12th January 1813: The trial of James Hey, Joseph Crowther & Nathan Hoyle for a robbery at Fartown

On Tuesday 12th January 1813, the remaining trials of the York Special Commission were held.

The first case was against James Hey (aged 25, a woollen-spinner), Joseph Crowther (31, a cotton-spinner) & Nathan Hoyle (45, a weaver) for the robbery of James Brook at Fartown on 29th November 1812 & for stealing from him and placing him in fear. All three pleaded Not Guilty.

James Alan Park set out the case of the prosecution, stating that James Brook was himself a poor man, a coal-miner and went to describe the prisoners “men in an inferior station in life”. An accomplice, Joseph Carter, was again witness for the Crown.

Park went on to describe the circumstances leading up to the raid: that a witness, Edward Crowther, took part in a conversation with Nathan Hoyle and another man called Jonas Mitchell on the day of the robberies at Deighton and Fartown where the plans for that evening were laid out, and it was proposed to meet at 7.00 p.m. that evening. The two other men did not turn up, but they met Hoyle the next day at noon, and Hoyle said the group had done ‘exceedingly well’.

Park stated that, in the evidence he gave when he was examined on 16th December, Joseph Crowther admitted he had taken part in the robberies, but that he was led on by the others.

A description of the raid was given, and the case was summed up by Mr. Justice Le Blanc. After that, James Brook gave evidence and related the raid in detail. Throughout his evidence, Brook would not positively swear that James Hey was the leader of the group who spoke to him that night.

Next, the witness for the Crown, Joseph Carter, gave evidence. Carter had taken part in the raids at Deighton & Fartown that night. Carter’s account of the raid at James Brook’s differed in some respects from the evidence given by Brook himself, principally in that he did not witness the words spoken and also threats made against Brook’s children in the house. Carter admitted that he had given evidence against his accomplices in the hope that it would save him.

The men that had got cold feet, Jonas Mitchell & Edward Crowther, also gave detailed evidence. Both men had given evidence to the magistrate, Joseph Radcliffe, after they had heard what had happened or had been taken up respectively.

The Huddersfield solicitor, John Allison, gave evidence that Joseph Crowther had given evidence of what had happened before Joseph Radcliffe freely ‘without promises of threats’, and Crowther’s evidence was read out in Court.

Two employers of James Hey, Robert Thomas Bradbury of Copley Mill and a Stephen Broadbent spoke about the good character of Hey. No one spoke for the two other prisoners.

The Jury retired at 12.20 p.m. and returned five minutes later, finding all three men Guilty.

19th December 1812: General Acland informs the Home Office about the suspects committed for the recent robberies

Huddersfield 19th December 1812.

My dear Sir.

I had in part anticipated your wishes previous to the receipt of your note to the 15th Inst—

But the cases were thought so good against

William Hill

Joseph Crowther

Job Hay

William Hartley

Nathan Hoyle

that they were committed yesterday and are gone this morning to York Castle.

Mr. Lloyd told me previous to commitment the cases were so strong, he should have no difficulty in going to trial at any time. The most doubtful case I apprehend to be Hoyle’s. The others acknowledge generally or in fact.

James Hay & [Carter] are committed to Wakefield, [Carter] is admitted on Evidence—Hay seems not only willing to speak out, but certainly can give much information, however whether it may be advisable to allow it now or after conviction Mr. Hobhouse will be the judge, to whom Mr. Lloyd rights by this Post & sends up the examinations — from whom you will therefore get particulars now fully detail’d, [till] I am enabled to do—

Three others are recommitted for further examination on Monday, but as far as any opinion can be form’d at present, it is most probable they will then be discharg’d—

I wrote to General Maitland on Thursday, but as I find he was to leave London yesterday, I take the liberty of sending you for Lord Sidmouth’s information a copy of my letter with an enclosure—

But as General Maitland during his stay in London is in daily communication with you, I consider’d it more regular to correspond with him, than to intrude myself unnecessarily on Lord Sidmouth or Yourself.

believe me My dear Sir
Yrs most faithfully

Wroth: P: Ackland

[To] J. Beckett Esqr
&c &c &c

19th December 1812: The Leeds Mercury reports the committal of a new suspect in the Deighton & Fartown robberies

The Leeds Mercury of Saturday 19th December 1812 reported that a shopkeeper from Elland called William Hanson had been arrested and committed to York Castle for taking part in the robberies at Deighton & Fartown on 29th November 1812. The 'To Correspondents' section of the same paper noted that one of Hanson's relatives had written to state that the person swearing the oath that he was involved had committed perjury, but stated the paper wanted to correspondence to discontinue as 'if that be the case, his innocence will speedily be established'.

