13th January 1813: Major Raitt tells General Acland revelations from an informer

Wednesday [Evng]

My dear General

I send you on the other half Sheet a List of all the Prisoners with their Fates attached to them, 14 of them are to be executed on Saturday, next, Lumb is reprieved.

I have just received your Dispatch & will lay the applications before the General tomorrow morning. Haigh of the 51st is gone this evening in Charge of two Men to Huddersfield to find out a deposit of Arms told him by Mellor he slept with him in the Castle for 6 or 8 Weeks, he acknowledges (that is Mellor) to having fired at Hinchliffe not Schofield, Thorpe was present likewise, Mellor did not acknowledge the Murder of Horsfall, but did not deny it.

I was not in the [Court] after you left this, but as you are to be so soon here you will then hear all particulars, are you likely to close your Proceedings soon?

I remain
Yours truly
Much Obliged
[illegible] Raitt

[To: Major General Acland]

[13th January 1813]

7th January 1813: Henry Hobhouse updates the Home Office on the Special Commission & the plans for the execution of Mellor, Thorpe & Smith

Private

York
Jan. 7. [1813]

Dear Sir,

The Judges having conferred with Mr. Park respecting the Place of Execution of the Murderers who were convicted yesterday, have determined that under all the Circumstances it appears to them better that they should be executed here than at Huddersfield, offering at the same time to respite them until Tuesday to afford an opportunity for Lord Sidmouth exercising his Judgement on the subject of Mr. Park & myself wished such Respite to take Place. The main consideration which led to this Determination has been that they could not be executed at Huddersfield without a Respite, and that any Respite might be misconstrued into a Doubt of the Propriety of the Conviction, which Doubt not existing in the least degree, it would be highly inexpedient to raise such an Idea. The same Reason operated with greater Force in leading Mr. Park & me to decline their Lordships Offer; & I the rather concurred in this opinion, because as the Publicity of the Execution among the Prisoner’s Confederates was the Object to be obtained by their Removal, I conceived that the great Influx of those Persons into York within these four Days would probably afford an ample Supply of Spectators to convey the Intelligence to Huddersfield. It therefore stands fixed that the Execution Convicts shall be executed tomorrow morning.

Another day has been spent in a single Trial, namely that of John Schofield for shooting at John Hinchliffe, in which a great deal of time has been wasted by a legal Objection taken to the Indictment & overruled, & by an Alibi supported by several Witnesses. Mr. Baron Thomson is now summing up.

We have preferred all the Indictments which we intend to present, & the Grand Jury will probably be discharged this Evening.

The Jury have acquitted Schofield, & although I have not myself the least Doubt of his Guilt, I can not complain of the Verdict, for the Prosecutor's denial in the first Instance of his Knowledge of the Prisoner, to whose Voice & Person he afterwards swore, might well cause such a reasonable Doubt in the Jury has would justify the Acquittal. They were out above half an Hour.

The Grand Jury have finished their Business, but they are not discharged by the Court, but permitted to go home, the Judges thinking that they Discharge might have an ill Effect. When they informed the Court that they had gone through all the Bills before them, Mr. Park took an Opportunity of saying openly in Court that after convicting the greatest offenders he saw the Counsel for the Crown could not use a more sound Discretion than by forbearing to press hard on those who were probably misled, & who it might be hoped would return to a better course of Life, if not through Gratitude for the Mercy extended to them, at least through fear of the Punishment which still would hang over their Heads for the Crimes already committed; & he therefore should prefer no more Bills. The Effect of this step is to release about 6 Prisoners without Prosecution, against whom the Evidence was next to nothing. And it is further in Contemplation in those Cases, where Bills have been found on the unconfirmed Testimony of Accomplices, & there is therefore little Prospect of Conviction, to extend the same Principle by offering the Prisoners the Boon of being discharged out of Custody upon giving Bail for appearing & answering when required. This Offer, if adroitly made (as I have no doubt it will be by Mr. Park), will probably be accepted; and I hope Lord Sidmouth will think that the Tendency of this Measure, combined with the Convictions already obtained of those further ones which I hope to report on Saturday, will be likely to produce as salutary an Effect as could possibly be expected from this Commission.

