11th February 1818: The Reverend C.W. Ethelston vouches for the anti-Luddite spy, Samuel Fleming

My Lord

Your Lordship’s letter of the 6th instt I had the honor of receiving on Sunday evening but delay’d my answer in expectation of being able to write more fully on the subject of the enquiries contain’d in it—Unfortunately our Deputy Constable, from whom I might have receiv’d accurate information as “to what extent & with what degree of utility Fleming was employ’d” in 1812, is absent from Manchester on a trial of some importance.

For that reason, my Lord, I can only speak to the point from memory. To the best of my recollection Fleming was an evidence against the Luddites, who were brought to trial before Baron Wood, but were not convicted on his Evidence—at the same time he was thought worthy of a remuneration & receiv’d it—To what amount I cannot speak with certainty—With regard to his services last year I must say that up to a particular period his Intelligence was faithful & important, for which according to the entrusted to my management he always receiv’d in my opinion an adequate compensation—In the expedition to Huddersfield for the discovery of arms conceal’d, he fail’d thro misconduct, but afterwards redeem’d his Character by some important Information relative to the Insurrection in March last.

Whether upon the whole Fleming has been sufficiently remunerated is not for me to determine. I can only say he has been constantly in the habit of receiving occasional supplies from me, ‘till very lately, since Jany 1817; but, as he only shar’d a limited Sum with several others, I will submit now to your Lordship’s judgment recommend him to your further notice.

I think he might be employ’d as a subordinate Agent in a Police Office but in no situation when Education is requir’d—The letter to your Lordship has evidently been written for him & his statement is exaggerated.

I have [etc]
C.W. Ethelston

Longsight
Manchr
Feby 11th 1818

[Written on reverse by Home Office clerk]
Answer to Enquiry whether
Fleming had any claim
for remuneration on
Government for his
Services

26th March 1814: Joseph Nadin writes to the Home Office again about his expenses

Sir

Your Letter of the 3d. Instant was duly Received at this Office, but being at the Assizes has prevented me from writing you sooner, I hope you will excuse the Liberty I have taken being a total Stranger to you, and have to thank you for your endeavours to get my Account settled with the Treasury, I assure you that there is not one Item in my accounts that I have charged a penny more than it cost me, the Riots prevailed almost all round Manchester at the same Time, and not one Constable of those Townships would assist, I had no other Resource but the Military, I seldom went out with less than 26 to 30 of the Grays for nights together to apprehend those charged with Rioting, the number of Men Horses and Assistants Expenses were considerably more than I charged in my Bill, A Coach could not be obtained for the usual Sum and was very hard to get at any price, I can positively say that I paid more by sixty pounds than was charged in my Accounts. I treated the Greys with that Respect I thought they deserved, and I am sorry I had it not in my power to do more than I did for I cannot say too much in their praise, the Expences of witnesses at the Assizes when compared with others Bills I trust will be thought reasonable and all the other Sums were paid by order of the Magistrates with Respect to the Luddites tried at Derby warrants were specially directed to me and sent by Saml. Frith Esqr. of Bank near Chapel le Frith, one of his Majesty’s Justices of the peace for the County of Derby to desire me to apprehend them and that I should be handsomely paid for my Trouble, the County of Derby did allow me some of my Expences and for Loss of Time I could say I was nothing out of pocket, the Rewards and Tickets were received by Mr. Shaw the Solicitor who undertook the prosecution I never had one penny of the Rewards General Maitland desired me to send two Men over into yorkshire to get twisted in, McDonald and Goslin were sent by me and in a few days they were twisted in and five of the Men were transported at york special Commission, the General told me if the Men did their duty they should be liberally paid, I did pay them their Expences and something for Loss of Time but not as much as they could get at home by half a Guinea a week and they have been out of work Six Months since which is very hard for them. General Maitland told John Silvester Esqr. one of our Magistrates if we would find the Men he would find the money. I paid all in the first Instance and charged him with a part, I had to try Experiments in the neighbourhood of Manchester to get others twisted in where I paid Sums of Money amounting to 35£ which was never charged in any Account because I did not succeed, I do think if you was to ask the Solicitors of the Bank of England they will say that they have employed me for fifteen years and they never found any Fault with my Charges, they have entrusted me with all their secret Business here which has been very considerable and I flatter myself they will say I have given them general Satisfaction and they always have rewarded me accordingly, I think it my duty to apprise you that all Trades in the Manufactory of this neighbourhood again meet in different Societys But I believe they are forming Combinations against their Masters to raise their wages, the weavers met about 500 last Tuesday Evening at Shaw Brow near this Town, I shall be very much obliged if you will have the Goodness to say on whom I may draft the Amount of my Bill

I am
Sir
Your very Humble Servant
Joseph Nadin

Manchester
Police Office
March 26th 1814

2nd March 1814: The Treasury Solicitor informs the Home Office about his views on Nadin's expenses

Lincolns Inn
March 2. 1814

Mr. Hobhouse presents Complts. to Mr. Beckett, and returns Mr. Nadin's Memorial, & the accompanying Documents received from Mr. Beckett on the 26th ulto. Although on the Inspection of Mr. Nadin's Charges there certainly does not appear to be any Claim for his personal Labour, yet the Amount of some of those Items which are charged as Disbursements, leads to a strong Suspicion that a considerable Profit on them must have occurred to himself. W.H. makes this Observation, not with a View of subjecting the Bill to Revision, which he thinks would at this time be useless, but as it may weigh something in deciding on the question of Mr. Nadin's ulterior Remuneration. W.H. regards Nadin as a very useful Police Officer, whom it is desirable to render chearful in the Execution of his Duty, & on this Ground he presumes to think it would not be amiss, particularly after the long Delay wch has occurred in paying his Bill, to present him with a moderate Gratuity.

