22nd December 1816: The death of John Blackner - a 'General Ludd'?

A mezzotint of John Blackner, after an original by R Bonington.

On Sunday 22nd December the Nottingham Review journalist & historian John Blackner died at his home & business, the Rancliffe Arms in Turn-Calf Alley (latterly Sussex Street) in Nottingham at the early age of about 47.

Originally from Derbyshire, Blackner occupied a unique place in the politics and society of Nottinghamshire during the Luddite period. Born in 1770, a native of Ilkeston in Derbyshire, Blackner’s original profession was an apprentice framework-knitter, before turning to lace-making when he moved to Nottingham in 1792. A heavy drinker throughout his life, Blackner was not averse to illegalism, having frequently turned to poaching to make ends meet when the drinking left his family short of money. Previously illiterate, after his arrival in the Town Blackner set about learning to read and write, and a few years later had become eloquent enough to publish political pamphlets. A political radical, Blackner was a regular contributor to the Nottingham Review newspaper from 1808, but his political engagement went beyond words in print and into industrial organising: in 1810, he was sentenced to a month’s imprisonment for conspiring to resist wage reductions in the lace trade.

Blackner also represented the trade at the highest level, when he took part in making submissions to Parliament as part of the Committee on the Petitions of the Framework-knitters, alongside Gravenor Henson and others. He was interviewed on 15th May 1812. Two months later, he became editor of Daniel Lovell’s London-based newspaper ‘The Statesman’, although this was short-lived due to increasing ill-health. Thereafter, Blackner returned to Nottingham to write for the Review again, and run a public house, the Rancliffe Arms (previously the ‘Bull’s Head’), which he had taken over in 1813.

In the last few years of his life, Blackner was no stranger to controversy. In 1814, the target of an attack by Luddites in Leicestershire, Simon Orgill, all but accused Blackner of orchestrating the raid (though not directly by name). Blackner responded furiously to the accusations in an article for once bearing his name, but Orgill was not satisfied and even took his concerns to the neighbouring authorities in Nottinghamshire, who passed them on to the Home Secretary.

Possibly the most serious affair Blackner was concerned in led to the jailing of his employer, the proprietor of the Nottingham Review, Charles Sutton. Again in 1814, the paper published a satirical  letter from ‘General Ludd’ to the Editor (i.e. Blackner). The letter posited that the General’s son, Ned, had enlisted in the army and has been sent to fight in the colonial wars in North America, and was now being lauded for destroying Washington, ironically by the same people who had decried his lawless efforts in Nottinghamshire but a few years before. The government, at the behest of the Nottingham solicitor Louis Allsopp, decided to prosecute Sutton as the publisher of the letter, and he was eventually jailed for 12 months for ‘seditious libel’. Throughout all of his, Blackner was never identified as the author of the satirical letter, even by biographers, who seem to have overlooked the parallel fact that his eldest son, John, was a soldier who was killed in America whilst taking part in the operation against Washington.

Perhaps Blackner’s longest-lasting legacy is his work as a historian, having published the epic ‘History of Nottingham’ in 1815. In the last 18 months of his life, the years of heavy drinking had finally taken their toll on him and he became particularly unwell before his untimely death.

Blackner’s position in relation to Luddism is uncertain. Whilst the Review (and therefore, arguably, Blackner) had always been critical of the methods of the Luddites, their attempts to illustrate the predicament of the framework-knitters had lead to widespread criticism and perhaps go some way to explain the relentless attempts to prosecute Charles Sutton. It’s likely that he was to a degree involved, and many aspects of his life suggest connections: his advocacy for the trade at the political level, his deep involvement in the Union leading to his prosecution & imprisonment, and his days undertaking illegal activity (i.e. poaching) leave it hard to imagine he didn't move in those circles and knew some of those involved. Then again, other than over the Simon Orgill affair, his name never crops up in the correspondence between the local authority and the Home Office, and the infamous Nottingham spy never mentions him once. However, one of Blackner’s biographers, John Crosby, wrote this fascinating passage:

At the commencement of "Ludding" he assisted the deluded men with his advice and in other ways, thinking that the system of terror they sought to establish was more likely to operate on the minds of the hosiery masters than cool dispassionate reasoning, but he lived to see the folly of the attempt, and was sorry for the part he had acted.