I am Dr Sr Yrs faithfully
H. Hobhouse

[To] J Beckett Esq

7th January 1813: The trial of John Schofield for shooting John Hinchliffe

The only trial held on Thursday 7th January 1813 was that of the cropper John Schofield (aged 21) for maliciously shooting at John Hinchliffe.

Schofield was charged with four counts under 2 different statutes, to which he pleaded not guilty. The charges reflected some uncertainty as to whether or not he acted alone, but probably indicated that the Crown was determined to convict him as an accessory if he could not be convicted as the protagonist.

For the prosecution, James Alan Park painted a picture of Hinchliffe as a ‘respectable and decent’ person (a parish clerk and professional singer) and then set out the events of 22nd July 1812. Park stated that Hinchliffe immediately knew Schofield was outside his home that night because of the sound of his voice (something which the solicitor John Lloyd had intimidated him into ‘remembering’ some months before).

Park went on to contend that Schofield had tried to recruit Hinchliffe into a group of Luddites, and that Hinchliffe had refused, and later mentioned this to others who had brought it to the attention of a local Constable named Blythe. On the night he was shot, one of the men who came to his house said that he had talked about John Schofield with the authorities.

Park then went on to outline how, the morning after the incident, Schofield had fled to London, and that when he was apprehended there later, he started by denying knowing Hinchliffe and then later admitted he knew him well.

Hinchliffe himself was called as the first witness and related what had happened that night. Schofield’s counsel then objected to the indictment on the basis that the indictment did not demonstrate that Schofield had borne Hinchliffe any malice or even threatened him, i.e. that there was no intention on the part of Schofield to shoot Hinchliffe, and that his subsequently flight was not linked to any intention to murder.

Baron Thomson dismissed the objection, saying that the act itself had been malicious, and that it did not need to have been planned. Justice Le Blanc agreed, and said that the Jury must decide at this stage of the case.

Schofield called witnesses to try to prove he was at home at the time Hinchliffe was shot, and then Baron Thomson summed up the case.

Witnesses were then examined: Hinchliffe’s next-door neighbour Thomas Hinchliffe; Francis Freeman a police officer at Whitechapel, where Schofield was taken to when he was arrested; Daniel William, a magistrate there who had examined him; Joseph Scott, a magistrate in the West Riding who examined Schofield on 31st August 1812, and also examined Hinchliffe after he was shot.

John Schofield gave evidence next. He admitted fleeing, but that it was because he was afraid of being taken up for being involved in the shooting, since Constable Blythe had already said to him he would be taken up at some point for his contact with Hinchliffe about the Luddites.

Schofield’s defence had the examinations of Hinchliffe read to the Court, and pointed out that in the one taken on the day after he was shot, Hinchliffe said that he did not know either the man who had shot him or his accomplice. But by the 31st August, he had changed his mind.

Then, witnesses spoke for Schofield. A neighbour, John Jagger, stated that he had seen Schofield at his father’s house that night for a Methodist meeting, and that Schofield and his wife had gone upstairs to bed before he left around 10.30 p.m., an hour before Hinchliffe was shot. Another witness, Charles Barker, gave similar evidence, and also that he seen Schofield at home later around 11.00 p.m. Schofield’s sister, Mary Woodhead, said she had gone to her brother’s home after midnight that night, in order to borrow some medicine for her husband who was ill, and had seen Schofield there.

A neighbour of Hinchliffe’s, John Brooke, said that he had heard Hinchliffe say the day after he was shot that he did not know who had tried to assassinate him.

Several witnesses spoke to the good character of Schofield: Eli Hobson, a clothier; Jonas Sykes; his father, also called John Schofield.

The charges were put to the Jury, and they retired at 5.30 p.m. They returned after half an hour, and found Schofield Not Guilty.

