30th July 1819: The trial of Adam Wagstaff at Nottingham Summer Assizes for sending a threatening letter in the name of 'Genrall Ludd'

On Friday 30th July 1819, a 27 year old framework-knitter, Adam Wagstaff, stood trial at Nottingham Summer Assizes, accused of sending a threatening letter in the name of 'Genrall Ludd' to Richard Dennis of Greasley, Nottinghamshire, earlier that year in March. The trial is possibly the last time that offences connected with Luddism were tried in Court.

The Nottingham Review of 6th August 1819 covered the trial:

ADAM WAGSTAFF, aged 27, was placed at the bar, on a charge of having, on the 12th of March, feloniously wrote and sent a letter to Richard Dennis, signed with a fictitious name, threatening to kill and murder him, and burn his property.—To prove the charge, Mr. Denman called Richard Dennis, who stated himself to be a farmer and framework-knitter at Kimberley. Prisoner, who is a framework-knitter, lived near to him, and had worked in a frame of Dennis’s. A man of the name of George Tidy worked with him in March. It appeared from what we could collect, that Tidy had laid an information against the prisoner, under the games laws, and Wagstaff wanted Dennis to turn Tidy away; this he would not do, because he belonged to the parish, and prisoner told him he was as great a rogue as Tidy, and it should be as much as seven times out of his way. On Sunday the 14th of March, in the evening, as witness was coming into his own yard at the bottom gate, prisoner was coming to the other gate, and he saw prisoner drop a letter out of his hand upon the steps in the yard, then he ran away, witness also ran, and saw him go in at his own door, so that he was sure it was the prisoner. It was a little turned seven o’clock, darkish, but light enough for him to see him. He went into his house a good deal fluttered, and told his wife to go and see after the cows.—Cross-examined by Mr. Adams—was always sure that it was Wagstaff; he might see witness; prisoner was dressed in a light coat; what he dropped seemed to be a letter. Question—You know what Luddism means, to break frames or do any other mischief? Answer—Yes, I do; I shall carry the marks of it to my grave. Hannah Dennis, the wife of the last witness, said he came in all of a flutter and sent her to look at the cows; she took the lantern with her. As she passed the garden side, she saw a letter on the ground; upon the steps just under the gate; she read in the hovel, and then took it in, and gave it to her husband. On her cross examination she said, she kept the letter by her till three weeks ago, because Mr. Rolleston, the magistrate, was not at home, but she told the constable immediately, and yet Wagstaff did not run away. She believed it was Wagstaff’s writing, but she never saw him write any but the following words to a petition when they had their frames broken seven years ago:—“Adam Wagstaff, who heard the dreadful shrieks and horrid cries, but dare not come out.”—Francis Saxton, the deputy constable of Greasley, said that on the 15th March, having been informed of the letter, he saw Wagstaff at the Barley-mow, in Nottingham, and told him there was a serious charge against him of dropping a Ludd’s letter, upon the premises of Dennis; and he answered, “why if they don’t mind their own business about me, I shall Ludd them all.” The letter was then read, as follows:— 

“Richad Denniss 

“If you keep that Rouge in you house Ned shall viset you and we shall be acpt too give you A little could led and you cattle too if you dont get shoot ove him very soon and Need will set you all on Fire And you Promess Need will send them too Hell and Hall ove you too and you sheep Ned will ham string And if you don thay will send me word in the course ove of day 

March the 12 I GENRALL LUD.” 

(INDORSED.) 

“Richard Denniss 

I GENRALL LUDD.” 

Mr. Adams took several legal objections. The principal one was that he carried, and did not send the letter, and it was the sending which was contemplated by the Act. The indictment also said sent “to him,” which was not made out in evidence. In Hammond’s case it was decided that carrying or delivering was not sending. He also contended, that of Wagstaff was known at the time, or intended to be known, the case was not within the Act on which the indictment was framed. The Judge directed that the case should go to the Jury. A great number of very respectable witnesses were called to his character. The Jury consulted about ten minutes, and brought in their verdict of guilty. The points argued by Mr. Adams being reserved for future consideration, sentence was deferred. 

The Chief Justice put the following question to the Jury for their determination—Whether they were of opinion, that at the time Wagstaff carried the letter, he intended that Dennis should know him, or thought he did know him? The Jury answered—He did not intend to be known, and thought he was not known.

12th March 1819: Threatening letter from Genrall Lud to Richard Dennis

Richad Denniss

If you keep that Rouge in you house Ned shall viset you and we shall be acpt too give you A little could led and you cattle too if you dont get shoot ove him very soon and Need will set you all on Fire And you Promess Need will send them too Hell and Hall ove you too and you sheep Ned will ham string And if you don thay will send me word in the course ove of day

March the 12 I GENRALL LUD

(INDORSED.)

Richard Denniss

I GENRALL LUDD.