It is likely that Blackner penned the article in the Nottingham Review that gave birth to the ‘Ned Ludd’ mythos, at least outside of the Luddite milieu: the article was published almost 5 years prior to his death and is the earliest example in print of the use of the name Ned Ludd. Seven days prior to this, Blackner had written a leading article introducing ‘General Ludd’ to the world. Perhaps, after all, Blackner was indeed a ‘General Ludd’ of a sort other than the one he gave fictional voice to in 1814? We may never know, but this fascinating character is surely long overdue a more lengthy and serious biography than those that already exist.

9th July 1816: A Nottingham Hosier writes to the solicitor Louis Allsop

Nottingham 9 July 1816

Dear Sir

I am favoured with yours the 6th Inst. and in consequence have made the inquiry (as private as possible) and have the satisfaction to inform you that I have every reason to believe our Luddites have no intention of petitioning the Prince Regent. However should such an event be in agitation in all probability I shall be informed of it—and will immediately communicate what may come to my knowledge—In the interim I would recommend that no notice should be taken of what the cole people have done—Altho the paragraphs you suggest might in some instances have a good effect yet there would not be wanting such men as Blackner and that would affirm that it was the work of government or their agents—& you well know how desirous they are to avail themselves of every opportunity that offers to decry the government.—If contrary to my expectation any stir should be made to petition &c I am most decidedly of opinion that the magistrates here are the proper authorities to put down a effort they may make to march in a body with such petition—& have no doubt but it may be effected.

Yesterday, being the election for the County, by some it was thought a good opportunity for a row; notwithstanding there were a great number of country people in the town all passed off very quiet.

You probably may have heard that Ben Badder & Jack Slater were taken up in the Loughboro business—this was in consequence of certain information given to Mr. Lockett (who is the Solicr on the occasion) who writes "I hope confidently hope & think one or both of them will be identified"—These two men are in the first class of our very bad set

I am
Dear Sir
Yours very sincerely
James Hooley

[To] Lewis Allsopp Esqr

PS
In your letter you say "I have written to you fully this morning on our private concerns"—no such letter has come to hand.

8th May 1814: George Coldham informs the Home Secretary about suspicions that the Editor of the Nottingham Review is involved in Luddism

Nottingham 8th May 1814

My Lord,

In consequence of a Conference with Mr Allsopp I Determined on Wednesday last to go over to Donington to see if I could learn any thing which might be useful to us here in the progress of our Investigation of the Organization & Influence of the Union Society. I reached Donington at 9 OClock on the Morning of that Day but Mr Simon Orgill was already gone to Leckington & had been making a Deposition which had been Dispatched to your Lordship by Mr Story. On his return I learn’d from him that he very much suspected that John Blackner who is the Writer for the most part of the Nottingham Review was one of the Principals in the Union Society and that he had been engaged in the management of the Attack made upon his Property. Simon Orgill formed this opinion on the main from his having in his Judgement for some time past rendered Blackner his declared & determined Enemy by having endeavoured to persuade & advise Mr Sutton the Editor of the Review to Discharge him from his Office of Editor he Orgill being persuaded that the mischievous principles of the Paper & particularly the manner in which all circumstances relating to the very improper combination amongst the Workmen were spoken of in that Paper were intirely to be ascribed to Blackner. I learned from Mr Orgill that he had been enabled to swear to the Voice of one of the Assailants of his House but that Mr Story the Magistrate after taking the opinion of a very judicious Solicitor upon it (Mr Locket of Derby) had Determined to Discharge the Prisoner. who was put into Custody upon Mr Orgill’s Statement. I Doubt myself whether it would have been wise to have committed him whether there was a chance of conviction or no for the sake of making this More a Touchstone to try & sift out his connection with the Heads of the Plot here. Simon Orgill came to our Office on Friday & has put into our Hands the management of his Business in recovering Damages of the Hundred & he is Determined & Disposed to do every thing and any thing that he can to Detect & give Information against the Leaders of the Association here. On Wednesday Night an anonymous Letter was put into the Police Office in a fictitious Hand stating that the Writer was anxious to give Information that an Attack for the purpose of breaking Frames will be made on Friday Night at Mansfield. The Writer also promised to give further Information respecting Orgills Attack. In consequence of receiving this Letter from our Constable Hilburn I Dispatched one of my Clerks to Colonel Need at Mansfield after having gone myself to General Burnes Aide de Camp to ascertain our force here & offered to dispatched any Dragoons from here he might wish. My Clerk returned early in the Afternoon Colonel Need being enabled to assemble a sufficient force from the Yeomanry Cavalry to repel & Defeat any Attempt to break Frames there & judging very wisely that any movement of Troops would tend to give alarm & prevent the Attempt being made. A Billet in a similar Hand writing was put into the Gazette Office & published whether this was the Cause of the Attempt not being made at Mansfield I know not but none such occurred. It is however singular that at 11. oClock on Saturday Morning a Woman reported it in Nottingham to great many Frames had been broken in Mansfield. Simon Orgill has given me Information of a Man here concerned in his Outrage and has left at our Police Office the Hammer with [which] the mischief was done and he is to send a Warrant here from Mr Story to apprehend this man from whom we expects we can extract some important Information. The Union Society were engaged in Orgills Business for they Distinctly offered to his Men Money to leave give Information to assist in the Business.

