19th March 1812: The trial of John Ingham at the Nottingham Lent Assizes

The Nottingham Review covered the final trial at the Nottingham Lent Assizes  on 19th March 1812, which appeared in the 27th March edition of the paper:

Thursday morning, notwithstanding the Court was opened at six o'clock, yet it was crowded to excess, by persons of every rank in the town, desirous of hearing the trial of John Ingham, who, at the suit of the Crown, had been removed from the town gaol by writ of Habeas Corpus. On the part of the prosecution the Counsellors were, Mr. Clarke, Serjeant Vaughan, Mr. Reader, Mr. Balguy and Mr. Reynolds. For the prisoner the Counsellors were, Serjeant Rough, and Mr. Copley. Mr. Selby being sworn, he stated himself to be foreman in the House of Wm Nunn and Co. in Nottingham, whom he said were proprietors of the silk lace manufacture, and a cotton lace manufacture; that the prisoner had served under him in the capacity of a general warehouseman; that he had frequently seen him write invoices, orders, and general bank accounts; but did not remember to have seen him write more than one letter, and that was fifteen or sixteen months ago. On being shewn two letters subscribed “NED LUDD AND CO.” From New Radford, and directed to Wm. Nunn and Co. Park-street, Nottingham, the one being dated the 20th, and the other the 30th November, 1811. and brought from Nottingham post office, by Gilling, the general servant of the house; he stated it as his belief that they were written by the prisoner at the bar, to whom he gave an excellent character; but would not take upon himself to swear positively that there were his handwriting, because they appeared to be written in a disguised hand. On being asked why he believed them to be written by the prisoner, he answered, from the general conformation of the characters, and from the general expression of the letters. He stated that he was about three months in the same warehouse with Ingham. The letters were then read by the Clerk of the Court, from is extreme bail expression, it was impossible to collect any thing from him except their general import, which was, that Mr. Nunn had long been in the habit of imposing his workmen, by demanding his lace pieces to be made longer than the rest of the lace manufacturers; that though he had put to the rack, which regulated the length of the pieces, yet was not a sufficient atonement for past offences. Nor would Ned Ludd and Co. be contented, except he published a clear statement of his intentions to the world; that without this was done, fifty of his frames should be destroyed, his premises should be burnt, himself, and Clark, (his taker-in) who was accused of being the principal instigator instrument of his oppressions, should be made personal examples of. One of these letters further declared, “that atonement shall be bad, atonement which will make human nature shudder!” The Judge then asked, do you think there is any doubt of any other person having wrote them? To which he answered, “I will not swear they are Ingham's hand-writing.” Mr. Selby was then asked, if the length of Mr. Nunn’s pieces had been generally complained of, in which he replied, they had: and that he himself had, through his recommendation, caused the rack to be applied, to prevent such complaints in future.

Robert Renshaw, another warehouseman of Mr. Nunn’s, was then shewn the letters; and he stated upon oath, that they were in the prisoner’s hand-writing; that his knowledge of such hand-writing arose from having seen the prisoner write invoices, orders, and general bank accounts.

Q. Have you not a person in your warehouse of the name of Flanagan?—A. Yes.

Q. Where is he?—A. From home, Sir; he is gone to see his friends.

Q. Was he not served with a subpoena?—A. Not that I know of.

Q. Was he not served with a form of one?—A. Yes; but it was not properly filled up.

Q. Do you know who sent him that subpoena, the prosecutor or the prisoner?—A. I do not.

Q. Were no applications frequently made to see him?—A. Yes

Q. Who answered the person who applied?—A. I did, sometimes.

Q. Do you know the person? No.

Q. When did Flanagan leave town?—A. Yesterday morning.

Q. How old is this Flanagan?—A. He is upwards of twenty.

Q. He is under your orders, I suppose?—A. Yes.

Q. Tell me, Sir, who sent him out of the way?—A. I did.

Q. What did you send him out of the way for, Sir?–A. On business which I could not transact myself.

Here the Judge shook his head, and, emphatically, said, “I do not like it”

Mr. Clarke then disclaimed any knowledge on the part of the Counsel of this in their proceedings, and, at the suggestion of the Judge, offered to put off the trial till the next Assizes, and liberate the prisoner on bail. The prisoner, however, refused the proffered favour, and wished his trial to go on.

Mr. Clarke, then by way of exonerating the last witness of the foul proceeding with which, on his own confession, he stood charged, asked him, if Flanagan was not sent out on the business of the House, when he stated that he was. This, however, did not satisfy the Judge, and he again offered to put off the trial and the prisoner again refused to proffered [illegible].

Sergeant Rough then stated to the Judge, that there was a flaw in the indictment, in as much as William Nunn and Co. were therein stated to be Proprietors of a Silk and Cotton Lace Manufacture: whereas, according to the deposition of Mr. Selby, the principal manager of the firm in Nottingham, it appeared, that they were Proprietors of a Silk Lace Manufacture and a Cotton Lace Manufacture.

Every species of law chicanery was resorted to by the Counsel for the Crown, to shew the impropriety of the alleged flaw; but the Learned Judge said no and had a duty to perform, and he would perform it; and until he was convinced, that Mr. Nunn had manufactured Lace of Silk and Cotton conjointly, he must admit the objection to be a good one. His Lordship further remarked, that the prisoner’s Counsel had very properly stated the objection, and as properly insisted upon adhering to it; he therefore ordered the Jury to acquit the prisoner, and he was Acquitted accordingly.