14th December 1812: James Hey confesses to robberies at Deighton & Fartown, implicates others

On Monday 14th December 1812, Major Hankin of the 2nd Dragoons took the confession of a man recently arrested under suspicion of being involved in the robberies at Deighton & Fartown on 29th November last.

James Hey was a 25 year-old wollen-spinner from Skircoat. Hey admitted to being involved in the robberies with 3 others only: Joseph Holroyd (alias Carter), Joseph Crowther (a 31 year-old cotton-spinner from Sowerby) and Nathan Hoyle (a 45 year-old weaver from Skircoat). He deposed that after the robberies had taken place, they had planned to divide the cash and goods at the house of Holroyd, but decided against when Holroyd said his mother was living with him. Instead, they went to Hey's house. The two watches seized were old for 40 shillings, and this money was divided equally.

Hey went on to discuss how the group of Luddites he said he belonged to was organised: in groups ('classes') of ten men, with one 'head man' over them - that his 'head man' was Job Hey, a man seized five days previously. That although he belonged to a larger division of 200 Luddites, the 'head man' never 'communicated particulars' to the ten men, only when they were needed, and what for, and what role they would play on that occasion. Despite describing himself as a Luddite, James Hey stated that he had never sworn an illegal oath, nor been assigned a number.

A day later, Hey added to his confession, stating that the gunpowder found at the 'head man' Job Hey's house was for use by his class of ten men.

Aspects of Hey's evidence contradicted that given by those robbed on 29th November: in particular, Joshua Thornton was clear that 6 men had entered his home that night, and John Woods had desposed that 9 men had been involved, and that afterwards each of the Luddites had given their number when the roll had been called. We do not know what pressure was brought to bear on Hey, but one of those he implicated, Joseph Holroyd, was later to crack and turn King's Evidence against the other 3.

14th December 1812: General Acland tells General Maitland of a breakthrough in information about Luddite burglars

Huddersfield 14th December 1812.

My dear Sir,

Lt Cooper has some information which if correct may lead to discovery of most of the robberies that have been committed in the neighbourhood of Elland & Halifax, particularly Mr. [Lindsays], Hughes, [Buchen] & those about Deighton — Mr. Ratcliffe late last night issued warrants against five or six Persons who will probably be apprehended this day—

Lt Cooper’s information has been obtained from a man who states he was one of the gang, his statement as far as it goes is circumstantial, but we have been so often deceiv’d that it is impossible to say how it may turn out—

You shall hear further from me about it on Wednesday,

A Route is come for the march of the six troops of the 15. on [Oxford] from the Qr. Mr. General varying a little from the one issued here

The 10th do not come to Sheffield but march direct on York & arrive on the 29th Inst. All is quiet here—

Wroth P Acland

[To] Lt General
The Rt Honble
T. Maitland
London

12th December 1812: Tory & Liberal publications do their best to insult the Luddites

In December 1812, both the Tory Leeds Intelligencer & Whig Leeds Mercury were conducting a war of words. The spat had begun of 7th December, when the Leeds Intelligencer chose to describe the perpetrators of & the motives behind the robberies at Deighton & Fartown in a particular way:

Those Reforming Gentry, the Luddites, have now converted their plans into a complete system of marauding and plunder. Last Sunday night a gang of about a dozen perpetrated the following robberies at Fartown near Huddersfield: At the house of William Walker, they obtained about 20l; at George Scholes’s 20l. besides spiritous liquors; and James Brook’s 1 Guinea and a Watch; at William Radcliff’s 20l. in money and goods; and Moses Ball’s some Silver, and at Josiah Thornton’s about 5l and nearly murdered his wife! And yet we were told lately, that all Luddism was at an end.

There are not wanting persons who pretend that distinction is to be made between Luddites, and Thieves and Robbers. How will such explain the late proceedings of Fartown? The advocates of Luddism pretend that the Fartown thieves were not Yorkshireman. The plundered inhabitants of Fartown will tell you that the speech of the assailants betrayed their country and their parish. But their object was honourable—and honourable, no doubt, will be the pleader who espouses their cause, though fed with Fartown gold. It is said, that the Luddites are collecting money to fee Counsel! One of the Fartown thieves is identified, but will not at present impeach his accomplices. 