With regard to the Derbyshire Cases, in respect of which Nadin thinks himself [badly] treated, it is fit to observe that Government has neither directly nor indirectly had any Concern in them. W.H. knows not by whom Nadin was employed, nor by whom the Prosecution were conducted; but he apprehends that the 5 Convictions entitle the Prosecutor to 5 Rewards of £40 each besides Tyburn Tickets, out of which Nadin probably had, & certainly was entitled to have, a considerable Share

17th February 1814: The Deputy Constable of Manchester writes to the Home Office about remuneration

Sir

I hope you will pardon the Liberty I have taken in addressing you Respecting the Money I have paid in taking the Rioters in this neighbourhood, and the witnesses going to Lancaster &c Mr. Haye has wrote to the Solicitor of the Treasury several Times and I have sent up Two Accounts and have never Received any Answer. The Reason I cannot tell but if you will peruse the annexed Account you will see if there has been any Business done and in Addition I went over to New Mills in Derbyshire and apprehended Ten took them to Derby, next Time I went I took up six and sent them to Derby, and I went to Middlewich in Cheshire two different Times and apprehended two, they were all of them tried before Sir Vickery Gibbs last Spring Assizes at Derby five out of the number were capitally convicted and three were hanged two transported for Life, I heard that this Gang had gone together to Rob John Drinkwater's House of Bugsworth in the County of Derby, no one in that neighbourhood durst take them, I took the Greys one of the Times and the Bays the other, I did get bare Expences but in that Case not one penny for Loss of Time or extra Duty, when the Riots existed peace Officers were scarce. I must either take the Dragoons or go myself, I have been a Servant to the public 25 years, and I do think myself very coolly treated. I again have to apologize for my troubling you and I do trust if in your power you will assist me in getting my Expences

I am
Sir
your Humble Servant
Joseph Nadin

Manchester
police Office
Feby 17th 1814

26th January 1813: The Treasury Solicitor suggests that the Home Office pay off the informer, Samuel Fleming

Lincolns Inn
Jan. 26. 1813.

Sir,

With Reference to Mr Litchfield’s Letter of the 28th ulto, in which he transmitted a Bill and Mr. Joseph Nadin of Manchester containing (among other Things) various Payments made by him to Samuel Fleming a Witness for the Crown at the Summer Assizes at Lancaster, I have the Honor to inform you that having seen at York both Mr. Nadin & Mr. Hay the Magistrate I took an opportunity of speaking to them on the Subject of Fleming, & have now to transmit to you for Lord Sidmouth’s Information a Copy of a Letter from Mr. Hay, suggesting what appears to the magistrates on the spot to be the best mode of getting Fleming off the Hands of Government.

I have [etc]
H. Hobhouse

[To] J Beckett Esq

[Written in margin]

27. —

Write to the Treasury — and request that this will authorise them [illegible] to advance 100£ for the purpose stated out of monies in his hand, for [illegible] a Criminal [Prosn]

11th October 1812: The Deputy Constable of Manchester, Joseph Nadin, writes to Acland about matters in Manchester

Sir

I am obliged by yours of the 10th instant of inform you that Randle Judson was one of the 37 I apprehended at the prince Regents Arms he is a handsome looking man 22 years of age 5-11 high slender made, fresh looking, lightish Hair, lives at Audenshaw 5 miles from Manchester, is by Trade a warper and works of Messrs Bentley & Wilkinson — I shall always be happy to give you every Information in my power. I am happy to inform you that I am upon the look out after a Gang of Rascals and the apprehension will not take place of a Fortnight of which I will inform you, they are not Luddites, I think General Ludd has left this neighbourhood we are very quiet only I often get a delightful Letter threatening to blow out my Brains – you will recollect that I always told you that the Sir Sidney Smith in port Street and the Wheat Sheaf High Street were Twisting in Shops, their Licences are suspended till next Wednesday Morning when I hear that Mr. Farrington intends to give the Landlord of the Wheat Sheaf his Licence. I hope you will write to him to prevent it as it is a notorious Shop for twisting in – it was a worse House than the prince Regents Arms.

I am [etc]
Josh Nadin

Manchester
Police Office
Octr 11th, 1812

[To: General Acland]

24th September 1812: General Acland tells General Maitland that Luddites taking the Oath of Allegiance may not be serious

Huddersfield 24th September 1812

My dear Sir

Two women were examined last night before Mr. Ratcliffe, they both depos’d that Joshua Haigh when he absconded & went to Ireland deliver’d to each of them, that he was one of the four men who shot at Mr. Horsfall—

Clegg & Smith were bound over to appear at the Sessions at Wakefield.

