7th September 1816: Weather report from Lancaster

The Lancaster Gazette of Saturday 7th September 1816 carried a report about the weather:

The weather, since our last, has been uncommonly cold and rainy, for the season; on Sunday evening, the thermometer, in the house, was at 50; and at one o'clock on Wednesday last, it was only at 51. On Monday night, the frost was so severe as to kill all the cucumber plants, in the open ground; the potato tops also exhibit its ill effects. There was a heavy shower of hail, on Wednesday afternoon, at Flookburgh. The hailstones were very large, some of them measuring an inch in circumference.

6th June 1816: Snow falls on Pendle Hill, Lancashire

The Derby Mercury of 4th July 1816 reported on the weather, highlighting how cold it was in 1816 on the verge of summer:

Pendle Hill was covered with a fresh fall of snow on the 6th ult. a circumstance not within the recollection of the oldest person living in that neighbourhood.

The Lancaster Gazette of 8th June 1816 also reflected upon the weather of the previous week:

For above a week past, the weather here has been very cold for the season, with high winds and rain; and on Wednesday afternoon last, a shower of hail fell.—On Thursday morning, the Northern hills appeared to be covered with snow, and the atmosphere still seems as cold as in March or November.

18th May 1816: Snow on the hills around Lancaster

The Lancaster Gazette of  Saturday 18th May 1816 reported the unseasonable weather lately experienced in the north of England:

In the latter part of last week the weather became very cold for the season, and the hills around this town were covered with snow.

20th March 1813: Edmund Newton walks free from Lancaster Lent Assizes

Edmund Newton, a weaver from Hadfield in Derbyshire, had been taken up as part of the 'Manchester 38' in Manchester on 11th June 1812. At the trial of the '38' at Lancaster Summer Assizes in August 1812, he had been acquitted of being present at the administration of an illegal oath, but was immediately re-arrested on similar charges.

After 9 months in Lancaster Castle, it was now his turn to stand trial at the Lent Assizes, which commenced on Saturday 20th March 1813. He was charged with administering an illegal oath to James Lawton at Hadfield, but the prosecution was not proceeded with. As was customary, the newspapers of the day rarely featured the trials of those acquitted or otherwise discharged, and so we do not have any further details, and there are no papers in the Home Office archive.

2nd September 1812: The lesser-known cases at Lancaster Summer Assizes

On Wednesday 2nd September 1812, sentencing took place at Lancaster Summer Assizes. A number of cases were decided there which do not usually feature in any of the histories of Luddism, but which nevertheless deserve to be recognised and/or highlighted.

Six prisoners were on trial for rioting at Middleton during the 2-day disturbances in April: they had all been tried for arson at the Lancaster Special Commission in May, but were acquitted, and then immediately charged with rioting to be tried at the next Assizes. Robert Ogden and James Taylor were imprisoned for 18 months, with Paul Greenwood, John Scholes, Abraham Ogden & John Kenyon being imprisoned for 2 years.

Six women who were arrested after the Lancaster Special Commission for taking part in rioting at Barton-upon-Irwell in April were also brought before the Court: whilst Elizabeth Birch, Mary Clare, Mary Dunn were acquitted, Mary Barlow, Elizabeth Benyon & Sarah Parkinson were found guilty and imprisoned for 1 month.

Solomon Low - someone taken up by Captain Francis Raynes during his stay in the area of Mottram - was convicted convicted of having stolen three loads of meal at Ashton-under-Lyne, during rioting in April and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.

John Brown, the landlord of the Prince Regent's Arms in Manchester, taken up along with Humphrey Yarwood by John Lloyd in June, was not prosecuted for being present at the administration of an illegal oath.

Messrs Rowe & Duncough, the owners of factory at Westhoughton which was destroyed by Luddites in April, brought an action for recovery of their losses against the Hundred of Salford, no doubt because the military failed to act at the time, even though they were alerted. The verdict was given in their favour, and they received 'upwards' of £7000 in damages, and enormous sum of money.