9th February 1818: Jeffrey Lockett tells the Home Office Francis Ward is 'Ned Lud'

Derby Feby 9th: 1818

Dear Sir

I understand from Birkin, that S. Haynes has made a long Affidavit, in which he has brought Oliver & Brandreth together at the three Salmons, in Nottm., on the 26^ of May; & swore very recently, as to the representations made by Oliver to induce the meeting to attempt an insurrection;—and that the affidt with many others to the same effect, is sent to Lord Folkestone, or Mr Bennett. Every attempt has been made to induce Birkin, to make an affidavit to the same effect;—but he positively asserts, that Brandreth was not at the meeting to his knowledge, and has refused to lead himself to the party. You will remember, that Brandreth never pretended to have seen Oliver, except in the false assertion which he made that it was Oliver who took him to Pentridge on the 4th of June, when it is notorious that he was in Yorkshire—and that after Mr Pickering shewed him, that he was aware of the falsity of the assertion, he never claimed the least knowledge of Oliver;—& that Turner & Ludlam positively disclaimed every having seen him.—As to Haynes, I have thought it right to send you the original letter, in which you are already in possession of a copy. It is unnecessary for me to request you to make a cautious use of it. Be good enough to return it to me;—as I have thought it right to apprize Lord George Cavendish, & Mr Abercrombie of the attempt which this villain is making, to mislead the House, & the public, I have offered to shew them the letter. It is a very satisfactory key to his affidavit. You perhaps may not be aware, that Haynes was one of the witnesses who was called by [illegible] John Slater on his first trial, & swore positively to a conversation with him in Nottm., at eleven o’clock in the night of the outrage at Loughbro’;—and that Slater on his second trial, pleaded Guilty—As to F. Ward, I need not tell you, that he may be called emphatically, Ned Lud—having been the promoter of every Luddite Outrage—You have probably received from Enfield or Allsopp to confession of Mitchell & depositions of the Luddite convicts, which shew that “this friend of social order” as I think he is called in the auxiliary petition, was the proprietor of the intended assassination of Mr Justice Graham, both at Nottm., & Leicester.

Do no consider me officious in reminding you of these matters.—You can have no idea of the revived activity of the party, since Hone’s trials, and the meeting of parliament.—The character of Ward & Haynes [should] be made public.

Have you any of the publications of the trials of Brandreth &c to spare? If you have, I can make a very good use of them by distributing them, more largely than I have been able with those which you have sent me, amongst the witnesses.—How the verdicts & confessions made by the prisoners on their trials stick in the gizzards of the opposition!

I am Dear Sir Yours truly

Wm Jeffery Lockett

[To] H. Hobhouse Esq

24th January 1817: A Leicestershire magistrate writes to an MP about a 5 year old Luddite case

Whitwich Jany 24th 1817

Sir/ the appearance of Troublesom Times calls every Loyal Subject to be alert in order to Preserve the Publick Peace, even in our little Village at Prescott as well as at a Past Period, we are very much alarmd, but there was a time when some Individuals of which I was one usd every Exertion in our Power to suppress Riotous Proceedings, a number of Persons from a Village went about the Country Extorting money saying to People to whom they calld if they did not comply to their request Ned Lud would call on them in a few days

being informd of their Proceedings, Mr Jno Bonnell who is in Mayor Palmers [Troop] of Calvery a Mr Hutchinson & myself went to some Neighbouring Villages, where we had Sufficient People of the above facts/ Accordingly we applyd to the Revd Doctor Hardy of Loughbro Stating the Names of Wm Plant & Thomas Thorne as two concernd in that Business, he accordingly issud out his Warrant and to have them apprehended, which was done accordingly & they was Kept at the Expence in the Plow Inn Loughbro five days, Every day fresh People were Summond to appear against when they were fully committed the offence and the Witnesses Bound to appear against at the Next assize which they Accordingly did and a Mr Lacy Attorney at Law Clerk to Dr Hardy Attended at the Close of the Business at that Assize we was informd Plant & Thorne was to lay till the Ensueing Assize when we must again appear but Mr Lacy Observd he had no Doubt but he should recover our Expences from Government, wilfully Obeyd to Second Order when When Without even calling our Witnesses forth the Prisoners were Liberated & we had a Second Promise that we should be refunded by Government, we Deliverd all our Accounts into his hand the Bill at the Plow Inn was nearly Eight Pounds & what we had Paid for Witnesses Since & other Expences amounted to Nearly Twenty Two Pounds we then Recd for Answer their was no Doubt but we should be Paid/ we was kept on Suspence some time/ requesting the People of the Plow to wait a letter but their Patience was soon Exhausted & we Receivd three letters of Attorneys when we was Obligd to Discharge that [with] the Attendant Expences making it nearly Ten we thought Doctor Hardy could have made an Order upon Our Parish but he Observd to the contrary he did write a request wishing them to Settle that [Account] but they would not Comply [with] it/ Now Sir we have been advisd by Some respectable People to State the above Particulars to you hoping that you would have the goodness to Accuaint Lord Sidmouth [with] them/ During the time we had the Prisoners at Loughbro, the Prince Regents Proclamation came out offering One Hundred Pounds reward when If our Business had been Brought forth Its Probable we should have been Entitld to It, If you can be of any Service to us we have no Doubt but you will do It [with] Pleasure

If not hope you will Excuse the freedom we have taken

If you at any time think it Worthy an Answer Pleas to Direct for Messrs Bonnell Ward & Hutchinson Whitwich Leicestershire

remain Sir your most Obedt Humble Servt

Benj Ward

[To Legh Keck, Stoughton Grange]

24th December 1816: 'Song for the Luddites' by Lord Byron

On Tuesday 24th December 1816, Lord Byron was in Venice, Italy. In a long letter to his friend, the Irish poet Thomas Moore (which can be read in full here), he inserted a spontaneously-composed poem, which has been subsequently called "Song for the Luddites". The poem was unpublished during his lifetime.

