
Obt Servt

Lascelles.

[To] Viscount Sidmouth.

11th February 1817: Leeds Croppers petition brought up in the House of Commons

On Tuesday 11th February 1817, a petition from Croppers in Leeds about the use of cloth-dressing machinery was debated in the House of  Commons:

PETITION FROM LEEDS RELATING TO THE USE OF MACHINERY.

Lord Lascelles said, he held in his hand a petition from a numerous body of people in Leeds, and the parts adjacent, who were cloth-dressers, and who complained that the introduction of machinery had thrown many of them out of employment. They prayed that some relief might be afforded them by the wisdom of parliament. He had explained to the petitioners themselves, that the question relative to machinery was a matter of deep consideration; nor did he flatter them that parliament could be able, considering the state of the woollen manufacture in other countries, to afford them any relief on this head. There was another prayer in the petition: these people entertained the impression, that if driven to emigrate to other countries, the existing laws threw obstructions in their way, as being manufacturers. The noble lord had told them, that considering the state of manufactures in other countries, neither could he give them much encouragement on this head: but at any rate their petition should be submitted to the consideration of parliament.

The Petition was then brought up and read, setting forth, "That the petitioners are employed in the dressing of woollen cloth, to which business they have served a long apprenticeship, and which heretofore enabled them to maintain themselves and their families, but which, in consequence of the extensive introduction of machinery into that department of the woollen trade, they are no longer able to do; they trust therefore for the indulgence of the House whilst they submit to their consideration the following facts; the petitioners beg leave to state, that, during the last session of parliament, they presented to the House, on behalf of themselves and their fellow workmen, a petition signed by 3,625 individuals, setting forth their grievances and praying for relief and redress, and they respectfully solicit the attention of the House to the allegations and prayer of that petition; it was stated in that petition that machinery for the dressing of woollen cloth had increased so rapidly within the last seven or eight years as to have produced very great distress among the persons employed in that department of the woollen manufacture, great numbers of them having been deprived of their accustomed employment and reduced to hopeles indigence and beggary; the petitioners have now to add to this statement the more specific information, that there was on the 17th of August 1816, totally out of employment 1,043 persons, in partial employment 1,380. in full employment 922; and on the 28th of October 1816 there were totally out of employment 1,166 persons, in partial employment 1,352, in full employment 860; and on the 3d day of February instant there were totally out of employment 1,170 persons, in partial employment 1,445, and in full employment 763, and the wages of those stated to be partially employed do not average more than from five to ten shillings a week; the petitioners also beg leave to state that it appears from the evidence taken before the House, that in the year 1806 there were only five gig mills, and not more than 100 pair of shears in the county of York wrought by machinery, but that the number of gig mills is now 72, and the number of shears is increased to 1,462, and that the consequence of this increase has been that great numbers of the petitioners and their fellow workmen have been reduced to absolute want; the petitioners also beg leave to submit to the House that they have a particular claim upon the attention of the legislature for protection and relief, inasmuch as they are prohibited by the laws from seeking employment in a foreign state; they would also submit to the House, that the pleas of necessity and expedience which have been pleaded in the behalf of the introduction of this species of machinery are unfounded, as there have always been a sufficient number of workmen to perform all the labour that was required: the petitioners also beg leave to state, that cloth is neither dressed better nor cheaper by machinery than by the old method of dressing it by the hand; on the contrary, the advantage in both these respects is decidedly in favour of dressing it by the hand, the large sums expended in the erection and in the maintenance of these establishments more than counterbalancing any saving in the price of dressing. In respect also to the manner in which the cloth is dressed, the petitioners confidently affirm that the cloth finished by machinery possesses no advantage whatever over the cloth dressed by hand; they are aware that it will be asserted that the unrestrained use of machinery is necessary to enable this country sufficiently to compete with foreigners: the petitioners in reply to this objection, beg leave to observe, that the universal adoption of gig mills and shearing frames would not in the least tend to lower the price of cloth, and would not be the means of causing a single additional piece of cloth to be sold either at home or in the foreign market; they would further observe, that though this species of machinery is thus impotent in promoting the prosperity of the woollen manufacture, it has been the fruitful source of much evil to the petitioners, and would, if carried further, be the means of depriving many thousands of persons of employment in the business to which they served a long and laborious apprenticeship, and indeed of all work whatever, as the present depressed state of trade precludes them from all chance of obtaining employment in any other business; the petitioners therefore hope, and humbly pray, that under these circumstances the House will be pleased to take their case into their immediate and serious consideration, and afford them such relief by restraining the use of this kind of machinery, or by such other means as may seem most meet to the wisdom of the House."