Lastly Edmund Newton, one of the 'Manchester 38', who had been acquitted 5 days before was re-arrested at the end of the trial, charged with administering an illegal oath in Tintwistle and re-committed to Lancaster Castle to stand at the next Assizes.

1st September 1812 1812: Troop movements

Tuesday 1st September say more troop movements around Lancashire.

Units of the Royal Berkshire Militia which had been stationed in Lancaster for the past 3 months marched for Manchester.

On the same day, two companies of the Hampshire Militia arrived in  Lancaster from Wakefield.

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.

4th July 1812: The Gaoler of Lancaster Castle informs the Home Office that one of the 'Manchester 38' may be an Irish Rebel

Lancaster Castle 4 July 1812

Sir,

One of the thirty eight Persons committed to this Prison for being present at the Administration of an Oath in a Public House in Manchester, by the name of Daniel Gibbons, has I am informed connexions in London and Dublin, which, on account of the present state of the Country, you may find necessary to make some Inquiry.—I understand, from a person who knows Gibbons, that his real name is Jevans and that he has a Brother in London who is a Gunsmith—Also, that this Jevans married the Daughter of Mr. Watson, Tin plate worker and Founder, Cox’s Court, Michael’s Lane, Dublin, who was concerned with McIntosh and a Mr Costigan of Pimlico in making Gunpowder for the Rebels previous to the Insurrection in July 1803. I understand McIntosh was executed for the offence. From Connexions of this discription there is a probability that Jevans may be deeply concerned in the disturbances now on Foot in this County, especially as he is by Trade a Machine Maker, closely connected with his Brother in London and his Relations in Ireland. It may be proper further to add that Jevans joined the Rotunda Corps of Yeomanry, with a view to avoid suspicion. I am Sir, with great Deference

Your most obedient Servant

John Higgin,

John Beckett, Esqr,
Under Secretary of State &c.—

A man has been found named Isaac Javens working at the Shop of Mr Farnley in Castle Court Whitechapel who says he was form Birmingham but served his apprenticeship, to a Gunsmith in Dublin, that he has a Brother named Daniel Javens in custody at Manchester, that his said Brother was [born] in Phenix Street Dublin and served his apprenticeship to a Mr Smith a Coach-smith in Strand Street Dublin, that he married the Daughter of Mr Watson of Michaels Lane Dublin Tin plate worker and came to England about seven years ago, Isaac Javens says he had been in England about ten years that he married his wife Margaret Rossiter in Saint Patrick Street Dublin says that his Brother Daniel and himself were volunteers some years ago with the Ritundife Division in Capt Johnson’s Company that their Father Job Jevans lives at No 16 Michaels Lane Dublin & is by trade a Silversmith Isaac Jevans says he has received two Letters from his Brother Daniel since his confinement at Manchester which Letters and now at his House and he has no objection to shew them

J. Read

10th July 1812.*

*Although Higgin's letter alludes to the information contained in the note by J Read, Read's note appears to post-date Higgin's letter. I can't find an explanation for this!

20th June 1812: Prisoners at Lancaster Castle sent to the Prison Hulks

On Saturday 20th June 1812, the Lancaster Gazette reported that a number of prisoners sentenced to transportation at the recent Lancaster Special Commission had been removed from the Castle and sent to the Prison Hulks in the previous week. They named them as: John Fisher, James Knowles, Thomas Holden, Samuel Crossley, John Hope, John Hurst, Christopher Medcalf, James Brierley, Henry Thwaite, Joseph Greenhalgh, Thomas Pickup and John Burney.

18th June 1812: The convict Thomas Holden informs his wife of his departure for the Prison Hulks

Lancaster Castle
June 18th 1812
6 O Clock at Night


I am very sorry to Inform you that I am going of to Morrow morning . . . I am Surprised that you have not sent mee any Money For I am Now going of without any at all.