... Are you not near the Luddites? By the Lord! If there's a row, but I'll be among ye! How go on the weavers—the breakers of frames—the Lutherans of politics—the reformers? 

As the Liberty lads o'er the sea
Bought their freedom, and cheaply, with blood,
So we, boys, we
Will die fighting, or live free,
And down with all kings but King Ludd! 

When the web that we weave is complete,
And the shuttle exchanged for the sword,
We will fling the winding-sheet
O'er the despot at our feet,
And dye it deep in the gore he has pour'd. 

Though black as his heart its hue,
Since his veins are corrupted to mud,
Yet this is the dew
Which the tree shall renew
Of Liberty, planted by Ludd! 

There's an amiable chanson for you—all impromptu. I have written it principally to shock your neighbour * * , who is all clergy and loyalty—mirth and innocence—milk and water...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11th November 1816: 'The Secretary' of the 'Black Committee' of Luddites writes to the Editor of the Stamford Mercury

Head Quarters Nottingham Nov 11—1816

You have in several of your latest mercurys laid before the public several diabolical accounts of the luddites & their proceedings, by saying they had changed their proceedings from Frame to House Breaking, that plunder—was their only object that no man or even his habitation was safe within their reach—that we were the terror of the Surrounding Country &c &c &c—I have the satisfaction (my means of your mercury) to inform the public by order of the Black Committee of the independent Luddites of the Nottinghamshire Division that the public by means of your infernal mercury have been led to form a very wrong idea of these men—& the whole of your explanation is entirely false. When our forces in arms where employed in frame breaking the object was not the destroying of those frames in particular, but the giving of employment to men who was willing to work & their obnoxious machines prevented them from securing employment. & by so doing released a number of distressed Wives & starving families from the bitter pains of famine & hunger which surrounded them. When they were ordered to pursue house breaking as you are pleased to term it it is well known by experience that we only practised it upon the property of those who were able to spare it we never distressed any familys by it but we have by so doing frequently given relief to the distressed.

for instance our late glorious fire at Belvoir was attended with our former Success from there it is well known we procured several hundreds in Value of Costly furniture &c made to serve the trade and ambition of a single family but the value of them is now used to provide subsistence for those who have no other means of keeping in the land of the starving

We did therefore by this act taken it from whence it was only ornament & plac’d it where it is essensial use—when it has saved families from utter Want & destruction otherwise they would have shewn the most bitter signs of distress. Husbands ready to follow they Walk’d the streets in vain to seek employment, when he return’d his wife & starving family weeping & hanging around him ready to breath their last for want of necessary support. What can be more distressing to see this heart [illegible] display of slavery daily not only in one house but through a populous country brought to the State of Slavery by carrying out protracting & long & unjust War,

O Slavery thou friend of hells recess—
Profuse of Woes & pregnant with distress
Eternal horrors in thy presence reign
and meagre famine leads thy dolefull train
to each cursed load subjection add more weight
& pain is doubled by the peoples fate—
One nature spryhtly face spreadst a gloom
& to the grave dost every pleasure doom—

What man of heart could see this & not to lead his hand to reduce the mighty Lords who overrule our liberty & relieve the necessitious

If a man of [illegible] will look unto these calamities with an eye of Compassion surely he will speak as the [lines] of our committee does by saying plunder is not our object, the common necessarys of life is what we present aim at. What we may hereafter attempt time is the only thing that can explain perhaps if [armed] with success as our services deserve we may release the key of our immense load of taxation an unprecedented National Debt a Corrupt & Despotic Government a multiplied train of Undeserved Sinecures & unmerited pensions abolish all useless berths within the army navy Civil & Government Departments & that once throw off the Military Yoke under which we are present groan caused by the [cost] of Alliance with our Deceitful [Gold] found for us

Insidious Bane that makes destruction Smooth
the foe to virtue liberty & truth
whose arts the fate of Monarchies decide
Who gildst deceit the darling Child of Pride
How oft allured by thy persuasive charms
have Earths contending powers appeared in [arms]
What nations brib’d have ours thy powerful reign
For the what millions play’d the Stormy main
Travel’d from Pole to Pole with careless [will]
& felt their blood alternate freeze & Boil

thus I have given to the public a short description of Our Plan
experience in a short time will tell you more—&c

I remain for Lud & Co

The Secretary of The Committee

*I advise you to insert these lines or your life will only pay the refusal—
remember Belvoir

*It may appear an hard task for you to insert these lines in your next weeks columns but by so doing you will greatly oblige or by the refusal you will raise the [indignated] & attract the revenge of the injured friend of liberty

29th June 1816: Mass Luddite attack on Heathcoat & Boden's factory at Loughborough

The former factory that belonged to Heathcoat & Boden, in an image from the 20th Century. The building has since been demolished, and an Iceland supermarket stands on the site on Market Street (formerly Mill Lane) (image: Anthony Jarram)

In the early hours of Saturday 29th June 1816, a large group of Luddites undertook a large-scale frame-breaking operation against the Loughborough factory belonging to Heathcoat & Boden. It was the largest operation undertaken in the midlands counties, and the events of that night & the attendant consequences would reverberate throughout the coming months. The Nottingham Review's extensive report of what took place (carried in the Leicester Chronicle of Saturday 6th July 1816) is carried below:

LOUGHBOROUGH FRAME-BREAKING.