Mr. Brougham could not abstain from expressing his pleasure at seeing this petition brought forward so satisfactorily by the noble lord. This was the proper way in which the complaints of the people should be treated. In fact, all that had passed at public, meetings showed that the people were still sound at heart; that they still looked up to that House as their constitutional safeguard, and the grand source from which they were to expect relief. With regard to the prayer of the present petition, it must be obvious, that to adopt any measures to check the use of machinery, was as impolitic as it would be impracticable; but it was surely very hard on the petitioners that any impediments should be thrown in their way so as to prevent them from bettering their situation by emigration, if they were so disposed. This branch of the ancient policy of the country required the serious consideration of the House. Nothing could be more wicked than attempts to destroy machinery, such as the country had lately witnessed; yet at the same time the feeling which existed against machinery must be a ground of formidable alarm; for it showed that, instead of now being, as it lately was, a source of wealth, it was the cause of the most severe distress to a great body of the people, because the hands thrown out of work by the introduction of machines in one branch could not now find employment in other lines. This was a serious evil, well deserving the serious attention of parliament; but he should not dilate on it at present, because he should soon have occasion to bring the distressed state of the manufacturers under the consideration of the House. He might here be allowed to explain, that in the observations which fell from him last night, he did not mean to advert to any seizures of persons that had been made under the authority of the secret committee.

Lord Castlereagh entirely coincided with the hon. and learned gentlemen respecting the proper manner in which the petition just read had been drawn up. He wished the House to be assured he was as anxious as any individual could be to preserve the right of petitioning, as one of the most valuable blessings of the constitution, and he was confident, if the people were left to draw up their petitions themselves, they would do it in the best and most respectful manner. It was the means made use of to delude them by imposing on them manufactured petitions that excited his disapprobation and disgust. It was an insult to an Englishman, to suppose him incapable of stating his own grievances in a plain respectful manner.

The petition was ordered to lie on the table.

30th November 1816: Another correspondent writes to the Leeds Mercury in the debate about shearing frames vs hand-cropping

MR PRINTER,—In your paper of the 23d inst. I observed a comparison between the dressing of cloth by manual labour and machinery. Now, though I cannot doubt the veracity of your correspondent, who asserts that more men are employed in the latter mode of dressing it; yet, being an old man, whose ideas perhaps may have been narrowed and contracted by age, I cannot give full credit to this assertion without some explanation, and such an explanation as may be comprehended by other old men, whose intellectual powers may be rendered equally callous and obtuse. I have, for more than forty-five years, had the government of trading concerns, have viewed improvements with pleasure, and have, in some degree, shared in the benefits thereof; and experience has convinced me, that the use of a certain degree of Machinery has benefited the labouring classes; but I am free to knowledge that I am not able to see, to my satisfaction, that dressing cloth by Machinery can produce to the poor shear-men any real advantage, because when in the dressing-mills I have seen that one man can well manage four pair of shears. If your correspondent, who has made the assertion, will be so good as give the A. B. C. thereof, in your paper, he will oblige me with many more of your readers.

It has been hinted to me, that if the croppers would lower their wages, say, be content to earn 20s. a week, instead of 30s.—that then the dressing-mill would not be employed. This may be worthy the consideration of the shear-men; but I admit that it is difficult to persuade men, that 20s. a week constant, is better for them than 30s. though liable to interruptions.

