6th March 1813: Thomas Shillitoe visit Joseph Radcliffe and also the families of Joseph Fisher & John Swallow

On Saturday 6th March 1813, Thomas Shillitoe concluded his visits with Joseph Wood, to the families of executed Luddites, first calling upon the magistrate, Joseph Radcliffe:

The magistrate and his wife received us very courteously, with whom we had a free, open conversation of near an hour and a half. I gave him, as far as memory furnished me therewith, some account of our proceedings in the visits, and the state of mind we found the poor widows, and those we met with, who had been liberated on bail: on assuring him we heard nothing from any we had thus visited, in the least degree reflecting on him, or any one who had taken a part in apprehending the sufferers, he appeared to receive it as satisfactory information. I then laid before him the suffering situation of the widow Hill, against whose son his warrant was issued; detailing the good character the young man uniformly bore, in the neighbourhood where he had resided before his escape; and that it was the first, and only night, he had been out with the rioters, and then, more by constraint than inclination. Our remarks exciting in his mind feelings of tenderness towards the young man, we requested him to consider his case, and the case of his mother, and to afford them all the relief in his power; to which he replied, the young man must come before me and surrender himself up, at the same time giving us authority to inform his mother, if he thus proceeded, he should not remain in custody, but have his liberty to return home, and not be disturbed, so long as he continued to conduct himself in a quiet, orderly manner. His mother being informed to this effect, the young man surrendered himself, and was liberated: since that time he has married, and is comfortably settled in life; and, from good authority, we understand he continues an exemplary religious character. I felt truly thankful this point was thus so far gained; but there was another, which, to me, appeared of equal importance, which I also laid before the magistrate, which was the deplorable situation of the widows and children; there appearing no other prospect but that they must, by degrees, sell their household furniture to procure subsistence, they informing us, none would employ them; some refusing through prejudice, and some through fear of being suspected to countenance the proceedings of their husbands; whereby the parish workhouse must soon be their only resource, if no speedy remedy was applied. This, from the view I had of the subject, was to be dreaded; the children, from the company they would associate with, being likely, on every slight offence, to have reflections cast upon them, on account of the conduct, and disgraceful end of their father: thus held in contempt, the danger was, the minds of the children would, by degrees, become hardened, and they, thereby become unfitted for usefulness in society. After thus expressing my views, and my desire that some mode should be adopted to educate, and provide for the children, until they attained to an age fit for servants and apprentices, and to aid the earnings of the widows whilst they remained single, and proposing for his consideration a plan for these purposes, which had suggested itself to my mind almost daily of late, I felt discharged from these subjects, which had pressed heavily upon me. At our parting, he took us by the hand, and, in a very kind manner, bade us farewell.

We proceeded to Berrisfield, where the widow of Joseph Fisher, and other families of the sufferers, lived: they, having no regular place of settlement, were collected into one cottage. The opportunity with them was a favoured one, leading us to hope, the labour would not all prove in vain. The state of mind of a woman whose husband was transported, called for much sympathy; she viewed her own case to be a more trying one than that of the poor widows, who, she said, had seen the end of their husbands' sufferings in this life. The scene of distress this opportunity presented to our feelings, is not to be described. We then went to Halland-moor; sat with a widow and six children of John Swallow, who suffered for robbery: her mother, brother, and a sister of the sufferer's sat with us. Words would fall short to attempt to describe the state of distress her mind appeared to be in. We had largely to hand out to her encouragement to look for support where alone it was to be found, and where, we had reason to hope, her poor mind was favoured at times to know a centering: she received our visit with expressions of gratitude, and with it our services of this nature closed.

16th January 1813: The 14 convicted Luddites are executed at York Castle

A contemporary illustration, from York Castle Prison, of an execution at the 'New Drop' after 1802.

On Saturday 16th January 1813, the fourteen Luddites sentenced to death 4 days previously were hanged at York Castle. It had been decided to hang them in two groups of seven: an anecdote has it that the counsel for the prosecution asked Baron Thomson after sentencing if they were to be hung together, and he responded "Well no, sir, I consider they would hang more comfortably on two."

There are two main contemporary accounts of the execution in both the Leeds papers, with the longest being printed in the Leeds Mercury of 23rd January 1813. This is below, with notes added in square brackets.