I am in haste

My Lord
Your Lordships most obedt & Faithful Servt.

Geo Coldham

[To Lord Sidmouth]

3rd May 1814: The solicitor Louis Allsop reports progress in spying on the FWK Union to the Home Office

Nottingham
3 May 1814

My Dr Sir,

The Post allows me only a few Minutes—I heard Yesterday that much useful Information might be obtained at Castle Donington from Orgill, who suspects Blackner to have been concerned, in the attack of his property; unconnected with the Magistracy I cannot openly set about this, You probably can direct someone You have confidence in; Orgill is a Jacobin and a Methodist, but now much irritated; I will institute an Inquiry but cannot answer for its result—

Hodgson has tried to get me a Sett of the Resolutions, but cannot; Simpson says they are all distributed; from the Enquiries they are become sly; I learnt that manuscripts was written on detached pieces of paper, was frequently altered during the printing, & was written in a very clear plain hand; Simpson the person communicating with Hodgson: if you can send me a Copy, I think it might be useful—Hodgson is about to finish a large Quantity of Receipts to be given for the Subscriptions by Simpson or the Treasurer—Simpson took away the detached part of the Sett of the Rules soon after they were printed, & a printed Copy which Hodgson kept was delivered by his Boy to some person without his knowledge. I shod not have troubled you with this were it not for Orgill.

L. Allsopp

[To Home Office]

29th April 1814: The Nottingham Review Editor, John Blackner, responds to Simon Orgill

JOHN BLACKNER,

TO MR SIMON ORGILL, OF CASTLE DONINGTON.

SIR―As you have thought well, by "hypothetical inuendos," to couple my character with the outrage lately committed upon your property, in an advertisement in the Nottingham Journal of last week, without committing the same to the Nottingham Review, for which you was an agent; and the columns of which you knew were open to your "hypothetical inuendos," without the expense of an advertisement, as far as is consistent with the conducting newspapers. I will, before commenting upon your intemperate letter, re-insert the article, of which you so complain, which appeared in the Review of the 15th instant; and then insert your advertisement, which appeared in the Journal; that the readers of the Review may have a fair opportunity of forming a proper estimate of your honor, and candor as a man.

EXTRACT FROM THE REVIEW OF THE FIFTEENTH INSTANT.