23rd November 1816: Correspondents argue about shearing frames in the Leeds Mercury

In addition to the above paper, on the general subject, the following observations on the use of Machinery in the Dressing of Woollen Cloth, have been handed to us for insertion:

"The finishing of woollens by machinery," says one of our correspondents, "does not diminish manual labour. In proof of which assertion, I beg leave to state, that I am acquainted with a manufacturer in the neighbourhood of Leeds, who finishes about twenty-two pieces of cloth weekly, and if this cloth was finished by hand labour, the journeymen's wages would amount to about 26l. Fourteen or fifteen workmen would be required in that way to perform this work, whereas, by machinery, twenty workmen are required, twelve of whom have from 20 to 40 shillings per week, four of them 15 to 20 shillings weekly, and the other four a less sum. Instead of a decrease, there is therefore, as I have asserted, an increase of manual labour. A journeyman cropper would finish at 5 cuts, that work on which machinery bestows 8, 9, or 10, and two men would raise in half a day as much cloth as can be raised by machinery in nearly double that time. These are not mere vague notions, but facts founded on experience. The principal use of machinery in this department of the woollen trade, consists in the superior style of finishing. Cloth dressed in this way is more valuable than that finished by hand, that is, if it be properly prepared, for if not, machine dressing injures the fabric."

Another correspondent, writing on the same subject, says, "The usual payment made by cloth dressers to their workmen, for cloth dressed by hand labour, is 5 percent. upon the cost price of cloth; while the average wages paid for the last four years, by a house in this neighbourhood, pretty extensively engaged in the dressing of cloth by machinery, has been found on an accurate examination, to amount only to three and a half per cent.; so that the sum paid for labour is thirty shillings less in every five pounds. Or the matter may be put in another light: The men who work the machinery, being under no restrictions, and requiring less skill, are content to work for 18s a week each; but the regular cloth dresser working by hand, will own 30s. From which it would appear, that as many hands are required, but the labour employed in the new, is less expensive than that used in the old mode of dressing."

30th October 1816: Croppers lose wages case at Pontefract Sessions

A court case regarding Croppers' wages that came before Pontefract Sessions is a good example of how the spectre of Luddism was invoked to arguably alter the outcome. It is noteworthy that the case lasted 14 hours. The case was reported in the Leeds Mercury of 2nd November 1816:

COURT OF THE HONOUR OF PONTEFRACT.

[Illegible] [Beresford], Oct. 30th, 1816.

Before JOHN HARDY, ESQ.

[BROWBRIDGE] and KITCHEN, v. LISTER.

This was an action to recover the sum of £3 17s. 9d. due to the Plaintiff for wages on the balance of an account, three pounds and three pence was paid into Court; the only question was, whether the further sums of seventeen shillings was also due unto Plaintiffs. As this cause has excited some interest, we shall, without entering into a detail of the evidence, state the nature of it in as few words as possible.

The Plaintiffs are working cloth-dressers, and the Defendant is a master cloth-dresser, residing in this town. In the month of July last, the Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant to dress for him 23 pieces of cloth for the Russian contract. It was stated by the witnesses of the Defendant, that when about six of these pieces had been done, Mr. Lister stated to the Plaintiffs that the pieces were only to be backed and not half dressed, an operation which was explained as requiring less labour, and that the price would be reduced from five to four shillings a piece. This proposal being demurred to, Mr. Lister said he would give the same price as other dressers gave for goods dressed in a similar manner. No objection appears to have been made at the time to this proposal: but upon a settlement of accounts, the Plaintiffs demanded 5s. a piece, and refused to take less. Several witnesses were also called to shew that 4s. shillings a piece was as much as was given by other dressers, and was a fair and full price for this species of dressing, and that by reasonable industry 30s. a week might be earned at that rate. On the part of the Plaintiffs several witnesses were called, the object of whose evidence was to prove, that the alteration in the price had not been mentioned to them until the whole of the pieces, except three or four, had been dressed; it was also contended by the Plaintiffs, that as the whole 23 pieces had been delivered the Plaintiffs to dress at the understood price of 5s. a piece, no alteration in this parcel could take place without the consent of both parties. Mr. Hardy said, there were two questions for the Jury to decide: first, was there a special contract? if there was, was that contract four or five shillings a piece? If there was no contract, the Jury would then have to determine from the evidence, what was a full and fair price for the labour performed upon the cloth. If they found that there was a contract, and that the contract was for 5s. a piece, the Plaintiffs would be entitled to recover the sum claimed. If four shillings a piece was the contract, the Defendant would be entitled to a verdict. If there was no contract, the Jury would then find for the plaintiffs or for the Defendant, as the evidence should satisfy then, that five or four shillings was a fair price for the dressing of this cloth. Mr. Hardy said, the Jury were to dismiss from their minds all the insinuations which had been thrown out as to the Plaintiffs belonging to an illegal combination; this was a charge, which, whether true or false, they had nothing to do with. Mr. Hardy then proceeded to make some observations on the ruinous nature of these kind of combinations; he observed, that labour, like all other things, would best find its own level, and that all confederacies to keep it up were destructive, because they had a tendency to drive trade and manufactures to other countries, and he mentioned Nottingham as an instance of the fatal effects of this system, and stated, that in consequence of the frame-breaking, which had been so long carried on there, the manufacturers were rapidly removing from that town neighbourhood, and that these deluded men had taken the most effectual means of depriving themselves of the means of subsistence. The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.