15th October 1812: The Huddersfield Solicitor, John Allison, informs the Home Secretary about Luddites collecting money for those wounded at Rawfolds Mill

My Lord

By the direction of Mr. Radcliffe I am to inform your Lordship that John Bates whose original Examination has already been transmitted informs that when the sum of £10..6..6 mentioned in that Examination was paid over to Mark Hill it was paid to him for the purpose of being distributed amongst the Families of the Men who were wounded at Rawfolds mill that is at Mr. Cartwrighs Fight that Benjamin Hinchliffe the Drawer at Holmfirth paid 8..14..6 of that money — John Schofield now a prisoner in York Castle for shootg at John Hinchliffe paid 11 [shillings] and John Bates our Informer paid [£]1..1[s] [Total] £10..6..6

This money was paid over to Mark Hill on the Sunday following the attack on Mr. Cartwright and Hill has been examined before Mr. Radcliffe as to the application of that money but he gives so very vague and unsatisfactory account of it that Mr. Radcliffe has remanded him for further Examination in order to give an opportunity to ask your Lordships Opinion as to the propriety of committing or releasing the Man—It appears that the money was evidently collected and applied for the purposes of comforting and assisting men who had been guilty of Felony in attacking Mr. Cartwrights mill! Benjamin Hinchliffe who paid the £8..14..6 appears to be equally implicated with Mark Hill for he must have been aware for what purposes it was collected and was to be applied—Bates to whose first Examination I beg leave to refer your Lordship states that the subscription was for the wounded men and that it was paid over to Mark Hill who was to dispose of it as he thought proper but that it was perfectly understood to be for the Men so wounded — Mr. Radcliffe request that your Lordship will please to favor him with the opinion of some of His Majesty's Law Advisers for his Government in this matter as it is by no means the wish of Mr. Ratcliffe to deprive any of his Majesty's Subjects of a moments liberty unnecessarily however zealous he may be to detect the Disturbers of the public peace

I have the honor to remain my Lord
your Lordships most faithful and obt Servt

John Allison
Huddersfield 15th October ’12.

[To] Lord Viscount Sidmouth &c &c

2nd September 1812: John Becket of the Home Office writes to the Stockport solicitor John Lloyd

Copy
Private

Whitehall
2. Septr. 1812.

Dear Sir

I have received your several letters (3 in No) dated the 31st Ulto by this mornings post.

I had certainly been a little misled by your Statement respecting the Persons who had come in & taken the Oath of Allegiance at your office at Stockport concluding that they were from the immediate neighbourhood of that Place—this however does not appear to have been the case—I hope nevertheless the Example will be followed there in a short time.—

I hope the Clergyman at Holmfirth is a discreet man otherwise the Discretion you have entrusted him with to hold out the Expectation of a Pardon to any Person who will offer to make an ample disclosure of his Crimes may lead to some Embarrassment—The moment this is known every Scoundrel in the neighbourhood may come & claim the Benefit of this offer—& I don't see how a Pardon could be refused in any such case—Besides you are to recollect that the Legislature has not authorized such a Pardon to be granted. & it ought to depend & must depend upon the circumstances of a particular case Whether the Party should receive the Kings Pardon for any offence to Which it is not Extended by act of Parliament. I wish therefore you would write immediately to the Clergyman at Holmfirth and desire that for the present at least no previous general Engagement to grant a Pardon to Persons coming in & making disclosures be made, or the Expectation of it held out—it is not at all Clear that Persons who have taken an illegal Oath, will not readily take the opportunity afforded them by the Act of getting quit of the Penalties attached to that offence—Although they may be conscious of having been concerned in other outrages—It is also Possible that Persons with this Prospect of obtaining something like a General Pardon may come in & pretend they want Absolution from the Penalties they have incurred by taking an illegal Oath—While in point of fact their object is to procure a Pardon for other offences—they never having taken the Oath at all.—

You ask what you are to do with Yarwood. Upon this Point I will write to you again for the present let him remain in Custody—Bent also should remain unmolested—I have received information about him Which leads me to request you will take no notice of Him Whatever without writing to me first—You had better consult General Maitland about William Cooper Who you say was sent into Shropshire to be out of the way—if there is a Probability of his being made useful—it would be an easy matter to send for Him & employ him, I should doubt Whether [near] him not suspected—would not be the better Agents.—