Nadin writes me from Manchester that the men who went to Mr. Farrington to be untwisted, have in general said they did so only to save themselves, but their Hearts remain’d the same — he says there have been several Meetings during the last week in the public houses at Manchester & some of the 38 attended each, & are very active—

Capt. McDougal came over here yesterday & reports that several of those who were untwisted in his neighbourhood, still associate with the Luddites, & are not looked upon with much suspicion —

On further enquiry it seems advisable he should not attempt any search for arms without more perfect information—

I send you a letter receiv’d from Nottingham, which I open’d supposing it might be on [district] business, but finding it was from Robert Fisher, I did not read it – I shall continue to write daily till I hear of your return

Wroth P Acland

[To] Lt General
The Rt Honorable
T. Maitland

27th August 1812: The trial of the 'Manchester 38' at Lancaster Assizes

Lancaster Castle c.1830: an engraving by Richard Parry from an original by William Westall

More than 2 months after they had been arrested at a meeting in Manchester, the trial of the 'Manchester 38' began at Lancaster Summer Assizes at Lancaster Assizes on Thursday 27th August 1812.

The trial began between 10.00 and 11.00 a.m., and the indictments were first read. All of the prisoners pleaded Not Guilty. The Counsel for the Crown, Mr. Park (the Attorney-General for the County Palatine of Lancashire) pointed out to the Jury that the effect of the Special Commission in May on the public mind had been diminished because so few people of the thousands that had taken part were tried. He stated that the large number of defendants on trial in this case could have a greater effect, especially as since the 9th July 1812, the penalty for such offences as they were accused of was now death.

Two of the prisoners - William Washington & Thomas Broughton - were charged with administering the oath to the informer, Samuel Fleming, the Crown's star witness. The other 36 prisoners were accused of aiding, assisting and consenting to the administration of the oath.

The prisoners' defence was led by a team that included none other than Henry Brougham, although he was acting only for Thomas Broughton, the man who Park contended was one of the two administrators of the illegal oaths, and the one accused of being most enmeshed in conspiracy.

Park then went on to introduce the Crown's witness, Samuel Fleming, and the events he said he was witness to, setting out the Crown's case. Fleming was an Irish weaver who had come to live in Manchester 9 years ago, a former soldier in Ireland who had joined the Local Militia in Manchester. Park stated that it was 'common practice' to get such men involved amongst the 'unlawful combinations'. The link between Fleming and with what was to occur was Thomas Broughton: Fleming lived in the house where Broughton had resided, and through coming to know him, Broughton had tried and succeeded to get Fleming involved in nocturnal meetings in fields around Manchester. Park contended that Fleming was resistant to be 'twisted in', so much so that one night he was shot at as he was leaving his house. It was at this point that Fleming approached his commanding officer in the local militia, Colonel Sylvester, who was also a magistrate. Sylvester and Joseph Nadin, the Deputy constable of Manchester, now arranged for Fleming to alert them to a meeting, in order that they could make arrests.

The evening of 11th June 1812 came, and Fleming met Broughton at the Elephant public house on Tib Street in Manchester, where a meeting was due to take place. The meeting was later adjourned to another pub nearby, the Prince Regents Arms, in an upstairs room. Broughton & Fleming drank in the bar downstairs, and Fleming at last expressed a wish to be twisted in. Broughton went up and downstairs a couple of times before telling Fleming he could proceed upstairs. Once there, Fleming
contended that he witnessed William Washington administer the oath to 3 other men before he did the same to Fleming. Fleming contended that, after this, Washington gave him the signs and countersigns which could be used to identify another similarly 'twisted'.

Fleming then said he had left at 10.00 p.m. to alert Colonel Sylvester & Nadin, with Nadin then proceeding to the pub with a troop of Scotch Greys and making the arrests, initially of 37 men, as Thomas Broughton was downstairs.

After outlining the case for the prosecution, Park began to examine witnesses, starting with Samuel Fleming. He brought out details, which included an allegation that in being introduced to the political underground by the defendant Thomas Broughton, he had attended meetings in St George's Fields near Manchester, and that on one occasion in the week before the 20th April 1812, there had been an intention to go the Middleton and burn down Burton's steam loom factory.

The defence objected strongly to the introduction of this information, saying that it had nothing to do with the charges, but the Judge, Baron Wood, overruled them.

Park continued to examine Fleming along the lines of the case he had outlined earlier, and got Fleming to state that he had observed the landlord, John Brown, (who was also on trial at the Assizes in a separate case) putting up curtains in the upstairs meeting room before he was twisted in. He also stated that he had talked with a defendant, Isaac Birch: the prosecution was aware that at the hearing where the 38 were initially charged, Fleming had sworn several times that a prison officer called Evans in the lineup was Birch, whilst the deputy constable Nadin had tried to force another defendant, John Knight, to stand near to Evans. Led by Park, Fleming insisted that his identification of Evans for Birch was a mistake, since on the 11th June Birch was wearing a hat all night, and when the 38 were charged, he was not: he insisted that the fact Birch was bald-headed meant that he didn't recognise him without the hat.

Fleming then went on to state that he had been ordered to go downstairs and wait there, and after drinking for a while with Broughton, left the Prince Regents Arms to divulge what had happened to Colonel Sylvester and Nadin.