The Court, with the adjournment of one hour, remained sitting from ten o'clock on Wednesday morning until about two o'clock in the morning of the following day.

26th April 1816: The Secretary of the Leeds Cloth Dressers' Union outlines their distress to the Leeds Mercury

To the editor of the Leeds Mercury.

Sir,

Who is the true Friend of his Country? This Question strikes me more forcibly at a Time like the present, when it is acknowledged by all, that general Embarrassment and Want of Employment pervades the whole Nation. The Man, (at such a critical time,) that does every thing in his power to give employment to the lesser class of the community, must be acknowledged to be a friend truly to his Country, and if he should make a small sacrifice, so much the more. Now, Sir, it is a well known fact to every one that properly understands it, that the Machinery for the making of Cloth in the Town and Neighbourhood of Leeds throws Two to Three Hundred [Men] out of Employment, with very little benefit to the Owner, if any, and the Work, to say the least of it, no better done. If this be true, and it is too true, what will be the feeling of those brave Men returning from the Army and Navy to find all their hopes blasted, and their former employment [taken] by Machinery?

Likewise, the Cloth-workers, who have borne the weight of heavy Taxes and dear Provisions during the War, at the return of peace to [have] every thing turn from them that would Support them and their Families. The Person that gives Employment to the Working Classes encourages Consumption and helps the Revenue, and is worthy the gratitude of all good Men. It is unnecessary to say any thing more, the following statement will say sufficient:

The Quarterly Report of the Clothworkers’ Brief Institution, taken from the 1st of January, 1816, to the 31st of March.

In January there were out of Employ…… 317
In February…….D………...D………….. 378
In March ………..D……….D…….…… [389]

In this Number are included the lately returned from his Majesty’s Service.

The Number of Children dependent on these Individuals or Support is, 1134.

In the course of the last Quarter the Institution has paid to the Relief of their own Sick and Funerals 61l. 6s.

JOHN SUNDERLAND, Secretary.
April 26th 1816.

N.B. There are at present not less than Six Hundred Pairs of Sheers going by Machinery.

16th January 1816: The Leeds Cloth Dressers Union case comes to court

On Tuesday 16th January 1816, the case of the Union Officers arrested and charged with aiding and abetting an illegal combination (i.e. Trade Union) by Leeds Magistrates in December was heard at Leeds Borough Quarter Sessions. The Leeds Mercury of 20th January 1816 gave a good summary of the proceedings:

TILLOTSON, SUNDERLAND, & OTHERS, Appellants, REX, Respondent. 

The Appellants, who are cloth-dressers, were convicted on Tuesday, the 19th of December last, by Whittell York, Esq. Mayor, and Thomas Ikin, Esq. on a charge of combining to hinder Messrs. Oates and Hardisty, cloth-merchants, of this town, from employing Thomas Marshall, as a cloth-dresser. Mr. Williams, who came from Preston for the purpose of sustaining the appeal, had been especially retained by the Appellants at a very considerable expence. His assistance, however, turned out to be unnecessary, as Mr. Maud, who was Counsel in support of the Conviction, stated to the bench that it was impossible the conviction could be legally sustained, as the Magistrates before whom the the conviction had taken place had no jurisdiction in the case, the act having especially provided, "that no Justice, being a master in any trade or manufacture, concerning which any offence is charged to have been committed should act in execution thereof." On this ground Mr. Maud said, the conviction must necessarily be quashed, for if that Court should affirm it, the Court of King's Bench would, would, under the circumstances of the case set such conviction aside. He concluded with moving that the conviction be quashed, to which the Court of course assented.—Conviction quashed.