The Leeds Mercury of Saturday 12th December responded in the main section to the Intelligencer's accusations about how the Luddites legal Counsel was being funded: 

Every man with the feelings of an Englishman, must read with indignation an attempt to stigmatize the persons who may be professionally employed to plead the cause, or assist in the defence of the prisoners now confined in our County Gaol, on charges of Luddism. Are these men to be put out of the pale of the Constitution, and to be debarred the privilege of a fair trial? This is not a matter of favour, but of right; and whoever endeavours to deprive them of their privileges, acts in contradiction of the laws of his country, and endeavours to introduce a system better fitted to the times of Jefferies than to the days the righteous Judges who now adorned the British Bench. If the prisoners, after a fair trial, with all the advantages given to persons in the unfortunate situation by the law, be found guilty, every friend to the peace and well-being of society, will wish them to meet the punishment due to their crime; but no man but a Jefferies or a Monk, will wish to dam up against them the avenues of justice, by depriving them of the best legal assistance they can procure

In another section of the same edition, the Mercury's 'Huddersfield Correspondent' chose to slur the Luddites indirectly, by associating them with the variety of oppressors they hated the most:

The depredators at Fartown, are, by the advocates of abuses, called Reformers; but this is certainly an improper term, they are much more nearly allied to those State Luddites that fatten on corruption, and exist by public plunder!

Much the same vacuous arguments have been in evidence throughout the bicentenary, re-insulting the Luddites from 200 years ago and those who carry their flame today.

7th December 1812: Joseph Radcliffe writes to the Home Office about the recent robberies near Huddersfield

Sir.

I had yesterday the honor to receive your Letter of the fourth Instant saying that a correspondent of Mr Lord Sidmouth’s have communicated to His Lordship that the inhabitants of the village where the outrage happened neglected to give the slightest intimation of what happened to any one person, who had he been apprised of it might have possibly discovered the Parties.—although the Military who were Stationed near the place for the special purpose of its protection if called upon, were at hand on all sides of it ready to give assistance. This instance of supineness appears to His Lordship to exceed any thing of the sort which has come to His Lordship's knowledge, & he hopes will impress upon the inhabitants of the neighbourhood, that unless they shew more activity in similar occasions, it will be quite impossible to expect that the means afforded by Government for their protection can be effectual for the purpose. Then you mention having inclosed an abstract taken from the Letter which Lord Sidmouth had received upon this occasion. to which I answer that what is called a village, is two stragling Townships, surrounded by a strong party of soldiers at Huddersfield about a mile & an half to two miles from the nearest houses first robbed & under the Eye of the most active of vigilant Officer, Genl Acland, the next station is Elland four miles off, the other station is Brighouse nearly the same distance. The Robbery was on Sunday Night & the next morning two of the Persons robbed came to give the information, as [provided] herewith sent on this I summoned the five others & have also inclosed their information is. Lt. Cooper of the suffolk, quartered at Elland, apprehended three suspicious Characters & brought them before me, agt. whom nothing could be positively proved. I have two more remanded for further examination & one other my warrant went out to apprehend yesterday. in fact my time during all last week has been taken up in attending to this business, & when any thing effectual family made out, Mr. Alison, or Mr. Lloyd, shall transmit the particulars to Lord Sidmouth. By the examination herewith, sent, His Lordship will observe the terror impressed on the minds of the poor inhabitants, by the threats of the armed Robbers.—& am, Sir,

yours Truly
J: Radcliffe.

Milnsbridge House
Decr 7th, 1812—

[To John Beckett]

2nd December 1812: General Acland sends another update to General Maitland about the recent Robberies

Huddersfield 2nd December 1812.

My dear Sir,

The three men against whom warrants were issued, were brought before Mr. Ratcliffe this morning, but some of the persons robbed could [not] identify any of them, they will be bound over to appear on Saturday next

We have got a sort of clue, that may lead to something, however I am not very sanguine — A fowling piece & the hatchet were left behind at one of the houses, the former cut short, & is the same that was taken from a Mr. Hague soon after you came into this District.