Fleming was then cross-examined by Mr Scarlett, one of the counsel for the 37 men. Scarlett got Fleming to admit that he went to the meeting on the 11th June, in order to become twisted-in, at the behest of Colonel Sylvester & Nadin, and that Sylvester had given him money since then. Fleming also stated that he had entered the upstairs room at 10.00 p.m., then left to go downstairs, but had not lingered to drink with Broughton, and went straight to Colonel Sylvester's. Scarlett got Fleming to estimate the time taken for him to arrive at Sylvester's house, and then fetch Nadin - he estimated that he did not bring Nadin back before 11.00 p.m.

Scarlett also demonstrated that Fleming was inconsistent about who he knew at the meeting, and how he was then able to identify them when they were charged 3 days later. Fleming admitted that other than 4 people he knew personally, he could not positively say that any of the others were present at the meeting, and that he had not seen them since they were charged over 2 months ago.

At an interval another counsel for the defence, Mr Williams, pointed out that the indictment had Thomas Broughton administering the oath to Fleming, but the evidence thus far had held that he was not in the room at the time Fleming was twisted in, and that this undermined the whole case. Henry Brougham echoed the objection, but it was overruled by the Judge.

Colonel John Sylvester, the Manchester magistrate and Local Militia commander then took the witness stand. He confirmed to the prosecution his earlier contacts with Fleming and also that he had come to him at 11.00 p.m. on the night of the 11th June. Henry Brougham made sure the time was highlighted in his brief cross-examination.

The Deputy Constable of Manchester, Joseph Nadin, next took the stand. In cross-examination by Mr. Williams, he estimated that he arrived at the Prince Regents Arms by 11.30 p.m. and though he insisted he took all the papers from the meeting room, he was clear that he did not find a Bible (the prosecution had alleged that a Bible was used in the oath ceremony). Williams uncovered more inconsistencies in the prosecution's case: they had maintained that Nadin had heard voices calling out numbers when he arrived, and that the front door was locked - yet under cross-examination, he only admitted to hearing the indistinct voices of 2 people talking, and that the door was unlocked - he even pushed it open himself.

When the landlady of the Prince Regent's Arms, Elizabeth Brown, took the stand, the prosecution had difficulty getting her to swear that Thomas Broughton was downstairs on the 11th June, as was outlined in their case. Furthermore, under cross-examination from Brougham, she stated that William Washington did not come to the pub before 10.45 p.m. that evening, which was 45 minutes after the time that Samuel Fleming maintained he had left the public after being twisted-in by him. Mrs Brown also stated that Fleming had arrived at the pub at 7.00 p.m. that evening, before the meeting took place, and had been served 2 pints of beer, but had not gone into the upstairs room at all.

The prosecution's case then drew to a close. The prisoners were asked if they wanted to make statements to the Jury:

Mr. Baron Wood. William Washington, have you anything to say in your defence?

William Washington. My Lord, and Gentlemen of the Jury, if I was not in this situation, but capable of being called upon to give evidence on the present occasion, I should most solemnly state, upon oath, that there is no truth in the charge against us; and I have no doubt, but one and all of my suffering companions would do the same; indeed, by our plea of NOT GUILTY, that declaration is already made by each of us; so that you will have to try on which side the truth lies. For myself, I repeat my innocence; and as a proof of that, I declare, that I was not in the room at the time that Fleming has fixed upon, nor for some time afterwards; in fact, I had been employed and much engaged that evening, in levying an execution, as will be proved to you, beyond the possibility of contradiction, and I was not able, therefore, to go to the meeting till within a quarter of eleven o'clock, when the outward door of the house was shut, as can be proved, as well by Mr. and Mrs. Brown; so that it is utterly impossible that I could have administered an oath to Fleming, or any other man living, at the time, and in the way, I have been charged with. Fleming has said, that the oath was administered soon after ten o'clock, and that the house door was open when he went out; it therefore follows, that as I did not arrive until after the doors were shut, that I was not in the house at the time and suppose so foolishly and wickedly to have acted.—I say foolishly, because I must be considered as the most unthinking blockhead living, and so must also the rest of these prisoners be, if what has been stated be true. But, Gentleman, is it likely that such a body of men, should so far disregard their own safety, as to commit so serious a crime with the room door open, in the presence of so many unknown characters; and more especially so, when you find some intimation had been given of Mr. Nadin’s intended visit?—Such an expectation, if we had any guilty object in view, would naturally have increased our caution, and not slackened it into such indifference. But that is not all—Where is the BIBLE that is spoken of? All our papers were seized, and everything taken from the table, and from the persons of all the prisoners, but yet no Bible, or other book, was found; nor any paper, or other document, confirmatory of the story now told by Fleming; but, on the contrary, every paper seized is consistent with the true motives and object of the meeting, connected as it was with former meetings, to petition for peace, and a reform in parliament. I crave your most serious examination of the facts in evidence, and hope you will compare them, and the nature of the offence charged, with the probability and improbability of the case; after which, I consign myself and all that is dear to me, on this side the grave, into your hands, as an honest impartial Jury of my country.

Mr. Baron Wood successively asked the prisoners, what they had say in their defence? And they addressed the Court the following effect.

Thomas Broughton. There were a few men came to my house, and asked me to go round, to see how many would pay a penny a piece, towards the trial of apprentices.—That was all the meeting I was at.