After sentence of death had been passed upon the persons convicted of making the attack on Mr. Cartwright’s Mill, at Rawfolds, and of the Burglaries, fifteen in number, all of them except John Lumb, who was reprieved, were removed to the condemned-ward, and their behaviour in that place was very suitable to their unhappy situation. They confessed that they had offended against the laws of God and their Country, but on the subject of the offence, for which the sentence of death was passed upon them, they were very reserved; yet all of them except one, tacitly confessed that they were guilty of the crimes which they stood convicted, when they were asked if any of them could say they were not guilty, they all remain silent except James Haigh and Nathan Hoyle, the former of whom said, “I am guilty,” and the latter, “I am innocent;” this was the day before the execution; but Hoyle did not make any declaration to that effect when brought to the platform. Their minds for the most part had attained an extraordinary degree of composure; except the mind of John Ogden—he appeared some time to be much disturbed, but on the question being put to him whether his agitation arose from any discovery that he had to make, and with the weight of which his conscience was oppressed? he answered, no; his agitation arose from the terrors of his situation.

And here it seems proper to observe, that if any of these unfortunate men possessed any secret that it might have been important to the public to know, they suffered it to die with them. Their discoveries were meagre in the extreme. Not one of them impeached any of their accomplices, nor did they state, as might reasonably have been expected, where the depot of arms, in the collection of which some of them had been personally engaged, was to be found. When interrogated on this point, some of them disclaimed all knowledge of the place, and others said, Benjamin Walker, the informer against Mellor, Thorpe, and Smith, could give the best information about the arms, as he had been present at most of the depredations. On the question being put to them whether they knew who was concerned in the robbery of a mill (not Rawfolds) near Cleckheaton; James Hey said, “I and Carter the informer were present at the robbery.” It was observed to James Hey, that it was very extraordinary, that he who had the advantage of a religious education, his Father being of the Methodist Society, should have come to such a disgraceful situation; to which replied, in a manner that shewed that his vices, however flagrant, had not extinguished in his bosom the feelings of filial affection, I hope, said he, “the son’s crimes will never be imputed to his father.” The principal part of these ill-fated men were married and have left families. William Hartley, has left seven children, their mother, happily for herself, died about half a year ago. John Ogden, wife and two children; Nathan Hoyle, wife and seven children; Joseph Crowther, wife pregnant, and four children; John Hill, wife and two children; John Walker, wife and five children; Jonathan Dean, wife and seven children; Thomas Brook, wife and three children; John Swallow, wife and six children; John Batley, wife and one child; John Fisher, wife and three children; Job Hey, wife and seven children; James Hey, wife and two children; James Haigh, wife, but no children. On the morning before the execution, the eldest daughter of Hartley obtain permission to visit a wretched parent, when a scene took place which we will not attempt to describe. The heart-broken father wished to have been spared the anguish of this parting interval, but the importunate intreaties of his child a last prevailed, and they met to take a long farewell, never again to be repeated in this world. What must be the feelings of an affectionate father, (for such in this trying moment he appears to have shewn himself,) when, though standing on the brink of eternity, he declines to see a darling child; how great an aggravation of his punishment must those parting pangs of inflicted, and how loud an admonition does this melancholy incident suggest to the Fathers of families against entering into combinations that may place them in the same inexpressibly afflicted situations. It was Hartley’s particular request that the public should be informed of the number and unprovided situation of his orphan family.

At 11 o'clock on Saturday morning, the Under Sheriff went to demand the bodies of John Ogden, Nathan Hoyle, Joseph Crowther, John Hill, John Walker, Jonathan Dean, and Thomas Brook. They were all engaged in singing a hymn:

Behold the Saviour of Mankind,
Nail’d to the shameful tree;
How vast the love that him inclin’d
To bleed and for me, &c.

Which one of them [John Walker, according to the Leeds Intelligencer] dictated in a firm tone of voice; and in this religious service they continued on their way to the platform, and some time after they had arrived at the fatal spot. They then join the ordinary with great fervency in the prayers appointed to be read on such occasions, and after that gentleman had taken his final leave of them, ejaculations to the throne of mercy rose from every part of the crowded platform.