15th June 1812: The prisoner Thomas Holden writes to his wife from his cell at Lancaster Prison

Many of the letters that Thomas Holden, the prisoner convicted of taking an illegal oath and sentenced to 7 years transportation at the Lancaster Special Commission, wrote to his wife and family after his conviction have survived. This is the first of a series of extracts from those letters that span 6 years:

[15th June]


"I Expect to go from hear every day thear are 7 going of tomorrow and i Beg you will not send me no close as we are not alowed to wear any of our own close but if you will be kind a nough to send me a little money It will do me a great kindness as i am without at present"

13th June 1812: The execution of 8 prisoners at Lancaster Castle

On Saturday 13th June 1812, eight prisoners convicted and sentenced to death at the Lancaster Special Commission were executed at Lancaster Castle.

The account of the execution is from the Lancaster Gazette of 20th June 1812. When reading accounts of executions in this period, the context and the intended message and all important. Accounts generally paint a portrait of individuals expressing remorse, often admonishing others not do as they have done. For the authorities and the media, this was an important part of the legal and judicial process - punishment as an awful spectacle and as a warning. The accounts of 'lamentations' of the prisoners in this account are scarcely credible to the modern reader.

Execution of the Lancashire Rioters.

On Saturday last, at noon, and eight malefactors under sentence of death, in our Castle, suffered the dreadful sentence of the law, viz Hannah Smith (54) for rioting and highway robbery, at Manchester; Abraham Charlson (16) Job Fletcher (34) Thomas Kerfoot (26) and James Smith (31) for rioting and burning the mill, at West Houghton; John Howarth (30) John Lee (46) and Thomas Hoyle (27) for rioting and breaking into a house, and stealing provisions, at Manchester—A vast concourse of people assembled to see the awful end of these deluded wretches, who felt the bitter consequence of listening to the artful insinuations of men, whose principles are at enmity with all law, human and divine. We are told, on the authority of those to whom the unhappy wretches opened their minds, and told their griefs, that there are men in this county, whose days, though lengthened for a short duration, will always be imbittered by the corroding reflection, that their revolutionary ideas have brought their more ignorant neighbours to an untimely end. The general lamentations of the prisoners were, “Oh, that we had not listened to the seditious suggestions of our neighbours!” “God forgive them!” “They have betrayed us into the gulf of misery” “Oh, that our example may be a warning to all who hear of our unhappy fate!”—The morning of their exit was spent in most earnest prayer, commending their souls to the Divine Being, through the meditation our Saviour. Perhaps there were never were heard more deplorable supplications, nor a more awful scene than the departure of these wretched beings from the Chapel, in the Castle, to the room adjoining the platform. During the short interval between condemnation and execution, they deeply felt the awful effects of drunkenness, blasphemy, and the neglect of divine ordinances. Tho’ their sins were great, yet there is some hope that their repentance was sincere. The morning after the execution, their bodies were decently interred.

A paragraph having appeared in many of the papers, stating the above unfortunate persons had behaved with the greatest indifference and unconcern, after their condemnation, we have the authority of the Rev. Mr Rowley, Chaplain to the Castle, for assuring our readers, that during the whole time after receiving sentence they behaved with the utmost decorum, appearing truly penitent, and repeatedly wishing that their untimely fate will prove a warning to those who had broken the laws, and cause them to refrain from their evil ways.

A troop of the Blues attended at the place of execution, and four companies of the Berkshire Militia were under arms, during the awful scene; but we are happy to add, but not the least symptoms of tumult appeared.

Abraham Charlson's age is often put at lower than that attributed to him in all the contemporary accounts. Whilst all the primary sources have him as 16 years of age, here and there one reads he was actually 12 years of age (although not, it must be noted, in any of the standard secondary sources). It's possible that an account from a contemporary of Charlson has been embroidered: Prentice (1851, p.57) quotes Dr Robert Taylor, a bitter opponent of Colonel Ralph Fletcher, stating that Charlson "was a boy so young and childish that he called on his mother for help at the time of his execution, thinking she had the power to save him" (a not uncommon response of grown men facing certain death, let alone 16 year-olds).

By 1883, William Axon's 'Lancashire Gleanings' stated that "it has been said that [Charlson] was in reality only 12 years old". In his account, Axon also says 'local tradition' said Charlson was 'a cripple' who perched on someone's shoulders and used his crutch to smash the window of  the Westhoughton Mill (possibly confusing Charlson with another of those executed, James Smith, who was disabled and walked with crutches). Axon has Charlson in the hands of the hangman crying out "Oh, mammy, mammy!".