Thomas Cooke. I have nothing to state.

John Haigh. My Lord, and Gentlemen of the Jury, the first time I heard of this meeting, was on Monday, the 8th June, when a man left a handbill at my house, containing resolutions to petition for Peace and Parliamentary Reform. Another meeting was to take place on Thursday, the 11th June, at the Elephant; I let some of my neighbours see this handbill, and I told them I was going to Manchester; they requested I would endeavour to get a copy of the petition: I was therefore there to hear the petition read, and to get a copy, and nothing else.

Thomas Wilkinson. Gentleman, all I have to say is, that the declaration of Fleming, is totally false: I attended the meeting for the same reason, seeing the handbill.

Charles Oldham. I have nothing more to say, than what has been said.

James Knott. I have nothing more to say, than what has been stated by the others.

Charles Woolling. The things alleged against me are utterly false: coming from my work I heard of the meeting, and merely went to hear the petition and address read.

Robert Thornley. I know nothing of any meeting but this: as I was going from my work, a number of people said, there was to be a meeting, to hear an address and petition for peace and parliamentary reform read: I thought there could be no harm in going to hear them read, and these papers were heard read. As to the charge laid against this, we are as innocent as the child unborn.

Simon Simmons. Some nights before 11th June, being out of employ, I was engaged by the committee to occupy a certain place, to procure names to the petition, and post-up handbills. On Thursday, the 11th June, I was sent for by Mr. Washington, and he desired me to take the book and the resolutions to the public-house; he informed me, he was going to make a levy, and take an inventory of goods, and that he would be there as soon as possible: I went with these things, and left them, and I stopped whilst Mr. Nadin came there.

William Coppock. I was told I was a petition for peace, the Prince Regent Arms, and I went to hear the petition read.

John Oldham. I have nothing to state but what has been stated before.

Aaron Marvell. Gentleman, a few days before the 11th June, a man shewed me resolutions agreed to for a petition and address for peace and parliamentary reform; and he told me of the meeting at the Elephant—I have a great desire to hear them read.

John Howarth, on the 11th June, John Gee came and desired I would go with him to hear a petition the peace read: as my hand was scalded, and I could not work, I agreed to go with him; I stopped till seven o'clock, in the Market-place; I agreed to go to the Prince Regent’s Arms; I went up stairs, and Mr. Nadin came in about half an hour afterwards.

Err Oldham. I have nothing to say, but what has been already stated.

John Kershaw. My Lord, and Gentlemen of the Jury, it is well known by many here, that I was sent to the meeting by the trade: I was appointed to be present by the trade. Me and another person were desired to attend: I had not time to attend at the time proposed, but when I had an opportunity of attending, I went up in my working dress; I went to the Elephant, but the people were dispersed. A man said, is not this a meeting for peace and parliamentary reform? They did not wish to be disturbed. He asked me whether I would go to the meeting at the Prince Regent’s Arms? I thought, as I had promised, I would attend: in consequence of that, I went forward; I staid till between nine and ten o'clock, but no business was transacted—I happened to have no money; I had been to Kersal Moor, seeing the soldiers. This person went out soon after —I sat there while Mr. Knight read the resolutions, until Mr. Nadin came in. I believe it is well known that I abhor such things as we are accused of; I avow eternal abhorrence for the witness has expressed—nothing of the kind was administered, or thought of as an oath.

Charles Smith. On the 21st May, I was informed by Mr. Washington, and Mr. Bent, a respectable cotton-merchant, that in a few days there would be a meeting, for the purpose of considering the best mode of addressing the House of Commons for peace and parliamentary reform. The resolutions, now read, then passed: I was called upon to take the chair, and to prepare the said petition and address. I have, since that night, attended several committee meetings, and the resolutions appeared in the Statesman newspaper, on the 3d June, and it was well known that a public meeting was to be on the 11th June, respecting how funds were to be raised. About half-past eight I was at work, and saw Cannavan; I asked him why did not go to the meeting? He said, it was removed to the Prince Regent’s Arms—I went there; the ranging the company occupied the time till nine, when the resolutions and the address were read. About a quarter past eleven Mr. Washington came in—no oath was administered; and what has been adduced by Samuel Fleming, is utterly false and groundless.

Thomas Harsnett. I have nothing to offer but my positive assertion, that the alleged charge of administering the oath, is a fabricated falsehood.

John Knight. Had not those who have gone before, taken up so much time, I should enter more at large into the nature of the accusation, but as they have sufficiently occupied your attention, I shall be brief:—I was one of the few who were first to go to the room; I staid there till Mr. Nadin came—I solemnly declare, that no such thing as an oath was ever proposed—I deem this sufficient, and as much as if I was to speak an hour.

Thomas Cannavan. What has been adduced by Samuel Fleming, is utterly false, and will be so proved to your satisfaction.

Joseph Tinley. As I stated at the New Bayley, I only went to hear the petition read. I rely with full confidence on God, and the verdict of a British Jury.

John Godley. I went to the meeting for nothing but to hear the resolutions and address read—I went for that and nothing else.

Daniel Jevins. I attended the meeting, for the purpose of hearing the petition and address read.