Joseph Crowther addressing himself to the spectators said, “Farewell Lads;” another whose name we could not collect said, “I am prepared for the Lord,” and John Hill, advancing a step or two on the platform, said, “Friends! all take warning by my fate; for three years I followed the Lord, but about half a year since, I began to fall away; and fell by little and little, and at last I am come to this; persevere in the ways of godliness, and O! take warning by my fate!” The executioner then proceeded to the discharge of his duty, and the falling of the platform soon after, forced an involuntary shriek from the vast concourse of spectators assembled to witness this tremendous sacrifice to the injured laws of the country.

The bodies having remained suspended for the usual time [12.00 p.m.], they were removed, and while the place of execution was yet warm with the blood of the former victims, the remaining seven, namely, John Swallow, John Batley, Joseph Fisher, William Hartley, James Haigh, James Hey, and Job Hey, were led at half-past one o'clock from their cell to the fatal stage, their behaviour, like that of their deceased confederates, was contrite and becoming; James Haigh expressed deep contrition for his offences. John Swallow said he had been led away by wicked and unprincipled men, and hoped his fate would be a warning to all, and teach them to live a life of sobriety and uprightness. They all united in prayer with an earnestness that is seldom witnessed in the services of devotion, except in the immediate prospect of death [the Leeds Intelligencer said they sung the same hymn as those executed earlier]. A few moments closed their mortal existence, and placed at the bar differing from all earthly tribunal's in this infinitely important particular—here, owing to the imperfections of all human institutions, repentance though sincere, cannot procure forgiveness—there, we have the authority of God himself for saying, that the cries of the contrite and broken-hearted shall not be despised. Charity hopeth all things.

The criminal records of Yorkshire do not perhaps afford an instance of so many victims having been offered in one day to the injured laws of the country. The scene was inexpressibly awful, and the large body of soldiers, both horse and foot, who guarded the approach to the castle, and were planted in front of the fatal tree, gave to the scene a peculiar degree of terror, and exhibited the appearance of a military execution. The spectators, particularly in the morning, were unusually numerous, and their behaviour on both occasions, were strictly decorous and unbecoming.

The site of the 'New Drop', where the executions took place (Google Street View)

5th January 1813: Henry Hobhouse reports the outcome of the first trial at the York Special Commission

Private

York
Jan. 5. [1813]

Dear Sir,

The whole day has been occupied with the Trial of one Prosecution, viz. that of

John Swallow
John Batley
Joseph Fisher &
John Lumb

for Burglary. It commenced at 10 in the morning, & not conclude till near 7 this Evening. It was tried admirably well, but of course very deliberately, by Baron Thomson. The Evidence was quite conclusive against all the Prisoners. The Jury retired about 10 minutes, & then returned with a Verdict of guilty against all, but recommended Lumb to mercy. The Judge asked them for the Ground of this Recommendation; which they stated to be that Lumb had not been disguised, nor armed, & had called a Witness to his Character.

We appear to have a very respectable common Jury Panel.

Tomorrow morning we proceed with the Trial of Horsfall’s Murderers, which I apprehend will be taken by Mr Justice LeBlanc, who I am happy to say appeared much better in Court today.

The Court was extremely crowded throughout the day, & with an Audience for the most part of a very ill Complexion. But the Verdict was received with perfect Silence.

I understand a considerable Concourse of People has been flocking to York from the Westward, but on this head of course Lord Sidmouth will be much better informed by those whose Duty it is to preserve the Peace.

The Grand Jury which is highly respectable, & has Mr Lascelles for it’s Foreman, has found all the Bills that have yet been presented. The Result of the Trial tomorrow will decide how many more shall be prepared.

I am Dear Sir
Yrs most faithfully
H. Hobhouse

[To] J Beckett Esq

5th January 1813: The trial of John Swallow, John Batley, Joseph Fisher & John Lumb for burglary

The first trial of the York Special Commission commenced at 10.00 a.m. on Tuesday 5th January 1813.

The prisoners John Swallow (aged 37), John Batley (31), Joseph Fisher (33) & John Lumb (32) were indicted for a burglary at the home of Samuel Moxon, at Whitley Upper, on 3rd July 1812 and stealing various articles belonging to William Moxon. They all pleaded Not Guilty.