We have this week the painful task of recording an outrage of the frame-breakers, which, very far, exceeds any thing of the kind that has ever before happened, since enormities of this description first spread terror amongst us in March, 1811; and being well aware, from the rumours that have been afloat for several days, that our readers would feel the utmost anxiety to learn the particulars of this deplorable catastrophe, we have spared no pains in endeavouring to satisfy them as much as we possibly could, "neither extenuating, nor setting down aught in malice." About a quarter-past twelve o'clock, on Friday night, or rather on Saturday morning last, a number of men, perhaps about thirty, some of whom were armed and disguised entered a small room, called the casting shop, immediately attached to the rear part of Messrs Heathcoat and Boden's lace factory, (formerly Mr. Douglass's worsted factory,) situate directly at the entrance into the town of Loughborough from Ashby-de-la-Zouch. In this small room were John Asher, Thomas Hyman, and John Webster, three of the men belonging to the factory, the former of whom snatched up a pistol, (kept in the room for the purpose of defence,) and pointed it at the Luddites, as they were coming in at the door, but it did not go off. Some of them, in return, instantly fired at Asher, apparently with a blunderbuss, and wounded him in the back of his head, which either caused him to fall, or he was otherwise knocked down. Hyman, being also at the same moment laid prostrate by his side, and Webster, who got out of doors, in the confusion, to try to escape, was quickly brought back again and placed along-side of his two companions. Sufficient guards were then put over the three, and the residue of the gang, with lights in their hands, proceeded, without loss of time, through the large room, called the setting up room, to the bottom of the stair-case, where meeting with a youth named Ambrose Woodford, they knocked down, placed a guard over him, as they had done to the others and then rushed up stairs into the first floor, which is divided into three parts, or shops, containing altogether twenty-three frames, the whole whereof they broke to pieces, having previously secured, in one of the said three shops, James Powel, (commonly called uncle,) William Soars, and John North, in the same manner as their companions below. Ned’s band then directed their attention to the large room above, in which were thirty frames and five men, viz. Joseph Sherwin, Samuel Street, William Squires, John Langham, and Thomas Smith, the first of whom expressed to his associates, a determination to resist the entrance of the invaders into their room, which determination was properly overheard by the latter, for they advanced to the foot of the stairs with terrific boldness, a stern voice calling out, "advance with the blunderbusses—more blunderbusses here." Sherwin's comrades, now fearing that his opposition might endanger the lives of the whole five, prevailed upon him to change his intention, and let them come up quietly, which they then did without delay. No sooner was this accomplished, than the said five were imperiously commanded to prostrate themselves with their faces to the floor, and not to look about them lest death should be their portion, and at the same time guards were fixed over them, as in the former instances of the like nature. This preliminary being settled, demolition itself was then let loose, until to it went the furies. 

After toiling for the space of perhaps seven or eight minutes, they all stopped on a sudden, as if to listen whether all was right below,—the strictest silence reigned for a few seconds: and afterwards one of them vociferated, "All is well, Ned Ludd do your duty well—it's a Waterloo job by God," when instantly they renewed the work of havoc as before, and continued it for almost the same space of time, thus finishing the destructive scene, except their breaking two incomplete frames, in the setting-up room, as they returned through it upon their retreat. Just before quitting the upper room, one of the Luddites said aloud to his comrades, "Ned go round and see that you have done your duty well," and almost immediately afterwards, the prostrate five were thus addressed, "Now men, if you can tell us of any machines that are working under price if it be one or two hundred miles off, we will go and break them." Receiving a negative to this question, they directly quitted the factory, enjoining the men belonging to it, with terrible threats, not to stir for the space of ten minutes, and offering to shake hands with Asher, the wounded man; telling him withal that they hoped he would soon get better, or words to that effect; and we are happy to inform the public that he is now quite out of danger, and fast approaching complete recovery. They have not only thus destroyed the machines, but even the lace that happened to be upon the respective rollers is mostly hacked to pieces. In one instance they tore it away and set fire to it upon the floor, the flames whereof coming near to Street, he shifted a little; whereupon one of them gave him a kick, and bid him lie still as the fire would not hurt him; Squires too, who once rather changed his position to avoid danger, received a violent blow near his left eye; and Langham, and North were likewise struck from somewhat similar motives. In fact, it seemed a particular maxim with them, as we have before remarked, the deterring as much as possible any one from having a glimpse of their proceedings. Independent of the supposed number of nearly thirty who were actively concerned in committing these excesses in the interior of the factory, it is confidently believed that there were not less than fifty or sixty others stationed on the outside in the manner of sentinels or patroles, in every direction, and even along the Mill-street, to within a few yards of the very Market place of the town. Some of these patroles called aloud, warning the inhabitants to keep in their beds, and not to exhibit any lights; in disobedience of which, one person, who endeavoured to go out amongst them, had eight panes directly broken, in one of his windows, and was threatened with death if he did not keep within. About a dozen panes were also broken in the windows of the factory. 