Stephen Harrison. I have nothing further to say, than what has been already said.—What has been adduced by Samuel Fleming is utterly false.

Edward McGinnes. I have nothing to say, but that no such thing as an oath was ever administered.

James Hepworth. I never heard any thing of an oath named; what has been said by the soldier is absolutely false.

Rycroft Hepworth. What Fleming has said, is absolutely false. I happened to be there, I went to hear the petition read.—Nothing else passed in my presence.

James Lawton. I do not wish to say any thing.

Robert Slack. Gentleman, I have nothing to advance, but what has been said—the accusation is entirely false.

Randal Judson. Gentleman, before the 11th June I heard there was to be a meeting, for an address to the House of Commons, for peace and parliamentary reform, and I attended the meeting with no other view than to hear it read.

Edmund Newton. I went to the meeting, for nothing but to hear the petition read; and I declare, the accusation is entirely false.

Aaron Whitehead. I have nothing to say, but what I stated in my examination. I made it in my way to call at the meeting, when I got to the Elephant I was informed the meeting was removed, and I followed it to the Prince Regent’s Arms. I went to no other purpose but to hear the petition read—I never heard any thing else while I was there.

James Buckley. There is nothing I wish to say.

John Newton. I have nothing to say.

James Boothby. I have nothing to say, but that the accusation is false.

Edward Phillips. I can state nothing, but what has been already advanced.

James Greenwood. I cannot add any thing to what I said on my examination.

Isaac Birch. When I went in I doffed my hat, and never put it on till Mr. Nadin came into the room.

The defence questioned a witness called William Cummins, who had been at the Elephant public house prior to the meeting, and had joined the meeting at the Prince Regents Arms later, leaving at 11.00 p.m. after the landlord had asked that the meeting be concluded. Cummins stated that, as he was coming down the stairs, Nadin arrived. Contradicting Nadin's evidence, he stated that Nadin passed him on the stairs and went into the meeting room, without ensuring that he went back into the room, and that he was later locked out of the pub. Crucially, he also attested that William Washington had arrived at the meeting only a few minutes before 11.00 p.m. Under cross-examination from the prosecution, Cummins further stated that Nadin had ordered him to go downstairs, rather than back into the room, as Nadin had said.

The defence brought another witness, Thomas Hepworth, who was also at the meeting that night. He also stated that he had left at 11.00 p.m. when the landlord asked for the meeting to end, and that William Washington had arrived only 5 to 10 minutes before that.

Both of the defence witnesses who were at the meeting stated that no oaths had been sworn in their presence.

Richard Scott was also a defence witness. He stated that he had been with William Washington in the daytime on 11th Jun, who was working as a general agent (i.e. debt collector) on a job at Gee Cross in Cheshire. They had arrived back in Manchester at 9.00 p.m. and Washington had met Scott at the Sir Sidney Smith pub on Port Street in Manchester for a drink, and had remained there with him until 11.00 p.m.

Thomas Johnson was also called and confirmed that he had been at work with Washington in Gee Cross on the 11th June, and drank with him and Scott at the Sir Sidney Smith, leaving them both there before 11.00 p.m.

Isaac Bland, the landlord of the Sir Sidney Smith was also called by the defence. He confirmed that Washington left at 11.00 p.m. - he stated he remembers the time not only because the clock had struck, but also because his wife had locked the door before eleven and he had to unlock it to let Washington out. He also stated that the clock was set ten minutes early, to induce people to leave earlier than closing time.

Nadin was called again, and challenged about his testimony about seeing a man on the stairs whom he ordered to go back into the meeting room. He disputed this was William Cummins, and stated that the man he saw was bigger in physical build.

The case of the defence was then concluded.

In summing up, the Judge, Baron Wood, highlighted the contrary testimonies as to the time William Washington attended the meeting, and the time Fleming contended he was twisted-in by him: the Judge himself had earlier made a point of asking Fleming what time he left the Prince Regent's Arms, and he had replied 10.30 p.m. He also highlighted the contrary times given for Nadin's arrival, and the fact that Nadin found no Bible, upon which Fleming had attested he had rested his hand to swear the oath.

Baron Wood went on to make it clear that the only evidence for the oath being administered to Fleming was that of Fleming himself, and that several other witnesses contradicted him. Similarly, for the time that Washington had attended the meeting. He commented that it "seems to me, that the witness for the prosecution being so contradicted, it makes an end of the case, and that the
prisoners must be acquitted", but that ultimately, the Jury must decide who they believed.

When the Jury reconvened later, they found William Washington, and all of the other defendants Not Guilty. The trial ended at 2.00 a.m. on Friday 28th August 1812, around 14 hours after it had commenced.

8th July 1812: A spy sent from Manchester is 'twisted-in' by an old man at Halifax

John McDonald and John Gossling were two assistant constables in Manchester. They had both been sent into West Yorkshire by the Manchester Deputy Constable, Joseph Nadin, with a view to infiltrate clandestine workers' organisations.