The Men who committed the robberies on the 29th was seen going towards Elland & Brighouse & I think will be found to belong to the neighbourhood—

Only Sixty six pounds some shillings besides several watches & tea spoons are now stated to have been taken from all the parties on that night – one person saved Seventy pounds by throwing his pocket book behind the bed—

Allison is at work, getting all the information he can, & as any thing transpires you shall know it immediately—

Wroth P Acland

I am going to dine & sleep at Sir George Armytages at Thornley.

[To] Lt General
The Rt Honble
T. Maitland

1st December 1812: General Acland updates General Maitland on the recent Robberies near Huddersfield

Huddersfield 1 December 1812.

My dear Sir,

From the information Allison & myself have receiv’d, Warrants are granted by Mr. Radcliffe against three men from the neighbourhood of Elland, supposed to have been concern’d in the robberies on the night of the 29th Ultimo (Novr)

Lt Cooper & Serjt Clarke of the Suffolk have been active in this business, & I am not without hope that we shall break into it, & apprehend some of those concern’d.

The day has been so wet, I have not been able to go round to the different houses to make any enquiries, & am therefore not prepared to state further as to the facts you wish to have ascertain’d, [illegible] Deighton has had no association being connected with this Township it has depended on it, & the civil Patroles have not extended so far.

From the conversation I have had with two of the persons robb’d I trust they are stimulated to exert themselves & persuade their neighbors to organize some system for their own security, but I find the [witnesses] of the respectable part of the community is greater than I could have believ’d, & my opinion was never favorable on this point—

I was mistaken in my statement of the robberies in my report of Yesterday, it does not now appear more than forty pounds were taken from the Two persons who appear’d before Mr. Ratcliffe — the whole are summon’d for to-morrow, & as soon as I get the result of the examinations it shall be communicated to you—

Unless we can rouse the Spirit of the people to combine to self protection, we must expect nightly depredations, in spite of every assistance the Military can afford — but you may rely on it they will not be brought to any measure of the kind, notwithstanding your utmost exertions till the system of Plunder gets to that extent, that civil associations will be of no [illegible]—

Wroth: P: Acland

[To] Lt General
The Rt Honorable
T. Maitland

1st December 1812: Lieutenant Cooper informs General Acland of suspects wanted for Robberies near Huddersfield

Elland 1st December 1812.

Sir.

I have the Honor to transmit to you what particulars I have been able to acquire concerning the Robberies committed on the night of the 29th ult.

I sent my Piquet to Patrole the neighbourhood last night, giving orders to the Serjeant, a very active and intelligent man, to make particular enquiries, of the persons robbed, of the circumstances attending the Depredations. He has given me a very satisfactory Report of the proceedings, & it appears to me that there are grounds sufficiently strong for apprehending Samuel Robinson and Joshua Fielding, both of Elland, the first escaped my clutches the other day before Mr Radcliffe by proving an alibi, but I have a strong suspicion that his evidence is perjured. I have the Honor to enclose you Sergeant Clark’s Report and I make him the Bearer of it lest you should think it necessary to question him further. I have often employ’d him to obtain the information by Sending him about the Country in plain clothes and I have much reason to commend his assiduity and activity and should you approve of it I should like to employ him continually in the same Service.

I intended to have been the Bearer of the enclosed intelligence myself but am unable to procure a Horse, and the time I have lost in trying to borrow one has prevented your receiving this earlier.

If it meets your approbation I should like the Serjeant to proceed from Huddersfield to Milnsbridge to procure Warrants & Summons to the parties concern’d, as I think we cannot proceed with too much alacrity.

I have [etc]
Alf. Cooper Lieut
West Suffolk Militia

[To] Major General Acland
&c. &c. &c.
Huddersfield.

30th November 1812: General Maitland writes to Acland about his report of new Robberies

Wakefield
30th November 1812

Dear Acland

I have just received yours & am not much surprized at its contents, we

We must expect & naturally some of these things but what is most material to attend to is, the facts which you state, how far this is a New Gang on a principle of Plunder or how far it is the old Set beginning a new System.

I therefore request that you will do your utmost to set every engine at Work “to Wit” Allison & Lloyd to trace this to the utmost extent & forthwith

In regard to yourself I know you will do it [full] as well & better than any of them, but when we are enquiring into the thing it is extreme material too that we should be aware, what system this Deighton is under, & how far the orders of the Lieutenancy for their associating & Patroling has been carried into effect.