30th December 1815: Leeds Cloth Dressers' Union Secretary writes a corrective letter to the Leeds Mercury

Following the report of his arrest in the 23rd December 1815 edition of the Leeds Mercury, John Sunderland - the Secretary of the Cloth Dressers' Union (or 'Brief Institution') - wrote to the paper, who published the letter on Saturday 30th December 1815:

TO the EDITOR of the LEEDS MERCURY.

SIR,— I beg that you will correct a Paragraph in your last Paper, by the Insertion the following Statement:—On Monday Night, the Eighteenth Inst. John Sunderland, Clerk to the Cloth Workers’ Brief Institution, was apprehended in the Act of reading a Letter, paying the Sick, &c. and himself and Twenty-Four other Persons searched, along with Five Women, who were applying for Relief for their Sick Husbands. At the same Time the Books and Papers were seized, and all taken away. John Sunderland and others were immediately conveyed to the Black Lion, Mill-Hill, at Nine o'Clock, and there remained till Two the next Day in the Afternoon, without being examined by any Magistrate. The said John Sunderland, Joseph Tillotson, William Anderson, William Hampshire, and Samuel Wheatley, after being examined, were held to Bail, for persuading Thomas Marshall, (the Informant,) to leave his Employers, Messrs. Oates and Hardisty, contrary to the Statute in that Case made and provided.

I am, Yours, &c. 

J.S.

18th December 1815: Cloth Dressers' Union Secretary arrested in Leeds

In the evening of Monday 18th December 1815 John Sunderland, the secretary of the Cloth Dressers' Union (or 'Brief Institution') was arrested in Leeds. The two local newspapers carried reports of the arrest.

From the Leeds Mercury of Saturday 23rd December:

On Monday night last, John Sunderland, Secretary of United Cloth-Dressers’ Society, was apprehended at a public-house in this town and committed to prison, on a charge of aiding and abetting an illegal combination for preventing the use of Machinery in the dressing of woollen cloth, and at the same time the papers of the Society were seized and inspected by the Magistrates. On the following day Sunderland and three other persons were held to bail to appear at the Quarter Sessions to answer to the said charge.

From the Leeds Intelligencer of Monday 25th December:

Monday last, five men, members of a Committee of Cloth-dressers, were convicted at our Rotation Office of having entered into an illegal combination for preventing or their fellow-workmen from following his trade, unless he paid the sum of five pounds, which this Committee thought itself entitled to demand of him. They have appealed to the Quarter Sessions. It might have been hoped that the awful example at York, would have been a sufficient warning to workmen of every description, of the danger of entering into illegal combinations. Though any Class of workmen may set out with a resolution not to give way to such daring acts of outrage, as drew down that terrible infliction of the law, they ought to be aware that, having once entered upon an unlawful career, it is impossible for them to foresee where the evil may terminate, and that, however guarded they may be in their proceedings, detection, must, sooner or later, overtake every deviation from that course which the laws of the land, as well as every principle of policy, of necessity, and of justice, have marked out. The object of dislike to the present combination, is that species of machinery, employed for the dressing woollen cloth, called Gig Mills. By this machinery, some are of opinion that the manufacture can be finished, at the same expence, in a style much superior, to that which the Cloth-Workers are either able or willing to affect by manual labour. Several manufacturers, therefore, exercising that opinion, (which is their undoubted right) have determined on employing such machinery. Against this system, it appears, the Cloth-Workers have combined; and having demanded, as we have above stated, five pounds from an individual who had worked with machinery in Ireland, before they would allow him to earn his subsistence here by his wonted avocation, he gave information of the system, and the Committee, with their books and papers, were taken into custody. An extensive correspondence and combination have in consequence been discovered. As the next sessions must determine the business, it would be improper here to dwell further on the subject.

[After] 9th April 1812: Song titled “Forster’s Mill," Huddersfield vicinity

Come all ye croppers stout and bold,
Let your faith grow stronger still,
Oh, the cropper lads in the county of York
Broke the shears at Forster’s mill.
The wind it blew,
The sparks they flew,
Which alarmed the town full soon
And out of bed poor people did creep
And ran by the light of the moon;
Around and around they all did stand,
And solemnly did swear,
Neither bucket, nor kit nor any such thing
Should be of assistance there.