There is no evidence that I am aware of that Charlson was 12 years of age - in any case, his execution at age 16 was bad enough as it is.

13th June 1812: The last declarations of Job Fletcher, condemned to die at noon

On the morning of Saturday 13th June 1812 at Lancaster Castle, the chaplain - Joseph Rowley - and the governor - John Higgin - took two declarations from a prisoner, Job Fletcher. Fletcher had been convicted of attacking Westhoughton Mill on 24th April and sentenced to death - he was due to hang at noon that day. Job Fletcher's reasons for giving this declaration were no doubt influenced by his impending fate more than any lofty moral reasons given by the dubious characters of the chaplain and gaoler.

Rowley later communicated these declarations to Colonel Ralph Fletcher, the Bolton Magistrate in a letter of 15th June 1812. What the declarations contained would have delighted and horrified Colonel Fletcher, a right-wing Loyalist zealot:

Lancaster June 15th 1812.

Dear Sir,

A sense of public duty impels me to lose no time in communicating to you, & through your means to any other Magistrate, whom you may think it proper so to do, the following declarations of Job Fletcher, who, according to his sentence, suffered death on saturday morning.

“I Job Fletcher know of a truth, that Richard Warwick* is the head man of the men that as taken the sacret oath in the township of Atherton. I hard him say that the Combination of them raught 300 Miles long and that a set time wood be fixed when it wood take place to be put in execution and George Saleø whas the man that set fire to the factory and that Richard Warwick was the man that tooke and brought orders betwixt Chowbent and Bolton as that night that I whas with them he said we must give him every man one penny to goe the next day for orders but there was not any money given that night that I was with them. When I come to call to mind it was John Shuttleworth that took mee that night to take the oath and as I came back I told him I did not like of their gowings on but he said that the oath was the most secretest oath that ever whas took so he said he had taken oaths before magistrates but they was nothing in comparison with that oath for heaviness and Richard Parr was the man that broke the door the factory open with a large axe that he carried on his Sholder. this is all the true a Count I can give you”

(Signed) “Job Fletcher”

* or Seddon, he is likewise called the delegate
ø or France

The above was committed to writing by himself at the desire of Mr. Higgin & myself.

The following was communicated to me verbally, & written nearly in his own words; & was signed & dated by him on the morning of his execution.

“I Job Fletcher, to confirm by this my signature, that I have voluntarily declared, that Mr. Davis, the Presbyterian Clergyman at Chowbent is considered an encourager of the tumults which have lately taken place in the neighbourhood;—that he did on the evening of 23rd of April, namely, the evening before the West Houghton factory was set on fire, assemble among the crowd, & converse with the people respecting the factory being set on fire, & run about from place to place laughing & rejoicing. The crowd of people that evening might consist of several hundreds. I was quite near him, I could not be possibly mistaken.”

“I do likewise declare that Mr. Canon of Chowbent is a principal encourager of our meetings. He has been in the habit of frequently assembling among the people & talking with them most seditious things both against the Ministers of the Country & the Royal Family. I cannot say, that either of these persons has been twisted in, that is, sworn in.”

(Signed) “Job Fletcher”

(dated)
Lancaster Castle
June 13. 1812.

The above declarations were likewise confirmed by Charleston & Smith, & were made in their presence, as well as in the presence of Mr. Higgin & myself. These facts I thought it my duty to communicate to you. His reason to making them I shall likewise give you in his own words, “he thought it might perhaps be the means of saving the lives of many hundreds, & might prevent much bloodshed.”

I am, Dr Sir, with much respect
Your’s most faithfully,
Joseph Rowley
Chapn. of Lancr Castle.

P.S.I have sent Mr. Parke, the Attorney General for this County, a copy of the above declarations

J.R.

10th June 1812: Troop movements

On Wednesday morning, 10th June 1812, two companies of the Royal Berkshire Militia arrived in Lancaster from Colne.