The spies arrived in Halifax at noon on Wednesday 8th July 1812 and headed straight for the first public house they could find, the Crispin Inn. After ordering and eating a meal, they left to find somewhere to stay, and having done so, returned in an hour or two. Before long, they were talking to locals, and were soon in conversation with a man called Charles Milnes. They talked generally about the state of the country, and Milnes began to open up about who he knew and what he had been up to; that he had stolen 60 rounds of ball cartridges from a soldier in the Cumberland Militia, but had been found out and had fled when the military searched him and tried to take him before an official. He subsequently hid out on Dean Moor for 3 weeks. He also told them he knew the two men killed at Rawfolds very well, and also another Luddite who had acted as an officer in the attack on the mill. Having gained Milnes confidence, McDonald tried to engage him in talk about how to become involved with the Luddites. Milnes made it clear that before conversation on that subject could go further, he would have to be twisted-in.

After a further discussion, McDonald agreed to the proposal. McDonald later swore that Milnes said "I will take you to a man who has been in the business nearly twenty years, and he will do it for you tonight".

Leaving Gosling behind, the two men made their way to the home of an elderly hatter called John Baines.  Milnes said to Baines "I have brought a friend here; he is a stranger, but he is a very good fellow, and he wishes to be a brother." McDonald noticed that Milnes had raised his voice slightly, and Baines had cupped his ear - the old man was hard of hearing.

"Then we must be handy," said Baines "for we shall have the watch and ward here soon; some of my neighbours have laid an information, and they are often searching my house."

McDonald looked around - 4 others were present, including a young boy, evidently the old man's son. They all sat down together and began to talk. Baines repeated his concerns about the Watch and Ward - McDonald said "I will go as soon as I have done."

The old man then produced a small book, which McDonald assumed was a bible, and bade them all to stand up. Baines' youngest son, the boy who was present & called Zachariah, stood with his back to the door of the house.

The old man Baines said "take the book" and held it out to McDonald, who complied. Baines asked him his name - McDonald lied and said "John Smith", and Baines said "John Smith, say after me;" and Baines administered the oath. Afterwards, Baines urged McDonald to kiss the book, and he complied.

McDonald offered to buy everyone a drink, but the old man Baines declined, owing to the Watch & Ward. Leaving Zachariah with his father, McDonald went out with the others present, they being the old man's other son, John Baines junior, William Blakeborough, George Duckworth, and Milnes. They headed back to the Crispin Inn, with Duckworth deciding to go home before they went in.

In the pub and in the presence of his three new contacts, the spy McDonald boasted openly to the other spy Gossling that he had got himself twisted-in, and Milnes told Gossling he had introduced him. The five men drank and talked more, before they all left the Crispin Inn between 12.00 - 1.00 a.m., with the three Halifax locals walking the spies to their lodgings, none the wiser about their new friend's real identities and intentions.

13th June 1812: The 37 prisoners at the New Bailey become the 'Manchester 38' and are committed to Lancaster Castle

Between 4.00 and 5.00 p.m. on Saturday 13th June, the 37 men arrested at a meeting at the Prince Regents Arms on 11th June were in court again, this time facing an examination before the magistrates. By now, they were 38, having been joined by Thomas Broughton, a man who had left the meeting early on the fateful night.

The prisoners had taken their positions up at the bar of the Court, when the Deputy Constable Joseph Nadin spent some time re-arranging them in different positions from those in which they had already stood. Prison officers in plain clothes - 'Turnkeys' - also stood amongst them, and John Knight noticed that Nadin tried to position one of these men next to him. He later managed to slowly move to a different position.

Another man was facing them, Nadin's witness called Samuel Fleming, a man who had left the Prince Regents Arms early on the night of the meeting. Nadin asked Fleming if he knew one of the prisoners, William Washington: Fleming said that he didn't, and Nadin proceeded to point at Washington, saying "That is him, in the striped waistcoat and spotted handkerchief; swear to him first."

Washington realised he was being set up for something, and appealed to the magistrates. When no notice was taken of his plea, Washington appealed again, and this time, Nadin was ordered to move away from Fleming. Fleming then proceeded to swear than Washington had administered to him, and two others, an unlawful oath at 10.00 p.m. on 11th June.

On being asked who else had taken the oath, Fleming pointed out a Turnkey called William Evans, the same man who Nadin had tried to place next to John Knight at the bar. Although he was said he was sure it was Evans, the governor of the prison said it was impossible, since Evans had been at the prison all that night. On being asked to point out the other man who had taken the oath, Fleming pointed to another prisoner, Isaac Birch.

The magistrates refused permission for the solicitors for the prisoners to question Fleming, and the 38 men - from now on know as the 'Manchester 38' - were committed for either administering, or being present at the administering of an illegal oath to Samuel Fleming. The Turnkey, William Evans, was not committed.

12th June 1812: The 37 men arrested in Manchester are charged in Court

After their arrest the previous evening, the 37 men from the meeting at the Prince Regents Arms were taken to the New Bailey Prison at Salford, where they were held in a confined space 'crowded almost to suffocation' according to John Knight (1812, p.iii) for between 16 to 17 hours.

Although their jailers agreed to their requests for occasional fresh air and water, requests for a medical examination fell on deaf ears.

Between 4.00 and 5.00 p.m. on Friday 12th June 1812, they were brought before 3 magistrates - Hay, Silvester & Wright. On the oath of the Deputy Constable, Joseph Nadin, they were then charged with 'holding an unlawful meeting, combining for seditious purposes, tending to overthrow the government'. Nadin said he would produce a witness to prove all of this by 10.00 a.m. the following morning.