According to the best information we can collect, this daring outrage occupied the space of about forty minutes, and some of the neighbours go so far as to say that the posse were headed by a man on horseback, who halted his men, and called over his numerical list, when they had quitted the premises about 200 yards, as if to ascertain if any were missing; and that shortly afterwards several shots were fired; either denoting triumph, or by way of defiance as they eventually marched away. We have not heard of any thing having been carried off except some fire arms belonging to the factory. On the other hand, we understand, they left two of their own ramrods behind them. It is very difficult, at present, to form any estimate of the amount of the damages, even by the proprietors themselves; we have however been told, by an experienced workman, that he thinks each of the fifty-three complete frames will require, on an average, 80l. to put them in the same state again; this, of course, would make 4240l.—to which if we add, 60l. more, for the injury to the two incomplete frames to make round numbers, the account would then stand at 4300l. Thus, even admitting it to be any thing near the truth, is a serious sum; and yet, it is scarcely worth mentioning in comparison with the general loss: in the first place to the firm by the great delay to their business, whilst the frames are repairing; and in the next place, to near four hundred men, women, and children, thrown out of employ. It may not be amiss to add, that about two months ago, the workmen at the factory received notice that their wages would all be lowered, which caused, what is called, a general turn-out.—Some of them however soon relented this, and went in again at the reduced prices, whilst others were not permitted that privilege. These proceedings had engendered considerable discontent, and it is not improbable, but they may have had some influence with the perpetrators of the deed in question. Certain it is that until this circumstance very few manufacturers, of an equal extent, were carried on, in this part of the kingdom, where the masters, and men more cordially accorded that they did at this. The Magistrates of the division have almost incessantly been since occupied investigating the affair, and endeavouring to bring to justice the authors of it. The town crier even went round with his bell on Sunday morning warning the inn-keepers against keeping their homes open, later than nine o'clock in the evening. Six men, have at different intervals, been taken up, on suspicion, one of whom has since been set at liberty; three remain in custody at Loughborough, & the other two were yesterday at noon sent under an escort from that town to Leicester. Some implements supposed to be used in destroying the machines, have been seized, and are likewise in the possession of the constables employed by the Magistrates in this business. The Magistrates and police-officers in Nottingham, have also been very active, and many houses in this town have been searched on the occasion. A reward of five hundred guineas is offered in the London Gazette, for such information as will lead to the conviction of the perpetrators.—Nottingham Review.

12th June 1816: Threatening letter to Needham Bray & Co from 'Edward Ludd', Hinckley, Leicestershire

To
Needham and Bray & Co

I learn you hare about to Bate your hands of their Prizes this week and by that you hare guilty of death—and you may both—repare for that change as you will not be suffred to live much longer if you purceed, sooner turn off.—

From me
Edward
Ludd

Hinckley June 12th.—

1st February 1816: Charles Sutton's final hearing at the Court of King's Bench

On Thursday 1st February 1816 & three months after Charles Sutton's application to have the guilty verdict against him set aside had been considered, his appeal had now reached the final decisive hearing at the Court of King's Bench in London:

The King against Sutton 

AN information filed by the Attorney-General against the defendant for publishing a malicious and seditious libel, to which the defendant pleaded not guilty, was tried before Graham B. at the last Nottinghamshire assizes. The information alleged, that at divers and very many times before the publication of the scandalous, malicious, and seditious libel, &c. (to wit) in 1811 and 1812, divers and very many acts of outrage had been committed by divers disorderly and ill-disposed persons, in and in the neighbourhood of Nottingham, against the property of divers of his majesty's subjects, and particularly against the frame-work knitted stocking, and frame-work lace manufactory, whereby the property of many of the subjects had in several instances been wholly destroyed, and that divers of the persons engaged and suspected to be engaged, in the perpetration of such outrages, had been reputed to act under the direction of some supposed and unknown person, called General Ludd, and had been commonly called Luddites, &c., and that there was war between this country and the United States of America, and that the defendant, unlawfully and maliciously intending to excite discontent and disaffection in the minds of the subjects of the king, against the king and his government, and to bring the government of the king into public hatred and contempt, and to excite persons to break the peace, and to commit acts of violence and outrage, unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously printed and published the scandalous and seditious libel, which it set forth, and which was in the form of a letter from General Ludd to the editor of the Nottingham Review, contrasting the conduct of his son Ned, then serving (as the letter stated) in his majesty's forces under a commission to exercise his prowess against the Americans, with the conduct of himself and his family in their united efforts in breaking frames, that while these were commented on with severity, the scales were turned, and their enemies converted into friends, and sung a new tune to an old song, and the deeds of his son were trumpeted forth in every loyal paper, and his son was not now confined to the breaking a few frames, having the sanction of government, &c., and it concluded,—"though by the bye I am of opinion that all which I and my son have done in Nottingham and the neighbourhood, is not half so bad as what my son has done in America, but then you know he has supreme orders from indisputable authority for his operations in America, and that makes all the difference." Signed Gen. Ludd,