2nd June 1812: J.A. Park, Attorney-General for Lancaster, informs the Home Office of the outcome of the Special Commission

Preston, June 2d — 1812

Dear Sir,

I have thought it my duty, as Attorney General of the County Palatine, before I leave Lancashire, to give you the general result of the Trials which have taken place at these Special Sessions which closed yesterday, that you may lay before Secretary of State. Four prisoners for arson in burning a Mill & Warehouse at West Houghton – Three from breaking & entering a dwelling house & Shop at Manchester, & riotously stripping it of most of its contents, butter, cheese, bread & bacon: and one woman for a most violent Robbery on the highway, by means of a Mob compelling a man to sell upwards of 300 weight of butter at an under price,= eight persons in all, received sentence of death, & are all left for execution by the Judges on Saturday the 13th of June.

Eleven were convicted of administering or taking unlawful Oaths – & were sentenced to seven years Transportation — Two more convicted of Larceny in riotously stealing Flour out of a Mill — were also ordered for Transportation — One other for a similar offence, but under very favourable circumstances & a female, to six months hard labour in the House of Correction.

Six other Persons had being riotously assembled with a very wicked mob, though these six certainly did no violence, but were found guilty, on account of their being present, & thereby a very useful lesson held out, Six months Imprisonment: but these latter I think the Judges would have no objection to being pardoned in a short time hence, when the peace of the County is a little restored; for they are chiefly young females.

I wrote to General Maitland yesterday, & I take the liberty of repeating to you, that, quiet as the Country has been during the present Sessions, yet it is absolutely necessary to keep an armed force for some time to come in the Town of Lancaster: & that a guard should be mounted every night round the gaol till these executions are over, & till the persons, ordered for Transportation, are removed out of the County. I know the learned Judges concur in the propriety of what I have written.—Before I knew of Mr Justice Gibbs’s promotion, I wrote to him every day with the result of each day's proceedings: & enforced upon the necessity of removal of the transported felons out of the County.

The summary is this –

Sentence of Death on — 8
Transportation — 13
Imprisonment — 7
[Total] 28

There were six others acquitted of the clearest case of Arson, to the utter dissatisfaction of the whole Court, Mr Ewart a Merchant of Liverpool the foreman of the Jury, & the sole cause of the Mischief, having kept the Jury out an hour, before he could bring them over to his opinion. But I immediately, to the great satisfaction of the Sheriff & Grand Jury, presented a fresh Bill against them to the Misdemeanour of rioting &c. & would have proceeded instantly to try, & openly said so. But when brought up, they chose to traverse—however the Judges required 2 Sureties for every Prisoner in £100. each, which bail they probably will not obtain, so that there has not been triumph expected—& Mr Ewart was so looked down upon, that he never was seen in Court or at Lancaster afterwards.

I shall be in town on thursday.

I am, Dear Sir,
Very faithfully yours
J A Park

1st June 1812: The convicted prisoners are sentenced at Lancaster Special Commission

On Monday 1st June 1812, following the last trial at the Lancaster Special Commission, the convicted prisoners received their sentences from the Senior Judge at the trials, Baron Thompson:

“John Hurst, Christopher Medcalfe, James Brierley, Henry Thwaite, Joseph Greenhalgh, Samuel Radliffe, Thomas Pickup, John Burney, James Knowles, John Fisher, and Thomas Holden.—The country has been engaged in a most serious enquiry into the causes and into the consequences of the most outrageous disturbances that have ever been observed, and the consequence of that enquiry has been the conviction of several who were concerned in them; some of you who now stand at the bar been found guilty in administering, or aiding and consenting thereto, and others of taking, unlawful oaths, not to discover or reveal certain persons who were engaged in such practices, and binding itself to be associates with them. It is but too probable that many of the offences which have disgraced this county have been committed in consequence of the administering of such oath. We have heard repeated a part of the terms used in it, and they are such as to make one shudder. You have been engaged deeply in these transactions, you have assembled with others in a large body, and have enrolled all those who were willing or desirous to join you. The greater part of you stand convicted of having administered the oath to an innocent person, not willing to take it, and whom you apprehended to be a spy; I mean those in the case of Holland Bowden. You had been attending that unlawful assembly upon the moor, and upon your road from it, it was the misfortune of this man to meet with you; under the threat and terror of being shot, you compelled him to take the oath. It is extremely probable, that at this time, on the 17th April you had planned the destruction of the West Houghton mill and warehouse, for it was in evidence upon your trial, that conversation about the mill had been held, the delegates were sent to see in what state it then was, and how it was guarded; it was also mentioned, in the course of that conversation, that a feint would be made, to endeavour to deceive the military; and too well did these intentions succeed, for upon the 24th that mill was destroyed, which appeared to have been the object of your lawless vengeance for some time. This is the nature of the crime which you, the seven first prisoners, and now at the bar. You, John Burney, are not charged with being present at that time, but with having been present and consenting to the administration of unlawful oath to one Isaac Clayton, who was a soldier in the militia, the purport of which was similar to the other. Though it was not actually administered by you, yet it was in your hearing, and with your consent; for so the Jury have very wisely determined, by their verdict. The effect intended by the administration of this oath was of the most alarming nature; no less than the overthrow of Government. You, John Fisher, James Knowles, and Thomas Holden, have been found guilty of taking the like unlawful oath. It was urged in your behalf that you went to this meeting merely out of curiosity, and to see what was to be done. But when you went, you could not but that it was met for an unlawful purpose; the watch-word was given, and it was hoped that none were there who did not know the object of the meeting; and after the full knowledge you had of it, you, the three prisoners, did actually, without hesitation, take the oath which was required of you. You, James Knowles, too well observed the nature and purport of the oath, for you were one of those present, when Holland Bowden was compelled to take it, and you were indicted for assisting in that act. The offence for which you and the other prisoners are now at the bar has been provided against by an Act passed eleven years ago, and unhappily there is now occasion free to be called into force. The wisdom of the Legislature has decreed, and the judgment of the Court is, that you be severally transported to some part beyond the seas for the term of seven years.

James Smith, Thomas Kerfoot, Job Fletcher, Abraham Charlson, John Howarth, John Lee, Thomas Hoyle, and Hannah Smith.—The awful moment has now arrived in which you are to receive that sentence which the laws of your country and awarded against those atrocities of which you have been guilty, and for the which your lives are forfeited. The result of the investigation into the several charges against you is, that you have all been guilty of these acts of violence and outrage, riotously and tumultuously assembling together, and committing depredations against the property of those who have been the object of your unlicensed attacks. Four of you have been convicted of burning the mill at West Houghton, and destroying machinery the most useful. At that scene of despair you were seen conducting yourselves with circumstances productive of the utmost terror, and particularly active in forwarding its destruction; and you must atone for it with your lives. Three others of you have been convicted of breaking and entering the house and shop of a man, who was in it, together with his family, at the time, and of stealing bread, potatoes, and several other articles, in short, plundering him of nearly the whole contents of the shop. It was beset with great numbers, and became the object of your fury, because the owner had refused to accede to your exorbitant demands. It is highly necessary that this should be punished severely. You, Hannah Smith, have been found guilty of a robbery on the highway of a large quantity of butter, seizing the prosecutor’s cart, and assisting in carrying away nearly the whole of the contents, without him having been paid any price for it; you have also been convicted of stealing a quantity of potatoes. This circumstance seems to prove that you were one of the most determined enemies to good order, and it is fit to be understood, that sex is not entitled to any mitigation of punishment, when the crime is of such a nature as to deserve it. In the awful state in which you stand, who are now before me, and who must shortly leave this will for another, I feel it my bounden duty to exhort you to consider your situation, to make yourself sensible of your crimes, to confess your sins before God, and to implore his mercy; and may all within these walls, and without, wherever these tidings may reach, take warning from your example, and observe, that they cannot, with impunity, conspire to disturb the public tranquillity; for whatever they may think, though they may suppose themselves to be beyond the reach of the law, justice may overtake them; and though you may not have intended to go the lengths you have, yet who can say, “thus far will I go and no further?”—Suffer me to exhort you to set about the great work of repentance, that you may obtain that mercy hereafter, which cannot be shewn you here. It now only remains for me to pronounce that sentence which the law has adjudged. Hear that sentence. This Court does adjudge, that you, the several prisoners at the bar, be taken to the place from whence you came, and from thence to the place of execution, and there to be hung by the neck until you are dead; and may the Lord have mercy upon your souls!”