I quite approve of your having urged a Commitment to York Castle in Scholefield's Case & you will acquaint Mr. Scott that He has adopted your suggestion very properly. Mr. Wood was not aware probably of all that you had passed respecting him—Which may account for his suggesting a previous communication with the Secretary of State—I trust that your Endeavours to procure Evidence against the other Parties Who were accomplices with Scholefield may prove successful—The case is so strong against Him that nothing should be said to Him Which can be construed into a promise of Mercy, by way of inducement to him to confess—if He proposes of Himself to say any thing let it be received—but I beg the Gaoler at York may be cautioned on this point, it is one of much Consequence. You will of course apprize me if you discover any thing from the Parties Whom you mention it is your intention to take to a distance—I see no great objection to this Step—provided you bear in mind the caution above mentioned respecting Scholefield—& apply it if possible to other Parties Who are implicated. It is not impossible that with care a conviction may be obtained against more than one.—

Please to send me back the intercepted letter signed J.B.—keeping a copy if you please—& send a copy to Ralph Fletcher Esqr. Bolton to Whom it may be [usefully] new Information against the 38 from Lancaster should be taken and sent up for consideration.

I am &c

(Sigd) J. Beckett

[To] J. Lloyd Esqr—
Wakefield—

31st August 1812: The Stockport solicitor, John Lloyd, informs the Home Office of his breakthrough with John Hinchliffe

Wakefield
31 August 1812

Sir

It is with much satisfaction I inform you that John Schofield was this day committed by Mr. Scott to York Castle under Lord Ellenbro's Act for being present at aiding &c the shooting at Jno Hinchliffe the Examinations relating to which outrage, taken before the same Justice the day after the commission of it, I find, will copied & transmitted by that magistrate to you, & are referred to in the short Examination of Hinchliffe taken to day — a copy of which & also of the Examination, which the Prisr gave voluntarily, I shall sent here with. In the former Examinations Hinchliffe has foreborne to fix upon the Prisoner, Schofield, as one of the men — and this I find was a caution which fear alone occasioned — nor can I wonder at it when I contemplate the state of the country and the remote situation of Hinchliffe's House which I visited yesterday — To the removal of that fear and dread and to the promises which I gave him of protection by the Law if he told the truth and did his duty to the public, must be attributed the confidence with which he has now spoken of Schofield being one of the identical persons concerned; and happy for the Country; I hope it is, that he has. — I have an additional fact, collected at Holmfirth yesterday Evening, which may be important — I allude to Blythe’s statement upon which I have obtained a Warrant from Mr Scott against Battye and Thulas — and without any confession from Schofield we may be able to get a knowledge of the other man — we have all been very cautious with Schofield & have taken care not to affect our case against him.

Genl. Maitland was present at the Examination this forenoon — and there was a Justice of the name of Wood a Clergyman, who wished Mr. Scott to postpone the Commitment to York till the Secretary of State shold be consulted, but, as there appeared sufficient grounds to commit at once, I urged him to do so, undertaking to explain every thing to you — and I shall be happy if I know I have your approbation in what I have done — & shod be glad if you enable me to convince Mr. Scott of his having acted properly — I thought I discovered the motive of Mr Wood, who is the visiting magistrates I suppose of the Gaol — but as this is only conjecture I may be going too far to state it — however, you are not likely to blame me urging a Commitment to York without a direct solicitation or a hope encouraged for the Prisr to be come King’s Evidence — the case can never made so strong against the other man as it is now again Schofield

I have [etc]

J Lloyd

J. Beckett Esquire
Under Secy of State &c

31st August 1812: John Hinchliffe implicates John Schofield in his shooting

Since giving his initial deposition to West Riding magistrates on 23rd July, the day after he was shot, John Hinchliffe had now decided that he now knew who one of the men was.