8th March 1812: Town Clerk of Nottingham writes to Treasury Solicitor about the Assizes

Sir

We received your letter of the 6th Instant regarding the Prosecution against John Ingham, in which we are concerned for the Prosecutor Mr. William Nunn of Wood Street Cheapside & have at your suggestion as Solicitor to the Treasury served the Subpoenas upon all the Witnesses here but one and shall serve him this morning.—We apprehend that you are mistaken in conceiving that Mr. Nunn has any intention to abandon his Prosecution, but if you still entertain doubts, you probably will communicate with him on this subject.

In the mean time we feel in a very unpleasant situation it appearing that we may receive various and contradictory directions from the Prosecution and the Crown, in whose name the Prosecution is instituted.—We hope your communication with Mr. Nunn will put an end to this for us very unpleasant dilemma.

We are
Sir
your very faithful & obdt Servt
Coldham & Enfield
Nottingham March 8, 1812

H.C. Litchfield Esq
Solicitor to the Treasury
Lincoln’s Inn

7th March 1812: Town Clerk of Nottingham writes to the Hosier, William Nunn about the Assizes

Sir

We received your letter of the 6th instant which very much surprized us as we had not until the Receipt of a letter from our Agent Mr. Alexander of the day before the least Notice of any objection on your part to our conducting the Prosecution against Ingham with all the rigour the law would admit of. We cannot conceive that your Property in Frames is exposed by this prosecution, but are rather disposed to think it will be protected, by the Impression it conveys that you are not one of those who will suffer your Property to be threatened or Attacked with Impunity. We should rejoice in every way in our power to obey your directions and consult your wishes but feel ourselves very awkwardly situated hearin as we are apprehensive that the Prosecution being of Necessity in the Name of the King, that the Officers of the Crown may if they please take the conduct of it more or less upon themselves if they should think that you are disposed to abandon it.—We know that they have taken up this Impression from the Conversation which passed on this subject between you and Mr. Ryder.—The consequence of which has been that we have received Subpoenas to serve upon all the Witnesses here from the Solicitor to the Treasury & it has been intimated to us that one of the Solicitors of the Treasury will be down at the Assizes if not previous to them to see that we do our duty herein or to do it for us. Under these circumstances we confess ourselves at a loss to discover how you can avoid prosecuting John Ingham for the Felony unless the Counsel with whom we advise on the subject or the Officers of the Crown should acquiesce in such a wish on your part which we are very much disposed to fear they will not unless it should come recommended to them in the regular course of business by Counsel.—We however are perfectly ready to consult with Counsel and to intimate this as your wish and desire, and would strongly advise that you abide by their determination. Without such a Sanction we do not see how you can avoid forfeiting your Recognizances which are to prosecute for the Felony Mr. Selby in £500 and all the Witnesses here in £100 each.—We are clearly aware that you cannot be proceeded against for stopping the Prosecution unless you compound the Felony which we are confident nothing on earth could induce you to do; but we apprehend that you are vulnerable thro' the sides of those who have entered into Recognizances much beyond the extent of the Penalties in which they are bound, as we fear they can be indicted for not appearing to prosecute and give evidence. It is unfortunate for you that John Ingham is supposed to be a leader in this conspiracy and that it is the only case in the Town in which we can expect a Conviction the Government therefore feel themselves interested in following it up as far as it will go, and on the part of the Magistrates, the Hosiers and the Public there will be a perfect outcry against you if it be abandoned.

It strikes us that it is probable that your wishes and those of Government might be both reconciled by your offering to take the Prosecution upon yourself they would allow you to indict for the Misdemeanour, and by your desiring them to take the avowed conduct & management of it upon themselves if they insisted upon its being an Indictment for Felony. In this way you would have the credit of an attempt to lessen the Prisoner’s Punishment and extend mercy to him, & that you did not do so would appear to be the Act of the Officers of the Crown who would be known to take the Prosecution into their own hands on that account. We cannot say that this point is accomplishable, we only throw it out for your consideration. We intend if you have no objection to consult with Mr. Clarke and Mr. Reader as our Counsel to prepare for the Indictment and Trial of either for the Felony or the Misdemeanour as they may advise unless you give us contrary directions, or we should be forced to abandon the conduct of the Prosecution to the Solicitors to the Treasury as the Representatives of the Crown who of necessity is the Prosecution in all these cases, but upon this subject we beg your full directions and opinion by return of Post.—We are convinced that in the present state of the Country there is no possibility of doubting but that the Judge in default of your prosecuting the Prisoners would immediately forfeit the Recogns and would refuse on account of the absence of any Witness (they being all in your employment) to put off the Trial till the Summer Assizes. If this were done it would be done by directing the Magistrates to compell you as we think they undoubtedly might, after the forfeiture of the present Recognizances to enter into fresh ones yourself in a still severe Penalty to prosecute the Prisoner at the Summer Assizes, when after all this loss & after the abominable system of Framebreaking has may have subsided we are persuaded the prosecution would appear in a much less gracious shape that now.

Nottm 7th March 1812

We are, Sir
Your very obedt & faithful Servants
Coldham & Enfield

William Nunn Esq.

11th December 1811: Three more men committed to Trial in Nottingham

On Wednesday 11th December, three more men were committed for trial at the next Assizes.

William Parkes & George Shaw were committed to the County gaol, charged with entering a house with force and breaking five stocking frames on 25th November 1811 in the St Mary's Parish of the town of Nottingham.

Meanwhile, John Ingham was charged with writing and sending a threatening letter signed 'Ned Lud & Co' letters to his employer, William Nunn & Co., on 15th November 1811.

They were to stand trial at the next Assizes, in March 1812.