Of the foregoing eleven prisoners, sentenced to be transported, Holden, Knowles, and Fisher, were for taking an unlawful oath, at Bolton; and the remainder for aiding and assisting in the administering of all unlawful oaths, at Bolton.

Of the eight prisoners condemned, Hannah Smith, was for rioting and highway robbery, at Manchester; Charlson, Fletcher, Kerfoot, and Smith, for rioting and burning the mill, at West Houghton; and Howarth, Lee, and Hoyle, for rioting and breaking into a house, and stealing provisions, at Manchester.

NB: Although a Charles Clark appeared amongst the list of the prisoners in the 23rd May 1812 edition of the Lancaster Gazette, charged with setting fire to the Rope Walk at Bolton on  21st April 1812, neither an account of his trial nor a result appears in any subsequent editions.

1st June 1812: The final prisoners stand trial at the Lancaster Special Commission

On Monday 1st June 1812, the final set of prisoners took their trials at the Lancaster Special Commission.

Three men were accused of receiving an unlawful oath at Bolton on 14th April 1812. It seemed that only one of then, Thomas Holden (20) could be ascertained to have been present by a witness, Isaac Crompton, who said that he was present when he was twisted-in. This was enough for the Jury to find him guilty.

The evidence was not strong enough for the Jury to convict the other two accused - Peter Smith (46) and Thomas Shelton (19), but they now stood charged with riotously assembling on the same night, along with Arthur Holden (33), James Holden (20), William Holden (17) and James Isherwood (26). Their defence pointed out there was a flaw in the indictment (it didn't state that they were assembled for an unlawful purpose), so the prosecution was given up, and the men were acquitted.

30th May 1812: The trials of Barton & Worsley food rioters & Bolton illegal oath giver/takers at Lancaster Special Commission

On Saturday 30th May 1812, the penultimate day of the trials proceeded to deal with various offences.

Ann Hamer (aged 43) was charged with riotously entering the mill of Messrs Gilbert, Marsdens & Co at Barton-upon-Irwell on 20th April 1812 and stealing flour. While others had tried to break the machinery, Hamer was said to have filled her apron with flour from a sack. When she confronted and told she would be transported for what she was doing, a witness attested she had said "if you say that, I'll have nothing to do with it" and returned the flour to the sack. However, the same witness saw her return later and take more flour, to the approximate quantity of between 20-30 lb (priced at 4d per pound).

In her defence, Hamer said that she was on her way for a pint of ale when she came across the crowd at the mill, and was compelled to join in with them by some of the crowd. She had later handed herself in to the authorities. Hamer pointed out she was the carer of her blind mother. Hamer was found guilty.

John Hope (aged 33) and Samuel Crossley (28) were accused of rioting at Worsley, and stealing a large quantity of grain flour out of a mill there. The two men were alleged to have been armed with clubs and were found guilty.

John Burney (aged 49) was found guilty of aiding and assisting in administering an unlawful oath to Isaac Clayton, a private in the Royal Cumberland Militia.

James Knowles (aged 21), who had been acquitted of a similar offence on Wednesday, and John Fisher (also 21) were accused of taking an unlawful oath, at Bolton. Both were found guilty.

29th May 1812: The trials of Thomas Brookes, Hannah Smith & more Middleton rioters at Lancaster Special Commission

On Friday 29th May 1812, three more trials took place at Lancaster Special Commission.

Thomas Brookes (aged 27) was accused of entering, with up to 100 other people, the house of John Cooke at Pendlebury, near Salford and robbing Cooke of two £1 notes. He was acquitted.

Hannah Smith (aged 54) was accused of multiple offences alleged to have been committed during the three days of food-rioting in Manchester.