"On Sunday night last, about twelve o'clock, Mr. Orgill’s patent lace manufactory, at Castle Donington, Leicestershire was forcibly entered by a band of desperadoes, supposed ten or twelve, and the entire machinery, consisting of twelve warp lace frames, converted into heaps of ruins, with the exception of one, which received only a partial injury. The writer of this article being at Castle Donington at the time, was called from his bed, at two in the morning, to witness the outrageous scene. The factory joins Mr. Orgill’s house; and the door into it, which leads into a back yard, was split, in the act of being forced open with a rail. The depredators then forced their way through an inner door, and, not content with committing havoc on the machinery, they cut or burnt all the valuable cotton yarn, and lace pieces within the premises, except one of the latter which they chanced to miss, and two others which they carried away. The dry timber materials they attempted to fire; and had their scheme succeeded, the whole building might have presented one vast mass of flame. But the worst part of the business is to come―Mr. and Mrs. Orgill being around from their sleep, and hearing a noise, the import of which they knew not, the latter threw up a sash, and put her head out at the window to learn what the matter was; but, before a word was exchanged, one of the depredators that stood sentry, discharged a pistol or musket at her head, the contents of which she distinctly felt pass by her; but from which she received no personal injury, except the affright. And, after the work of destruction was over, during which the damage was done to a very considerable amount, one of the wretches exclaimed: "Old Simon, before we leave you, I will have another peg at you," when two pieces were immediately discharged, the heavy shot from which perforated the glass of the bed room window, in more than twenty places; but Mr. Orgill, though in the room, received no personal injury. Several persons who worked with him some time ago, and who left him in consequence of a dispute about prices, have been seized; but whether any circumstances come out which is likely to lead to a discovery, we are entirely unacquainted. We are since informed, that all of them, except one, are liberated.

"It now becomes our duty to state our marked disapprobation of this atrocious crime; a crime which carries with it the seeds of ruin, as well to the perpetrators as to the trade at large. The supposed reason for the commission of this outrage is, Mr. Orgill’s giving considerably less for the making of his net, than is given in Nottingham; and that in consequence thereof he undersells the other manufacturers. This may be the case; but the fault lies with the workmen who continue with him; for at the present time there is plenty of employment elsewhere. Mr. Orgill justifies himself on the ground of the superior expedition of his machinery; which again is denied by those who pretend to understand the whole of the business. How this may be we know not, nor have we any concern with the matter; suffice it to say on our part, THAT THESE CRIMES MUST BE SUPPRESSED."

EXTRACT FROM THE NOTTINGHAM JOURNAL

OF LAST WEEK.

TO THE PRINTER OF THE NOTTINGHAM JOURNAL.

[Simon Orgill’s letter/advert to the Nottingham Journal was inserted]

NOW, Sir, I should have ended here, were it not that my duty to the public demands of me an exposition of your sophistical Inenbrations, for my character stands too well with my neighbours to be injured by your "hypothetical inuendos"—those numerous and respectable characters, that have been our joint friends during the last twelve years, now pity or despise you; while my political enemies, or rather opponents, laugh you to scorn. You admit my having given a tolerably accurate account of the outrage committed on your property; saying, at the same time, "he tells his readers, that he was at Donington when this violent outrage was committed; he was, but why he was there is best known to himself; about this I make no enquiry." Now, Sir, in thus divulging your splenetic slander in "hypothetical inuendos," you have murdered friendship, as the monster Macbeth murdered sleep—you have commenced the warfare; and if you should receive a few mental wounds in the conflict, I will recommend you to the celebrated Dr. Delahoyde. You insinuate, that you know not why I was at Donington; but what will your friends say (if your follies and tyrannical conduct have left you any) when they have read the following narrative:—I was solicited by Mr. Wm Page, my worthy neighbour, to accompany him, and a respectable young man of the name of Allen, to Donington, as a journey of pleasure; his business being to visit a dying friend; and as my holidays been very few since I commenced the business of a victualler, I consented, though with some reluctance. We arrived at the Bell and Crown, in Donington, a little before two in the afternoon, where we dined; and, as you had frequently invited me to your house, if ever I went that way; and as our friendship had been long and uninterrupted, I immediately wrote you the following billet:—

"Castle Donington, two o'clock, P.M. April 10,

[Obscured by crease]

a pipe with Mr. Orgill, at the above house, this afternoon, where they are now waiting."