Fisher, Swallow & Lumb were coal miners, whilst Batley was a clothier.

James Alan Park opened the case for the prosecution by stating that although the crime itself was not unusual, the circumstances under which it was committed made it anything but a common case.

Park went on to outline the Prosecution’s case:  that shots were heard from outside the house by Moxon, and then threats, demanding he open his door until he relented. Once inside, the men demanded first arms and then money, accompanied by threats to shoot him. Moxon gave them some money, and then later some food from his cellar, as well as clothing. He stated that the men were in the house around an hour.

Park then produced the witness & perpetrator who had turned King’s Evidence: Earl Parkin. The Crown contended that it could be established that Parkin was involved by the evidence of other witnesses: Samuel Parkin – Earl Parkin’s brother – was part of the group, but said he got cold feet about the raid and left the group; and Jonas Boocock, a man who saw some of the group together, including Earl Parkin, earlier in the afternoon; finally Joshua  Peace, a neighbour of Samuel Moxon who saw the group with blackened faces prior to the robbery and who tried to intervene, but was shot at, intimidated and even followed to his house and threatened to keep quiet.

Park contended that John Swallow had bragged about the robbery on 6th July 1812 at Wakefield Gig Fair on Grange Moor to a man called Littlewood. That he had said that the group passed themselves off as Luddites because that way those they robbed offered less resistance. Littlewood said Swallow had asked him to join, but he refused and went straight to the authorities. Two other witnesses, Joseph Roberts & William Sykes, had confirmed they had seen Littlewood talking to Swallow at the Fair.

Park contended that, when he was committed to York Castle, John Lumb had admitted to another prisoner, Samuel Stocks, that he had been present at the raid, though he had tried to not take part. This prisoner also contended that Joseph Fisher had admitted he too was present at the raid at the same time, but that he had been intimidated into going along by Swallow & Parkin.

Baron Thomson summed up the case, and the examination of witnesses began with William Moxon. Moxon stated that shots were fired at the house, something that the witness and accomplice Earl Parkin did not agree with, but the point was not laboured by the prosecution. Moxon went on to describe the raid in detail.

Jonas Boocock was then examined. The prosecution admitted that though Boocock was clear that he had met Swallow, Fisher & Earl Parkin on the afternoon before the raid took place, Parkin could not place the precise day this took place. Boocock confirmed he had known Parkin for 6 years, and also that he knew Swallow.

Next Earl Parkin, the King’s Evidence, was called. He said he had agreed to meet Swallow, Lumb, Fisher, Batley  & Samuel Parkin at a cabin belonging to a man called John Bedford at Fallas, which was a mile from Moxon’s house. He had brought a gun, as instructed, and had joined the others after 11.00 p.m.  Parkin stated that Swallow and Batley had taken their shirts off, and worn them over their outer clothing, something that Moxon corroborated, and blackened their faces with soot from the chimney.

Parkin went on to say that the witness Joshua Peace had wanted to join them in the raid, but the group did not want this, and threatened and intimidated him to get him to leave them alone, something Peace had not admitted to in his evidence. Parkin then went on to say that when they arrived at Moxon’s he did not go into the house, but that Swallow, Batley and Fisher did, with Lumb staying outside and Samuel Parkin refusing to take part 200 yards before the house had been reached.

Parkin stated that, after the raid, the men went to a wood in a valley nearby and divided up the goods they had stolen. Samuel Parkin did not want any of the booty. Swallow kept the money, in order to pay for a watch he had pawned for drinking money for them all some time before.

Under cross-examination, Parkin stated he had met Boocock the day after the raid, not the same day as Boocock had said. The defence also underlined evidence contradicting the account of the raid: Parkin was adamant no shots had been fired at the house, only those to intimidate Peace prior to the raid. Parkin was also clear about his motive for turning King’s Evidence – he wanted to save himself.