She was held to be the woman that had approached Charles Walker, who was selling butter in Ardwick on the 22nd April 1812, and informed him that he could sell his butter at reduced prices or see it taken from him. After Walker was afterwards pursued by a crowd to the outskirts of Manchester before being stopped, it was said that Smith was the woman who climbed onto his cart to help deliver out the butter and collected the proceeds of auto-reduction. This was regarded as highway robbery by the prosecutors, a highly unusual charge for food rioting. Smith gave no defence to the charge.

Smith was also accused of grand larceny for her alleged actions in Manchester on the second day of food rioting there on 20th April 1812.  She was accused of stealing potatoes with a crowd of others at Bank Top in town from a James Radcliffe, as well as inciting many to join in this and other actions during that day. In her defence, she denied ever touching the potatoes.

Smith had no witnesses to counter the accusations, and was found guilty of both offences.

Following this, 6 prisoners, all but one of them women, were put to the bar accused of riot in Middleton on 21st April 1812. The accused were Ann Butterworth, daughter of Robert (19), Samuel Howarth (17), Alice Partington (42), Millicent Stoddard (28), Ann Butterworth, daughter of William (19) and Ann Dean (20). A witness attested that the 6 accused were part of a 200-strong group of armed men and women who had proceeded to the houses of two employees at Burton's Mill, Benjamin Cooke & James Kay, who were suspected of being amongst those who fired on and killed people the day before outside the mill. The houses of Cooke & Kay were ransacked, with Cooke's furniture being broken and burned in the street. Although alibis were given, all six were 'without the least hesitation' found guilty.

28th May 1812: The trial of Manchester & Middleton rioters at Lancaster Special Commission

At 8.00 a.m. on Thursday 28th May 1812, rioters alleged to be present in Manchester & Middleton in April stood trial at the Lancaster Special Commission.

Six prisoners were accused of riotously assembling at the shop of John Holland on Deansgate on 20th April 1812 & stealing provisions.

John Lee (aged 46) was said to have admonished Holland to open the door to his shop, when the crowd initially approached. When Holland refused, Lee was said to have kicked at it. Thomas Hoyle (aged 27) was said to have then said to have brought a piece of wood to join Lee in battering down the door. When the crowd gained entry and began to throw the provisions out into the street, John Howarth (aged 30) was said to have joined in.

Howarth, Lee and Hoyle all contended that on the day they had left work to go home, travelling past Holland's shop, but that they did not join in with the crowd.

The Jury disagreed, and Howarth, Lee and Hoyle were found guilty. The others accused - Henry Ashton, Richard Southern & Phoebe Smith - being acquitted.

On the same day, 6 prisoners were accused of having set fire to the mansion of Emanuel Burton and also of extorting meat and liquor from Daniel Burton at Middleton on 21st April 1812.

Before proceeding to the evidence, Mr J.A. Park for the prosecution stated that in a riotous assembly, where the riot proceeded to arson, all of those present would be guilty of arson - even if they had been there out of idle curiosity.

It was alleged that John Kenyon (aged 40) had been seen outside Burton's factory on 20th April, beckoning to the crowd to attack it, and was said to be present at Emanuel Burton's mansion the next day, taking part in throwing stones through the windows. Abraham Ogden (aged 21) was similarly alleged to be present amongst the crowd at the house.

A single witness attested that he had met John Scholes (aka Wragg, aged 19), James Taylor (aged 25) and Paul Greenwood (aged 26) amongst the crowd on the way to Emanuel Burton's house. He attested that Scholes had been eager to drink beer. At the house, the same witness saw all three, plus Robert Ogden (aged 24) in the yard before the house was set alight. All four were also seen by the witness at Daniel Burton's house later.

Ogden, Scholes and Taylor denied being present, and Kenyon said he had been in Middleton to collect some cloth for dyeing, which he had collected and then returned back home. Several witnesses attested to the good character of the accused.

After deliberating for an hour, the Jury found the 6 men not guilty. However, Park introduced an indictment against the men for rioting, and their cases were traversed until the next Assizes. Bail of £200 each had to be paid, plus 2 sureties of £100 each, sums which they had no chance of meeting, meaning they would be detained until then.