11th June 1812: 37 men arrested at Peace & Parliamentary Reform meeting in Manchester

The White House (previously the Prince Regent's Arms) in 1967

In the evening of Thursday June 11th 1812, political repression in the North of England plumbed new depths.

Ever since the rioting in and around Manchester of April, the voices for parliamentary reform inside the workers organisations had been stronger than those urging direct action and machine-breaking. Colonel Fletcher's spy, John Bent, had recorded those debates and the activity of the Manchester Committee which was now concerning itself with petitioning Parliament and addressing the monarch. The meeting to finalise these documents was to take place at the Elephant public house on Tib Street in Manchester at 8.00 p.m. on that Thursday night.

John Knight, a 49 year-old manufacturer and ex-handloom weaver, as well as a political radical, seems to have been one of the driving forces behind the meeting. He had previous personal experience of repression, having been sent to prison in 1794 for 2 years for making a seditious speech in Royton, Lancashire. So when he arrived at the Elephant and was told by someone present of the strong rumours that the Manchester Deputy Constable Joseph Nadin would interrupt the meeting, his initial instinct was to stand firm.

But Knight then heard that a sizeable number had already assembled at another public house nearby - the Prince Regent's Arms on Ancoats Lane - the old haunt of the Manchester Secret Committee. Knight therefore decided that the meeting should reconvene there, and upon arriving, they found a room that he estimated could hold between 40 and 50 people.

By 9.45 p.m., all of those expected were present and everyone had got a drink and the meeting began to proceed to business, by now 2 hours late. Knight made sure that everyone present introduced themselves, stating their occupation and place of residence, and then proceeded to read the resolutions of the 26th May meeting, and then the address and petition. A debate followed, with Knight making it clear that he was not in favour of direct action and machine-breaking, but that he considered that petitioning was the way forward. The meeting was interrupted by the landlord, John Brown, informing the group that it was 11.00 p.m. and that pub was now shut to new customers and he wanted to close, and so Knight decided to move to financial matters and to close the meeting as soon as possible.

As the contributions were being paid on the top table, the Deputy Constable of Manchester, Joseph Nadin, entered the door carrying a blunderbuss, quickly followed by around 30 Scotch Greys with muskets, all with fixed bayonets. Nadin advanced to the top table, and challenged Knight and another man who had only been there around 15 minutes, William Washington, to declare the purpose of the meeting: upon being told 'peace and parliamentary reform' and being handed a copy of the printed resolutions, Nadin said he didn't believe them - that the meeting was a pretence and a cover for something else.

Joseph Nadin, the Deputy Constable of Manchester

Nadin then set about ordering the arrest of all of the 37 men present. They were all searched, and their names, occupations and addresses were taken. Finally, their hands were tied and they were taken to the New Bailey court-house/prison at Salford. Knight challenged, who admitted he had no warrant, but told the men that Magistrates were already sitting at Salford.

The names, residences and occupations of the 37 men arrested subsequently appeared in the Lancaster Gazette of 20th June 1812, and are as follows:

From Manchester: John Knight, manufacturer; William Washington, agent (debt collector); Simon Simmons, spinner; Charles Woolling, spinner; Robert Thorneley, spinner; William Coppock, fustian-dresser; John Kershaw, joiner; Charles Smith, cutter; Thomas Harsnett, shoemaker; Thomas Cannavan, calico printer; Joseph Tilney; Daniel Jevins, turner and filer; Stephen Harrison, tinplate worker; Edward McGinnes, bricklayer; James Hepworth, broker; Rycroft Hepworth, weaver; James Lawton, spinner; Robert Slack, turner and filer; James Buckley, spinner; James Boothby, weaver; Edward Phillips, weaver.

From other places: John Howarth, a cutter from Salford; Thomas Cooke, a weaver & Eric Oldham, a hatter , both from Denton; Randal Judson, a warper from Audenshaw; John Haigh, a weaver of Brody Lane, near Oldham; Thomas Wilkinson, a weaver from Failsworth; Charles Oldham, a hatter & James Knott, a hatter, both from Hyde; John Oldham, a sawyer from Stalybridge; Aaron Marvel, a weaver, from Hollingworth, near Mottram; John Godly, a hatter, from Newton, near Hyde; Edmund Newton, a spinner, from Hadfield, Derbyshire; Aaron Whitehead, a Weaver, from Ashton-under-Lyne; John Newton, a bricklayer, of Roundthorn, near Oldham; James Greenwood, a weaver & Isaac Birch, a Weaver, both from Droylsden.

Knight was not to know at that stage, that it was one of those initially present at the meeting - a weaver called Samuel Fleming - who had brought the authorities down on the men present. He had previously approached a Manchester Magistrate and former commanding officer of the local militia he had belonged to, Colonel Silvester, informing him that he was being urged to take an illegal oath by a man called Thomas Broughton. Silvester set about arranging for Fleming to become involved with and to be twisted-in by Broughton and any co-conspirators, leading the authorities to them. On the 11th June, Fleming had seen his opportunity - after meeting with Broughton and going to the Prince Regents Arms, he left the meeting early at around 10.00 p.m. and informed Silvester and Nadin about it & his alleged 'twisting-in'. We know the rest.