The lyrics to this song commemorate the Luddite attack on Joseph Foster's Mill at Horbury on 9th April 1812, and are recorded in  Peel (1968, p.120) with a slightly different title viz 'Forster's Mill'. In contemporary versions of the song, the lyrics differ slightly.


There are a couple of versions of 'Foster's Mill' on the internet:


Swan Arcade's superb version from their 1976 album 'Matchless':



Bill Price's version from his 1972 LP 'The Fine Old Yorkshire Gentleman':

11th March 1812: The Leeds Luddite James Shaw walks away free from York Lent Assizes

The Lent Assizes at York had commenced on Saturday 7th March. On the following Wednesday, it was the turn of James Shaw, the Luddite captured by the authorities at Sheepscar in January, to face trial. The Leeds Mercury of 14th March recorded the words of the Judge, Sir Simon Le Blanc a Justice of the Court of King's Bench, on his case:

"Assembled as we are at present in the ordinary discharge of a duty you have so often been called upon to perform; I should have felt it necessary to trouble you with any observations of a case had not occurred which seem from its infrequency to require some notice. The list of offences, though somewhat longer than usual, does not appear to contain many cases of novelty, and I hope to have had the pleasure of congratulating the County of York in having escaped the contagion of that system of depredation which has continued so long and occasioned such extensive mischief in a neighbouring county, but this hope has not been fully realised; I am grieved to find from the case in the Calendar, and from information received since we arrived here, that this county has not entirely escaped the influence of bad example; but I trust there will be found not only sufficient vigilance in the magistracy to suppress these disorders, but, also courage in the subjects to protect their property from the attacks of these depredations. The advantages of machinery in manufacture has been so clearly proved, and the subject so ably discussed, that it excites surprise that any should be found so ignorant and infatuated as to imagine that the destruction of machinery should better the situation of the persons employed in manufactures. These absurd ideas have been refuted over and over again, not only by writers on the subject, but by the judges in their different circuits, and one might have expected no man could be found ignorant enough to be influenced by them, and I should hope no man would have been so wicked as to instil such mischievous notions into the minds of these deluded man. The Legislature has heretofore provided penalties and serious penalties for the protection of the species of property; all that is required is that the law should be put in force, which can only be by vigilance and courage in detecting offenders. I only find one case in the Calendar which has any reference to this subject, and that person, most fortunate for himself, was by the prompt exertions of a magistrate arrested, perhaps before he had completed the offence. He will probably be prosecuted under some of the provisions of what is called the Black Act, an Act passed to repress certain enormities in the reign of George I, committed by persons armed and disguised by blacking their faces, and as prosecutions under this act are extremely rare, I take the liberty of pointing out to you the words of the Act, 'if any person or persons being armed with swords, fire-arms, or other offensive weapons, and having his or their faces blacked, or being otherwise disguised, shall appear in any forest, park, &c. or in any high road, and shall be convicted thereof, they shall be adjudged guilty of felony.'

Two circumstances it will be observed are necessary to constitute this offence, that the person should be armed, and should be disguised by having his face blacked, and in the present instance perhaps it will appear, but of this you will judge when the case comes before you, this person was discovered before the offence was completed, and that only one of the circumstances can be proved against him; he was evidently on the verge of committing capital felony, from which he was, perhaps fortunately for himself, withheld by being taken into custody. You will therefore inquire not only as to his person being disguised, but as to the fact of his being armed with offensive weapons, as swords, firearms, or other weapons, calculated to injure or terrify his Majesty's subjects. I have presumed to make these observations because a case of this kind may not have come before you, and in a statute so extremely penal there ought to be satisfactory grounds for putting a person upon this trial before another Jury, who in such case will have ultimately to decide upon his guilt or innocence."

The Bill against James Shaw, of Leeds, cloth-dresser, charging him with having disfigured his person by blacking his face, and with being unlawfully armed with offensive weapons, was thrown out, by the Grand Jury, on Wednesday; and he was, of course, discharged without being put upon his trial.

 The first trial of anyone accused of being a Luddite had ended without a conviction.