The Stockport solicitor, John Lloyd, had 'persuaded him' to identify a man who was already suspected, John Schofield. Lloyd had essentially abducted Hinchliffe by removing him to a private residence, ostensibly 'for his own safety'. But since he was outside of legal custody, Lloyd could effectively do what he liked with him. There is no doubt that he subjected him to an interrogation, but it is not possible to know what went on beyond that. We do know that General Maitland had previously expressed his discomfort about Lloyd's methods, and that Lloyd's letters to the Home Office are full of dark hints.

On Sunday 30th August, Lloyd travelled to Holmfirth to talk to Constable Blythe. He found out from Blythe that Hinchliffe had connections to the Luddites: Blythe recounted a meeting between himself, Hinchliffe and two other men at his house on Sunday 19th July. One of the men, John Thulas, told Hinchliffe to 'give over following the Luddites' and pay attention to what the parson at the Church said in his sermons. Hinchliffe left, and Blythe then told the men that what Hincliffe had told him 'would hang both him and John Schofield'. The other man present, Abraham Battye, then left without saying anything.

Blythe now told Lloyd that he suspected Battye had gone more or less straight to relate the tale to Schofield, for the following morning at 6.00 a.m., Schofield visited Hinchliffe, asking him what he had said to Blythe. Two days later, Hinchliffe was shot.

On Monday 31st August, Schofield denied to Lloyd he had been involved, though in the same deposition, he did admit to meeting Hinchliffe on the 20th July, and asking him what he had said to Blythe.

Lloyd then presented his new knowledge to Hinchliffe. No doubt he laboured long and hard on him that he knew he was involved with the Luddites, and spelled out to him what that could mean for him. Despite saying previously that he did not recognise his assailants, that day, he signed the following deposition:

the former Examination he gave to Joseph Scott Esqr. on the 23d July and now read over is true and he further saith that from the observations which he made of one of the men whom he has alluded to in that Examination he has no doubt whatever of John Schofield the younger (the prisoner now in custody) being the man called him up and afterwards had hold of him at the Door and fled upon the hearing of the Horse for, he is very well acquainted with the Prisoner’s Voice having been much in his Company when the Prisoner has been learning to sing and he thought at the time he was called to that it was the voice of Schofield the Prisoner that did call — and when he came to see his person he thought it the person of Schofield — It was quite the shape of him — and he got a sight of part of his face & he thought it like the face of Schofield

29th August 1812: The Stockport Solicitor, John Lloyd, takes John Hinchliffe into private custody

Huddersfield
29 August 1812

Sir

By a particular mode of Examination which I made use of in this neighbourhood where I have met with Hinchliffe, (the person shot at nether Thong), I have now prevailed over Hinchliffe to identify Schofield as one of the two men are concerned that outrage – I have been at Wakefield & have seen Schofield in the House of Correction there but have foreborn to say any thing to him. On my return I waited after Mr. Scott the magistrate who has fixed Monday for the Examination at Wakefield & has requested me to attend which I certainly shall & go through with it to the best of my ability — The Case from all the facts which I can collect from Exams in Mr. Scott’s possession & the last Examination of Hinchliffe taken in writing makes the Case extremely strong against Schofield, and there is not the smallest doubt as to a committal to York on Thursday upon a Case sufficient for Trial—

This shall be reported to you from Wakefield by the Monday’s Mail

The commitment will create a considerable sensation in this neighbourhood.

Mr. Scott informed me of the correspondence with you — & he appears well satisfied with what we have to lay before him as Evidence against Schofield —

Hinchliffe is now safe at a Gentlemen's House in this neighbourhood not to be seen by any except myself and Mr. Allison the Solr of this place — I found him extremely reluctant occasioned by the fear he was under for his own safety, & I have taken pains to give him confidence —

I have [etc]

J.Lloyd

[To J. Beckett Esqr]

5th August 1812: John Schofield, the suspected Luddite assassin, is apprehended in London

Four days after the West Riding magistrates had interviewed John Hinchliffe about the attempt on his life on 22nd July 1812, a reward notice was issued, offering 200 Guineas for information. The notice also stated that the man Hinchliffe had mentioned to the magistrates as taking to him about Luddism - John Schofield - was suspected of being involved. and offered a further 20 Guineas for information leading to his apprehension. The notice carried a description of Schofield:

The said John [Schofield] is by Trade a Cloth-Dresser, about Twenty-one Years of Age, Five Feet Ten Inches high, Brown Hair, Dark Complexion, rather stout made; commonly wears a dark coloured Coat, made rather short, and Lead-coloured Jean Pantaloons.