This billet you immediately answered by appearing in person; when, after mutual congratulations, you were told by Mr. Page, the occassion of our visit―at your suggestion we went to the Turk’s Head, to read the news of the day; and when I found its importance, it being nothing less than the abdication of Napoleon, my anxiety for returning home immediately, became very great, from rightly concluding, that a great press of company would attend my house that night. But, Sir, you prevailed on me to stop till morning; and also to take tea, along with Mr. Allen, at your house, while Mr. Page went to visit his sick friend. We all returned to the Turk’s Head, where we engaged beds for myself and friends; you distinctly saying afterwards, that had there been only two of us, we should have slept at your house; but that you had only one spare bed. You never quitted our company till eleven o'clock; and Mr. John Carr, who professedly came to spend the evening with me, staid half an hour longer; when I pay the landlady our reckoning, and then we immediately retired to rest, Mr. Page and myself in one bed, and our friend, Mr. Allen, in another, all in the same room.—At two o'clock you came in and aroused us from our beds, exclaiming, "Blackner! come and see what your townsmen have done!" at the same time pouring out the bitterest curses upon Nottingham indiscriminately. The landlord, myself, and two companions were with you to your house; and, by attentively surveying the devastation which had been committed, and hearing what yourself, family, and neighbours had to say, I was enabled to give a statement in the Review, which you call "tolerably accurate". At half-past five in the morning we left your house for Nottingham, with mutual expression of friendship between you and myself; and yet after all this; after being well acquainted with every circumstance I have related; and after hearing me declare, if I had been your house when the outrage was committed, that I should have risk my life in defence of your property—after all this, you are base enough to implicate my character in the outrage! But this is not all. During the morning, you frequently charged me, as the price of our friendship if I failed, to give every circumstance, relating to this outrage, full publicity in the Review; and expressed yourself well pleased that chance had brought me there. Now, after this exposure, the reader will wonder what can have brought your malignity upon me; or rather upon the Review itself, whose credit is too invulnerable to be injured by your ire; and therefore you cast your rancorous darts at me. The reader will find the reason in the few following lines. When I presented the manuscript article to Mr. Sutton, which related the outrage committed on your property, he informed me, to my great astonishment, that you had sent a letter desiring him not to mention the circumstance in his paper. I immediately declared it as my opinion, that private friendship should not stand in the way of public duty―that hundreds already knew that I was there—that the public expected a narrative of the outrage at his hands—that the credit of his paper stood pledged on the subject, and would be injured if he failed in his duty—and that, if the paper were mine, nothing should induce me to withhold the article. "Has Mr. Orgill assigned any reason why he wishes the circumstance to be kept out of the paper?" I inquired. "None at all," was the reply. Neither, Sir, did you drop the smallest insinuation against my character in that letter. I also informed Mr. Sutton, that I had already sent the account to the Statesman, in which I knew it would appear that day, and from which you would find its way into most of the papers in the kingdom; and, therefore, the withholding it from the Review could not be attended with any good to Mr. Orgill; and would only tend to show that Mr. Sutton was guided more by private favor than public good. In this, he hesitated not, his views agreed with my own—the article was inserted; and the consequence has been your casting up the agency of the paper, and commencing assassin upon my character. I might ask you, Sir, why you did not write to Mr. Sretton, desiring him to withhold from his paper, the news of your misfortune? Do you think his Journal beneath your notice? and, if so, how came you to send him your article the following week, without sending it to the Review; a paper which you had patronised from its commencement, professedly on account of its principles?—Your mandate was not obeyed―Mr. Sutton consulted his duty to the public, rather than a submission to you―your pride became wounded; and here is the source of your new series of follies and inconsistencies.