February 1812: Song "The Cropper's Song", Huddersfield area

The Cropper’s Song

Come, cropper lads of high renown,
Who love to drink good ale that’s brown,
And strike each haughty tyrant down,
With hatchet, pike, and gun!
Oh, the cropper lads for me,
The gallant lads for me,
Who with lusty stroke,
The shear frames broke,
The cropper lads for me!

What though the specials still advance,
And soldiers nightly round us prance;
The cropper lads still lead the dance,
With hatchet, pike, and gun!
Oh, the cropper lads for me,
The gallant lads for me,
Who with lusty stroke
The shear frames broke,
The cropper lads for me!

And night by night when all is still
And the moon is hid behind the hill,
We forward march to do our will
With hatchet, pike, and gun!
Oh, the cropper lads for me,
The gallant lads for me,
Who with lusty stroke
The shear frames broke,
The cropper lads for me!

Great Enoch still shall lead the van.
Stop him who dare! stop him who can!
Press forward every gallant man
With hatchet, pike, and gun!
Oh, the cropper lads for me,
The gallant lads for me,
Who with lusty stroke
The shear frames broke,
The cropper lads for me!

According to the Folklorist & Journalist Frank Peel, this song was written by the Luddite John Walker, who first sung it at a meeting of the Liversedge and Huddersfield Croppers at the Shears Inn in Liversedge some time in February 1812, just prior to the commencement of direct action in the area.

There are many versions of the Cropper Lads available on the internet. Here are a selection of the best:

Simon Vaughan for Trad2Mad 2010:



Ruth Price & Sadie Greenwood (daughters of Bill Price, see below) at Whitby Folk Week 2008:



A barnstorming version by Mawkin Causley at Kirkby Fleetham Big Birthday Bash 2009



Blackstone Edge's version in Dewsbury from last year:



Bill Price's version from his 1972 LP 'The Fine Old Yorkshire Gentleman':

16th January 1812: The first Yorkshire Luddite is committed for trial

The day after he was arrested at the bridge near Sheepscar in Leeds, James Shaw was charged under the Black Act with "disguising his person, and having in his possession several offensive weapons" and committed to York Castle, being escorted there by a part of Scotch Greys. He was to stand trial at the York lent Assizes in March.

15th January 1812: Magistrates break up nocturnal croppers meeting near Leeds

At 9 o'clock on the evening of Wednesday the 15th of January, Magistrates in Leeds received news they must have been dreading. An informant gave them information under oath about a conspiracy to destroy machinery in the area. Croppers were to gather en masse that night and then make their way at 11 o'clock to a new Mill at Sheepscar to "proceed to the work of destruction".

The Magistrates assembled at the office of the Town Clerk to decide what to do. They proceeded with mounted troops towards the proposed location of the attack, the meeting point being a bridge close to the Mill. Once there, they observed a number of people, who were passing the meeting place, and then returning to pass it by again, as if they were unsure of what to do. They seemed reluctant to gather, and when they finally dispersed at 1.00 a.m., the Magistrates and troops apprehended one of their number. The man had his face blacked, and carried a hammer and chisel. He also carried a large piece of burnt cork in his pocket.

The Magistrates had acted just in time to prevent what would have been the first Luddite attack in Yorkshire.

The historic context of West Yorkshire Luddism in 1812

In 1812, the West Riding of Yorkshire was the centre of the woollen cloth industry in England. But it had not always been this way: for a long period of time the South West of England - and in particular counties like Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Somerset - had been at the forefront of the woollen trade. But the industrial revolution saw the centre of gravity shift to the North of England.

The wool trade had 2 distinct branches - woollen and worsted. In the woollen or cloth branch the raw material was short wool, which was first carded and then spun, whereas in the the worsted branch, long wool was prepared by combing prior to spinning. Spinning and weaving were common to both branches, but the cloth branch required separate processes: 'felting' ('milling' or 'fulling') which strengthened the cloth and 'finishing' which involved raising the fibres into a nap, which was then cut, leaving a smooth, high quality finish.

In the South West, the industrial model saw master manufacturers or 'gentlemen clothiers' buying the raw material and then employing others to produce the finished product. An increase in trade had led to many of these capitalists becoming merchants.