But by then, Schofield had already left the West Riding: indeed, he had left the morning after the incident with Hinchliffe at Wickens. Schofield's father later gave a deposition that his son had voiced his concerns that he would be implicated in the attempt on Hinchliffe's life on the morning he had left, and stated that he intended to flee, leaving his wife and child behind, though he didn't say where to - only that he wouldn't head for Liverpool, in case he was recognised by any West Riding folk.

Taking 10 Guineas with him, Schofield travelled on foot, almost to Leicester, a journey of over 80 miles. There, he took the Nelson coach to London, arriving on Monday 27th July. He headed for the home of a relation called Blackburn, a woollen draper who lived in Aldgate, and stayed there a further 8 days. He borrowed another 5 Guineas from Blackburn to pay the 15 Guineas he would need for his passage to America on a ship that was leaving on Wednesday 5th August 1812.

Schofield's mistake was to use his real name for the ship's register - before it departed, a police officer from the Whitechapel Office called Francis Freeman boarded the ship, the Independent of New York, and found Schofield's name on the register and confronted him. Freeman asked him if he was from Yorkshire, and he said that he was, and Freeman noted his lead-coloured pantaloons. Schofield was asked to read the reward notice and admitted he was the person described in the notice, but denied knowing Hinchliffe. Freeman then arrested him, and took him before the police magistrate Daniel Williams.

In a deposition sworn later that day, Schofield said he had been invited to New York by an uncle called George Hirst, a shopkeeper. He described himself as a farmer, working for his wife's father, who ran a farm at Netherthong. He again denied knowing Hinchliffe, even of the fact he had been shot. He stated that he had bought the lead-coloured pantaloons on the London docks on Saturday 1st August, although he had failed to point out the shop to the police officer when challenged to do so, and the police officer had been unable to find a shop that sold such pants. In any case, the officer had looked through a chest Schofield had taken on board and could not find any other trousers amongst his possessions.

7 days later, with Schofield still in custody in London, his father was examined by the West Riding magistrate Joseph Scott, and related the conversation he had had with his son on the 23rd July. Describing his son's occupation as a clothdresser, crucially he stated that neither he nor his wife had any relation called George Hirst in New York.

23rd July 1812: A badly-injured John Hinchliffe gives evidence to West Riding magistrates

At 11.30 a.m. on Thursday 23rd July 1812, two West Riding magistrates - Sir George Armitage and Joseph Scott - visited the badly wounded John Hinchliffe, who had been shot outside his house the night before.

He had been taken to the home of Constable Blythe at Holmfirth, and lay there in bed, in what was later described as a "dangerous state" - unsurprising since the shot from the pistol had destroyed his left eye and part of his face.

Hinchliffe was examined by the two magistrates, who took a deposition about what had occurred the night before . They also took further information from him which, unlike the deposition about the events, described events prior to the 22nd July. Hinchliffe stated that he had met a man called John Schofield junior some 9 or 10 weeks ago who tried to recruit him into a 'Society of Luds', and expounded upon plans for a rising in future. Hinchliffe had afterwards mentioned this meeting to the vicar of Holmfirth, William Keeling, and had next met Schofield at 6.00 a.m. on the 20th July when Schofield came to his house asking him who he had told: Schofield said Constable Blythe knew. Hinchliffe told him who he had talked to, which by now included 2 other men as well as Keeling. Schofield stated his fears about what would happen to him and asked Hinchliffe if he would repeat what he had told Keeling - Hinchliffe said that he would.

Lying in a gravely ill state, Hinchliffe believed that what had happened to him was a consequence of his speaking to the vicar of Holmfirth.