You accuse me with wishing to entice your workmen from your employment, because I said there was plenty of work elsewhere. Than this, a more silly or [kenyish] conclusion was never drawn, from words, whose meaning is directly conveyed to their construction. After saying, that the mischief might have been occasioned by your giving a less price of your net than is given in Nottingham, a conclusion which you yourself admit, when you appeal to the workmen on the score of their ingratitude, I stated, "this may be the case; but the fact lies with the workmen who continue with him; for at the present there is plenty of employment elsewhere." Weak and silly man! art thou no better acquainted with thy mother-tongue, than to draw conclusions directly opposite to what the words import? Or is thy mind become so jaundiced as to cause thee to see, as through an inverting glass? The meaning of the words was neither more nor less than this—if workmen find themselves aggrieved, by any treatment they meet with from their employers, the remedy is in their own hands, without having recourse to lawless violence, by seeking employment elsewhere. But, you seem extremely sore at my having attempted to assign a probable cause for your having been visited with mischief; while you yourself admit the conclusion to be just, as observed before, when you appeal to the workmen on the score of ingratitude. But, to the generally understood charge of paying less for making your net than is paid in Nottingham, you plead not guilty—you have put yourself upon your trial, and the jury must decide. You say, "This is false; I assert, without fear of refutation, but for one kind of work I pay more by ten per cent, then they do." By they I conclude you to mean the lace manufacturers of Nottingham. How happens it, after this sweeping plea of "not guilty" to the general charge, that you mention only one kind of work which you are not paying less for than is given in Nottingham? Pray, Mr. Orgill, be kind enough to let us into this little secret! I have, however, taken a little trouble myself on the subject this week: I have had five of your late workmen together, one or two of whom had not even been suspected by you, and to the rest, not a shadow of guilt could be attached. I have examined them before other reputable characters who understood the business, and the [illegible] testimony of your old workmen is, that you did pay three shillings and nine-pence less for a rack yard, than is paid in Nottingham for Mecklin net, comparing widths and gauges; and thirteen-pence a yard less for two course hole net; and this when all the advantages are cast in your favor, of your charging no frame-rent, finding coal in winter, and allowing a certain sum for mending. Now, Sir, there require something more than your mere ipse dixit, your round manner of pleading "not guilty," before you will be acquitted of the charge. You ask, who accuses you of paying less for your net than others pay? I will tell you! you are accused by public opinion; and further, if I may be allowed this expression, you have accused yourself. You used to make it your common public-house boast, the truth of which I can bring many witnesses to prove, that you went to Donington for the express purpose of giving your net made cheaper; for there, you said, you would get men from the plough-tail, who, when out of the atmosphere of Nottingham, would be contented with moderate earnings. And further, the last time you was at my house you stated, that you had had some disagreement with your workmen, on account of their wanting the Nottingham prices, which, (as you was pleased to say,) had been put into your their heads by that ********* John Richards, who was then residing in Donington.

There is one sentiment in your advertisement which is perfectly consistent with yourself; and if you had confined yourself to it, you would have saved me much trouble, and have prevented the greater part of this exposure. You say you will not be accountable to any man, or set of men, for the manner in which you conduct your own affairs, while you steer clear of the laws. This might do in Turkey; but in England another system is pursued. Now, know you not, that there is such a thing as custom in England, to which, under certain circumstances, however great you may think yourself, a magistrate would compel you to submit. I have it from the testimony of five of your old workmen, given, as said before, in the presence of respectable witnesses, that part of the conditions which you propose for their government in your service were, that they should not name Nottingham in the shop―that only two should warm themselves at the stove at one time; and not more than two should walk together in the fields!! William Pitt, in the heat of his political phrenzy, permitted five persons to convene together; but Sultan Orgill, less tolerant than the Tory apostle, thought, if more than two were permitted to assemble together, that they would plot mischief against his government.

There is one subject in your advertisement of a delicate nature; and my doubts are, that you have been pirating fame, at the expense of the dead. You say, that you discovered the mode of applying wheels to the common horizontal warp frame. Now, Sir, you know that these wheels were the invention of the late ingenious and much-lamented William Dawson, whose servant you was at the same time; and the question is, did he not apply them himself? At all events, you have not acted like the man of Ross, who, "Did good by stealth, and blush’d to find it fame."

JOHN BLACKNER

Nottingham, April 29.

P.S. It may not be improper here to state, that I never knew either person, name, or character, of any of Mr. Orgill’s workmen, till after his frames were broken, except Benjamin Clarke, a very respectable character, and Joseph Briggs, who now works with Mr. Orgill.