And in order to prove the introductory allegation as to the acts of outrage, the king's proclamation, dated 18th Dec. 1811, and the preambles to two acts of parliament, were offered in evidence. The proclamation recited that it had been represented to the Prince Regent that a considerable number of persons, chiefly composed of persons employed in the stocking manufactories, had for some time past assembled together in a riotous and tumultuous manner, in the town and county of the town of Nottingham, and likewise in several parts of the counties of Nottingham, Derby, and Leicester, for the purpose of compelling their employers to comply with certain regulations prescribed by themselves with respect to work and the wages to be paid for the same, and had had recourse to measures of force and violence, and had actually committed various acts of outrage in different parts of the counties above mentioned, whereby the property of many of the subjects had in several instances been wholly destroyed, and their lives and properties were still greatly endangered; and the proclamation went on to offer a reward for the discovery and apprehension of persons concerned in such proceedings. The preamble to the first act, 52 G. 3. c. 16. recited, "that the provisions of the 28 G. 3. for the better protecting stocking frames, &c., and for the punishment of persons destroying or injuring such stocking frames, &c. had been found ineffectual, and that such outrages had for some time past been carried on to an alarming extent." The preamble to the second act, 52 G. 3. c. 17. recited, "that considerable numbers of disorderly persons had for some time past assembled themselves together on different occasions in a riotous and tumultuous manner, in several parts of the county of Nottingham, and in the town and county of the town of Nottingham, and in the adjoining counties, and had had recourse to measures of force and violence, and had actually committed various acts of outrage in different parts of the said counties, whereby the property of many of his majesty's subjects had in several instances been wholly destroyed, and their lives and properties were still endangered." 

And it was objected that these documents were inadmissible for the purpose for which they were offered in evidence; for non constat that the acts of outrage recited in them did really exist, and if they did they were capable of other proof. The learned Judge admitted the first as being an act of the state founded upon the existence of outrages recited in it, and the others as tending to shew the notoriety of their existence. Evidence was also given by several witnesses, one of whom deposed to the existence of outrages in breaking frames in 1811 and 1812, and to his having seen the name of General Ludd chalked on the walls of Nottingham, and having seen songs respecting him; and that he was present at and assisted in the apprehension of some of the rioters at Sutton Ashfield, which is about fourteen or fifteen miles from Nottingham, who were running away from a place near to which he afterwards saw many frames broken, and that he heard them call themselves Luddites, and speak of General Ludd. Another witness spoke of having in 1811 seen riots at Sutton Ashfield, and frames broken there; and a third witness deposed to a transaction on the 12th of February 1812, at Nottingham, when about a dozen persons armed and disguised came into his father's house, and broke the frames, and that one called the other Ned, but he did not hear them call themselves Luddites, nor that they mentioned the name of General Ludd. Another witness also proved that he had heard General Ludd much talked of, and that he considered him to be a fictitious person, set up by the persons who committed the outrages in this neighbourhood, as their supposed leader. Upon this evidence, and proof of the publication of the libel, and the innuendos, it was found against the defendant. 

And in the last term it was moved by Denman that there should be a new trial; first, because of the improper admission of the evidence objected to at the trial. For the proclamation does not even state as a fact that outrages did exist, but only that it was represented that they did; but if it had stated the fact, it would make no difference, because it could not be proof of the truth of the fact . Even the certificate of the king under his sign manual of a matter of fact (except in one old case in Chancery, Hob. 213.) has been always refused, (a) And it appears by that old case that it passed without exception. Also the preambles ought not to have been received, because recitals in acts of parliament are not evidence of facts, but only of the opinion of the legislature. For instance, if one of these acts had recited that any particular house in Nottingham had been tumultuously destroyed, would this be evidence that the thing was so? As well might it be said that the insulting and arresting the person of the Russian ambassador, recited in 7 Ann. c. 12., or the stabbing of Harley by Anthony de Guiscard, recited in 9 Ann. c. 16., with the circumstances attending each of those transactions, might have been proved by the preambles to those acts of parliament, as evidence of the facts against the persons who were charged with having committed them; for if these recitals be evidence for one purpose, they must be so for all. Next, it was objected that the allegation, that acts of outrage were committed in the neighbourhood of Nottingham, was not proved, for the place to which the proof applies is fourteen or fifteen miles from thence, and therefore cannot be fairly said to be in the neighbourhood. Lastly, it was objected, that the Judge had misdirected the jury, because in the course of his summing up, he had stated to them that they were at liberty to refer to their own personal knowledge, if they saw any of those acts committed. Which doctrine, however it may have prevailed in ancient times, has been long exploded, and is incompatible with modern practice. (b)  