In the West Riding of Yorkshire, the system was semi-domesticated, dominated by an increasing number of small master manufacturers who worked on the wool and took it to market themselves. The workers were self-sufficient, frequently living on small plots of land which they cultivated to provide much of their food. Later, factories took on much of the 'felting' process, but spinning, weaving and finishing remained semi-domesticated.

The introduction of machinery into the industry came first in the form of James Hargreaves' Spinning Jenny, a machine that could be used to spin multiple spindles of yarn. The effect was to increase output, but it was still possible for the industry to remain domestic, since the Jennies could be used at home. Nevertheless, the introduction of Jennies by the capitalists in the trade in the South-West in 1776 caused serious uproar amongst cloth workers there, with rioting taking place at Shepton Mallet. Workers were naturally concerned about increased mechanisation leading to widespread unemployment and severe hardship. An increase in trade had negated the ill-effects of mechanisation. When the conditions of trade took a turn for the worse, hardship increased with predictable results.

Specific existing legislation afforded woollen workers some economic protection from a 'race to the bottom' amongst laissez-faire capitalists, at least in theory. These were: a statute of Edward VI prohibiting the use of gig mills; a statute of Elizabeth 1 enforcing apprenticeship in the woollen trade; and a statute of Phillip & Mary limiting the number of looms that clothiers and weavers could own outside of cities and certain towns. It was the abrogation and eventual repealing of this legislation which escalated the class conflict in the period running up to 1812. The workers at the sharp end of the changes in the industry at the beginning of the nineteenth century were those working in the cloth finishing trade, and in particular the 'Croppers' as they were called in the West Riding (they were known as 'Shearmen' in the South West).

The Croppers/Shearmen were amongst the most skilled and privileged of workers in 1812. They played a crucial part of the cloth finishing process, using huge four foot long hand shears which weighed 30 to 40 pounds, to crop or shear the nap that had been raised by another worker using a teazle. The direct application of their skill could increase or decrease the value of a piece of cloth by as much as 20%, placing them in an unusually strong bargaining position. They controlled the finishing process, and could keep out unskilled labour. Between 3,000 to 5,000 croppers were employed in the West Riding, largely concentrated in the Spen Valley, with only a third of this number employed in the South West.

The use of gig mills - a machine that raised the fibres on a piece of cloth to produce a nap - had been a flash point in the South West in 1802, when the introduction of this machinery had become more widespread, along with the more limited introduction of shearing frames, a machine which mechanised the shearing of cloth. A number of mills containing the machinery had been attacked and destroyed and a parallel wages dispute had resulted saw clothiers conceding to the demands of Shearmen. Despite the Combination Act, the Shearmen/Croppers were very highly organised, and there were links between those working in the South West and those in the West Riding. But because of the Combination Act, the workers had good reason to have no faith that the capitalists would keep to their word.

In Yorkshire, the unrest in the South West had horrified the authorities to the extent that they discouraged manufacturers from installing them in their mills, and in August 1802, the mere threat of a strike by Croppers over the introduction of more machinery had brought the capitalists to heel. Another strike by Croppers came about when Benjamin Gott of Leeds had used non-apprenticed labour in his factories - the strike lasted for months, and the Croppers won.

Thereafter, the disputes in the woollen trade moved to the Parliamentary level. The clothiers of the South West first mounted a campaign to repeal all the protective legislation, and were soon joined by clothiers in the West Riding. The Shearmen and Croppers organised and petitioned to oppose the changes. The campaign was long fought, and in the interim a number of suspending acts were introduced giving the clothiers temporary suspension. In 1806, the House of Commons produced a report into the state of manufacture of the woollen industry in England, which recommended the repeal of the laws that the clothiers objected to. This was not actually achieved until 1809 with introduction of Woollen Manufacture Act (49 Geo.III.c.109.)

With the 1806 parliamentary report being particularly vitriolic in it's attitude to the Croppers/Shearmen and the way they were organised, these workers now had no choice but to go underground. With the declaration of war with North America in and the consequent loss of the American market for cloth goods, the West Riding was hit particularly hard. Allied to the broader context and in this climate, the capitalists increasingly moved to step up the pace of mechanisation in an effort to undercut their rivals and corner what little trade was now left.

The scene was set for confrontation.