23rd April 1814: Simon Orgill attacks the Nottingham Review's report about the raid on his factory

TO THE PRINTER OF THE NOTTINGHAM JOURNAL

SIR,

Not doubting but that you will give a much injured man the opportunity of defending his character against an attack made on it in a weekly publication, viz. the Nottingham Review of last week, I have presumed to solicit the admission of the following into your highly respectable paper. After having named the attack made upon me and my property, he tells his readers he was at Donington when this violent outrage was committed; he was, but why he was there is best known to himself, about this I make no enquiry. He then proceeds to narrate the particulars, which he has done with a tolerable degree of accuracy, except in one instance, where he says one machine is but slightly injured; in this he is much mistaken; the injury having been done with a broad, thin, and sharp instrument, was not so apparent. Not content with having done this, he proceeds by an hypothetical Inuendo to assign a reason why this dreadful Evil was inflicted on me, and which it is impossible to construe into any thing short of an apology for the perpetrators. He accuses me, or rather says I have been accused, of paying less wages than are paid at Nottingham. This is false; I assert, without fear of refutation, that for one kind of work I pay more by 10 per cent, than they do. He then goes on to say, that I justify myself by pleading superior speed in my machinery. I ask who has accused me, and to whom have I set up this justification; I owe obedience to none but to my country and its laws,―against them I am unconscious of having transgressed: I am accountable to no man nor set of men for the manner in which I conduct my own affairs, nor will I ever be called to an account by them. This writer proceeds to give a direct invitation to the persons now in my employment, and assures to them plenty of work elsewhere. How kind!!! It is not enough that my life must be attempted and my property destroyed, but this insidious attempt must be made to prevent me from repairing the damages; but on this score I trust he will now be satisfied.

The miscreants who have visited me with their vengeance, have added ingratitude to the black catalogue of their crimes. But perhaps they do not know it. I will tell them; and I believe I shall not be charged with vanity or Egotism when I say, that it is to me that they owe all the facilities of which the warp frames are now capable. After considerable study, and considerable expence too, I discovered the mode of applying wheels to the common horizontal warp frame; this discovery I gave up to the trade without reward, or hope of reward. For the truth of this statement I appeal to William Vickers, Broad-marsh, and to Mr. Smith, framesmith. How well I am recompensed, the Editor of the Review can tell.

Yours, most respectfully,
SIMON ORGILL.

15th May 1812: John Blackner & Edward Allen speak at the Select Committee into the Framework-knitters Petitions

On Friday 15th May 1812, two more framework-knitters gave evidence at the Parliamentary Select Committee into the Framework-knitters Petitions in London.

John Blackner had been a framework-knitter for 32 years. His longevity in the profession allowed him to speak in detail about his profession not juts over his working lifetime, but in that of his forefathers also. He reflected that the legislation that had protected the framework-knitters allowed trade to flourish, and conversely that 'innovations' (not necessarily technological ones) had been detrimental. Blackner described how, when the quality of the goods began to fall due to shoddy practices, "the hosiers began to appear more determined on gaining profit from the smaller quantity of goods sold", which then led to 'cut-ups' being introduced, further deteriorating quality. Blackner stated that the particular branch of the trade that he was describing, utilising two-needle netted frames, had seen the number of frames fall from 500 in 1795 to 'one or two' in 1812, and he  advocated the prohibition of cut-ups for making stockings.

Blackner went on to outline the damage that speculators had done to the trade - i.e. those unconnected with hosiery who had invested capital in frames in order purely to extract profit from renting them, leading to exploitation of the workmen. Again, Blackner believed that those unconnected with the trade should not be allowed to own frames.

Edward Allen next spoke to the Select Committee. He gave evidence about how it had become increasingly common to be paid in goods rather than in cash for work done, which had included 'grocery, such as soap, candles, bacon, tea, sugar', all of which was much less in value than equivalent in cash. Although this practice was illegal where the workman did not consent to it, Allen stated that the hosiers evaded the law by raising the rent on frames and compelling the workmen to buy goods from their warehouses at reduced prices.