Write me upon this Subject as soon as may be, for whatever you & I may think upon the general State of the Country it is impossible to hold out for one moment that we can protect Individuals against Robbery, if these Individuals will not protect themselves.

Ever Your’s
T Maitland

I will write you tomorrow about the change of Cavalry from above

[To] Major Genl Acland
&c &c &c

30th November 1812: General Acland informs General Maitland about the Robberies at Deighton & Fartown

Huddersfield 30th November 1812.

My dear Sir,

On my return from Halifax this afternoon it was reported to me that Seven robberies were committed last night at Deighton & the neighbourhood (about two miles from hence) from 2 of the houses about 100£ appears to have been taken, the other five owners have not come in to give any account, but I hear near 70£ were suppos’d to have been taken from one of them

The Gang from report appears to be a new set [unsystemic] & without the organization of those we have hitherto heard of — they have the [illegible] of this country but the persons robbed neither suspect any of their neighbors or know those who came into the houses, which were five in number, & some others remain’d without—

I shall enquire more particularly to-morrow & will inform you if I get any fresh intelligence

All is quiet about Halifax the Stirling got possession of the Barracks this day—

The Barracks here are ready, but the bedding is not come down—

Capt. Mc Dougal writes that everything is going on well about Staley Bridge, & he does not hear that any thing particular is going carrying on among the Luddites at present—

Wroth: P Acland

[To] Lt General
The Rt Honble
T. Maitland

29th November 1812: Multiple Arms Raids & Robberies at Deighton & Fartown, near Huddersfield

In the evening of Sunday 29th November 1812, a series of robberies were committed in the area of Deighton & Fartown, near Huddersfield.

At 9.15 p.m., a number of men with handguns entered the house of a Cloth Manufacturer called William Walker, of New Hall, near Fartown. The men demanded and were given Walker's gun - a pistol - and also took a powder horn. They then demanded money and were given £15 in notes but offered to trade them back for a golden Guinea - Walker agreed and took out his purse: it was a ruse, and the men seized all the coins in the purse, which amounted to five Guineas. The leading man - the lower half of whose face was covered with a black handkerchief - then proceeded to go through Walker's papers whilst the others levelled guns at the Manufacturer. Upon leaving, Walker and his family were warned not to leave the house for at least 2 hours on pain of death.

Next visited by the gang was a shopkeeper at Fartown named George Scholes. Scholes was liberated of a gun, up to 40 shillings in silver, a £5 note, up to 10 £1 notes, a pair of silver tea tongs and two silver teaspoons. The gang also inspected Scholes' cellar and took away a bottle of Rum and some other provisions. Scholes and his family were again warned not to leave for two hours, and that a guard would be left outside. After the group had left, Scholes noticed they had left behind a blunderbuss and a hatchet.

At 10.30 p.m., the gang arrived at the house of a farmer called Joshua Thornton of Jilley Royd, near Fixby. Four men entered the house - two armed with blunderbusses a third with a rifle and another with a pistol. They demanded arms from Thornton, and were told that he had neither. The gang then called out orders "Enoch, Captain, Sergeant and Hatchet-men to enter", and 2 other men entered - Thornton's wife then promised to find some money, and the 2 men were ordered back outside. The gang took a pocketbook containing £5 in notes from Mrs Thornton, who also received a blow to the head with the butt of a gun. One of the gang fired at Thornton himself, but the gun mis-fired. On leaving, the men told Thornton that they intended to use the money to buy weapons, which were to be used to shoot the Huddersfield Magistrate Joseph Radcliffe, and that when this was accomplished, they would return the money.

The next house visited belonged to James Brook of Brackenhall. The gang took away a silver watch, a £1 note and 4 shillings in silver.

At the house of John Woods, doors and windows were broken, but nothing worth taking could be found. The roll was called in Luddite fashion from 1 to 9 before the gang left.

The next destination was the home of William Radcliffe at Woodside: they made off with £11, 10 shillings and 6 pence in notes, six Guineas in gold and up to £3 in copper coins, as well as a silver watch. They also took some tea, loaf sugar and liquor, as well as some plates.

The last visit was paid to Moses Ball at Jilley Royd, where they obtained £2 & 10 shillings in silver coins.

Later, both Joshua Thornton and George Scholes believed they recognised two of the raiders and named them as Samuel Robinson and Joshua Fielding of Elland.