The Attorney-General, Clarke, Vaughan Serjt., Reader, and Reynolds now shewed cause, when it appearing by the Judge's report, that he did not refer the jury to their own personal knowledge, as matter of proof, for he stated that he conceived there was proof enough without it, but only as illustrating that which had been given in evidence, they contended that here was no misdirection. For is it meant to be said that a juryman is bound to reject all he knows, and is not at liberty, like other men, to use his own experience, in judging whether any particular facts which have been proved, are true? As if a fact which is perfectly notorious be proved by witnesses, is not the very notoriety one step towards the conclusion that the witnesses speak true? And even if the jury have received improper evidence, as where one of them, after the withdrawing of the jury, offered evidence to the others, yet if the Judge reports that the verdict is according to the evidence, a new trial shall not be granted, (c) And as to the admissibility of the evidence, the king's proclamation is an act of state, of which all ought to take notice (d); for it is a principle that every thing which relates to 'the king, as king of this country, is in its nature public, and therefore a gazette which contains any thing done by the king, in his character of king, or which has passed through the king's hands, is admissible evidence in a court of law to prove such thing, (e) Thus the journals of the House of Lords were admitted to prove the address to the king, and the king's answer to the House, in order to make out an averment in the indictment that divers controversies existed between his late majesty and his allies, and the king of Spain, (f) In like manner, as every man in England is, in judgment of law, party to the making of an act of parliament (g), and the preamble is a part of the act itself, surely these preambles were evidence to shew that the enactments were founded upon the mischiefs recited in them. And that such mischiefs did exist was proved by the testimony of eye-witnesses: as it said indeed, not in the neighbourhood of Nottingham, because they were fourteen or fifteen miles off; but this is, in a popular sense, the neighbourhood, agreeing with one definition of that word, viz. "Those that live within reach of communication." (h) 

Denman and Phillipps, contra, argued that it was plain, that both the proclamation and preambles must have been offered in proof of the averments in the information, because the averments are laid in the very same words: and though these documents might be evidence that the executive government and the legislature acted upon certain representations made to them, this by no means proves what the information alleges, that the facts represented were true, but only that the government and legislature gave credit to them; for if they could be carried farther, they would have greater weight than judgments, which are not evidence of any collateral matter. And as to their proving that the facts were notorious, if by that is meant a notoriety such as exists in general rumour, then the jury ought not to have taken that into their consideration; if it be meant that all the world knew them, then à fortiori they might and ought to have been proved. For to assume that the recital in every act of parliament is even primá facie evidence of the facts recited in it, would lead to very extensive consequences, and might sometimes perhaps bring the truth into hazard; as if the statute which passed at the dissolution of monasteries, should be taken as evidence of the fact that the abbots and priors, &c. of their own free and voluntary minds, and without constraint, &c. surrendered to the king, because the statute so recites. (i) So the preamble to a modern statute (j) recites, that Malta is now in the possession of his majesty, when it might have happened that at that time it was in the enemy's possession. And it is singular that one of the preambles now in question should have recited that these disorders pervaded the county of Nottingham and the adjoining counties, so that if this were evidence it might be adduced as proof that they existed in Lincolnshire, when it is perfectly well known that that county has been entirely free from them. But it may be asked, what peculiar force is there in the preamble of an act of parliament, that it should attract to it verity in every particular? It is but matter of inducement, and cannot be founded upon oath, for neither branch of the legislature can for this purpose administer an oath; whereas all evidence ought to be upon oath; and no instance is stated to warrant the admission of a recital either in an act of parliament or proclamation to prove a fact in issue. If indeed a mere act of state is to be proved, as that addresses were presented to his majesty (k); or a matter of diplomacy, as that the country stood in any particular situation with regard to its foreign relations (l); which are the cases cited contra; these from their nature can only be proved by state documents; but how does this apply to facts like the present? And as to the argument that there is evidence enough without these documents to sustain the verdict, whatever may be the rule as to that in civil actions, there is no such rule in criminal cases; on the contrary, the rule here is, that if amidst evidence which was proper to be given, evidence which was inadmissible was received, inasmuch as the Court cannot know upon what part of it the verdict was founded, nor even that the jury may not have disbelieved so much of it as was lawful, and acted upon that which ought to have been rejected, a new trial shall go. Also, in addition to the objection that there is no proof to sustain the allegation that outrages were committed in the neighbourhood of Nottingham, there is this defect in the proof of the allegation concerning those which were committed in Nottingham, that they are not proved to have been committed by persons called Luddites, or that they were acting under a supposed and unknown person called General Ludd; for all that is proved upon that subject is, that General Ludd was chalked on the walls; but the evidence negatives that any such name was mentioned at the time, or that any one of the party was called a Luddite. There is nothing therefore to connect these persons with this name, or as acting under General Ludd. So the allegation concerning the person called General Ludd is disproved; for the alleging that he was a supposed and unknown person, imports that he was an existing person; whereas it was proved that such a person was altogether fictitious. 