Parkin’s brother, Samuel, was next to give evidence. He stated that 3 days prior to the raid, he had met with the group, and John Swallow had first invited him to a ‘meeting of the Ludds’ on Grange Moor, and then ordered him to do so when he appeared reluctant. Departing from his brother’s evidence, he stated that he had no idea that there was a plan to raid Moxon’s house until the group was within 200 yards of it, and refused to go any further. Samuel Parkin’s evidence also directly contradicted that given by others: he said he heard no shots that night at all, nor did he see Joshua Peace, and he said the group returned only 10 minutes after leaving him in the road to rob Moxon’s house.

Joshua Peace was the next witness. He described in detail his encounter with the group, and admitted he knew all those at the bar in the court, but on the night, he thought that he only recognised John Swallow’s voice, but remained largely uncertain.

Further witnesses were called – Alexander Littlewood, Joseph Roberts & William Sykes, to state what had happened when they encountered John Swallow at Wakefield Gig Fair.

The debtor at York Castle, Samuel Stocks, was called and related his encounters with the prisoners, but under cross-examination did admit that he had taken legal action for slander against John Swallow and another man called Noble previously. Swallow had also been his tenant, and there had been a disagreement about extending Swallow’s tenancy which produced the slander. He went on to say that he owed money to Mr. Blackburn, one of the defence Counsel at the Special Commission, but that he bore the prisoners no ill will.

John Allison, the Huddersfield solicitor, stated to the Court that no threats or promises were made to the prisoners when they were examined by the Magistrate Joseph Radcliffe on 14th September 1812. The statements given by Batley, Fisher & Lumb were then read out to the Court.

The defence of the four prisoners consisted only of their assistance that they were not guilty.

Witnesses were called for the defence. George Armitage, a farmer from Kirkheaton, stated that the evidence for the King, Earl Parkin, was not trustworthy. A Mr. Wright, a debtor from Gaol, spoke for the good character of John Lumb, who he had known for 15 years.

After the summing up, and nearly 9 hours in court, the Jury retired at 6.40 p.m. for only 10 minutes. All four prisoners were found Guilty, but the Jury recommended John Lumb to mercy.

Baron Thomson asked for the grounds for mercy for Lumb, and it was stated that it was felt Lumb was under the influence of Swallow, that he had no firearm, and had not blackened his face, as well as having a witness to his character.

The prisoners would be sentenced at the end of the Special Commission.

14th September 1812: The 'Luddite' burglars seal their fate before Joseph Radcliffe

The remaining 'Luddite' burglars that had been implicated by Earl Parkin in his deposition of 12th September, had been arrested, examined and were brought before Joseph Radcliffe to make a statement. Rather than keeping John Swallow's line of denying everything and saying nothing, some of them had cracked, sealing all their fates.

Earl Parkin himself swore another deposition with more detail about the attack on Abraham Moore, and implicated a new person - Thomas Green. More detail was added about the items stolen as well - 36 Guineas and a gold ring.

Earl Parkin's brother, Samuel, also swore a deposition which implicated several of the gang. He alleged that John Swallow had persuaded him to join them with promises of work, and when it became clear to Samuel what the real purpose was, threatened to kill him if he backed out. Samuel had accompanied the gang to the raid on Samuel Moxon's house on 4th July 1812, but claimed to be not directly involved and had not seen them since. He was bound over to give evidence at the trial.

Alexander Littlewood, a clothier from Flockton, gave evidence that Swallow had boasted to him about the raid on Moxon and gone on to talk about a plan to raid Wilson's Bank at Mirfield. He said they had suggested meeting further to discuss it, but Littlewood later passed it off as a drunken joke, but soon realised it was not later when he met Swallow & Earl Parkin a few days later: they were displeased he had not been to the meeting and threatened him to keep quiet.

Lastly, the three other members of the gang swore a deposition before Radcliffe. Their evidence varied, but was contradictory enough to make a future defence at a trial all but impossible.

John Batley, a clothier from Thornhill Edge denied being inside Moxon's house on 4th July, and also denied having a gun, but admitted he was there.

Joseph Fisher, a coalminer from Briestwistle said he went to Moxon's at the request of Earl Parkin & Swallow, and said he had been threatened with being killed if he did not go.

John Lumb, a coalminer from Thornhill Edge, similarly said that he was asked to go to Moxon's by Parkin & Swallow, but stopped away at a distance while the raid took place.

All three men would face trial at a future Assizes.