Lord ELLENBOROUGH C. J. If in this case I had been able to detect any particle of proof that ought not to have been offered to the consideration of the jury, I should have thought such vicious proof would have corrupted the verdict and avoided it. But after the utmost attention, I am unable to discover that there is any vice in any particle of this evidence. The material objection upon which the rule was obtained, was founded upon a supposed misdirection of the learned Judge at the trial, viz. that he had referred, in aid of some defect of evidence, to the personal knowledge which the jurors might possess, for proof of the fact that outrages had been committed in Nottingham; for as to their having been also committed in the neighbourhood of Nottingham, I do not think that it is material to prove both. It now appears however from the report, that the Judge did not lay any stress on the personal knowledge which the jury might be supposed to possess in order to aid any defect of evidence. On the contrary, it appears that he considered the evidence as fully sufficient to establish a verdict in favour of the crown; only he made the observation with reference to what they knew, as a matter of illustration, that it formed a part of the history of the county, that such outrages had been committed; as if he had said, every one must be aware of what has passed before their own eyes, and at their own doors; but he did not advise them to rely on that as a source of information on which they were to found their verdict, but only that it might make the proof more satisfactory to their minds, if they knew what had passed, because no one can have any reason to doubt what he knows and sees. It is conclusive, I think, upon the report, that the Judge did not leave this to the jury as forming a branch of evidence of itself. Next it is objected, that the acts of parliament were not evidence. For what purpose, then, are the Judges bound to take judicial notice of public acts of parliament, but in order that they may have a knowledge of them themselves, and communicate it to others? The Judge is bound not only to take judicial notice of their contents himself, but also to state the same to the jury; for if he is not to state them, for what purpose is he to take notice of them? According to the argument for the defendant, the Judge would be bound to take notice of them, yet would be precluded from stating them. I do not say how far this evidence was conclusive; I only say that it was admissible. Public acts of parliament are binding upon every subject, because every subject is, in judgment of law, privy to the making of them, and therefore supposed to know them, and formerly the usage was for the sheriff to proclaim them at his county court; and yet what every subject is supposed to know, and what the Judge is bound judicially to take notice of, it is said the jury cannot advert to; for if this evidence was inadmissible, it must be because the jury could not be charged with it. Next, as to the proclamation, I consider it as an act of state. The proclamation recites, that it had been represented to the Prince Regent, that a number of persons had committed various acts of outrage in the town, and in different parts of the county of Nottingham, &c.; and that the Prince Regent has thought it necessary to propound certain rewards for the discovery and conviction of the persons concerned in such proceedings. The propounding of these rewards necessarily implies that such acts of outrage have actually been committed, for otherwise it would have been nugatory to propound them. I do not say that it was conclusive evidence of the fact that these outrages were committed; but surely it was admissible, and like other acts of state to be laid before the jury. Next, as to the proof of the allegation that the persons committing these outrages were denominated Luddites; this was proved by eye-witnesses, and the very name of General Ludd on the walls confirms the common reputation that he was the supposed head of the persons acting under the denomination of Luddites. It is said, the information alleges that this was some supposed unknown person, and that it was not proved that there was any such person, but on the contrary, that he was altogether fictitious; but yet he was supposed to have existence for the purpose of carrying on these outrages, and whether he existed as a real or a fictitious person can make no difference. We read of the fancied existence of gnomes and sylphs, who are imaginary beings created and existing for the purpose of the plot they are to carry on, and who for this purpose at least must be treated as realities. In like manner this person had an existence, though it was created, and existing only in fiction for a particular purpose. Mr. Hobhouse said that he did not believe that there was actually such a person, but that he was set up as a person for the purpose of carrying on these outrages. It seems to me, therefore, that all the allegations and descriptions are made out in proof, and that there is not any part of this evidence to which it can fairly be excepted that it was inadmissible. And if this be so, I do not think that on account of an observation made to the jury by the learned Judge ex abundanti cautelá, this verdict ought to be disturbed. The report has cleared the case of the objection upon which the Court was principally induced to grant the rule. As it now stands, I am satisfied that the verdict was founded upon sufficient evidence, and that there has been no misdirection. 

LE BLANC J. This is an application for a new trial after conviction upon an information charging the defendant with having published a seditious libel. The application is grounded upon three objections; first, on account of the admission of evidence which ought not to have been admitted; secondly, because of the want of proof of certain allegations in the information; and thirdly, because the jury were referred to certain knowledge of their own as matter of evidence. This rule was granted upon a ground which I think cannot be disputed as a rule of law, namely, that if a verdict in a criminal proceeding like the present passes upon evidence, some parts of which are inadmissible and other parts admissible, the Court has not the means of referring the verdict to those parts only which were admissible, and it is their habit in such a case to grant a new trial. Therefore it becomes very material in this case to examine whether any evidence was received which ought not to have been received; and in considering this it is in the first place material to advert to the nature of the libel. It is a libel in the form of a letter from General Ludd to the editor of the Nottingham Review, reflecting on the conduct of his majesty's government, by comparing the conduct of the military serving in America, with the conduct of certain persons acting in Nottingham and the neighbourhood under the description of Luddites, representing that the son of the supposed writer who was serving in his majesty's forces in America, was now applauded for acts done by him in that country, similar to those for which the persons called Luddites were condemned in this country. Such is the nature of this libel. The first introductory allegation is, that before the publishing of the libel, many acts of outrage had been committed by divers disorderly persons in, and in the neighbourhood of Nottingham, by the destruction of frames. Now as to the objection that so much of this allegation as respects the committing of outrages in the neighbourhood was not proved, a satisfactory answer has already been given to it, namely, that it is not necessary. But as to its not being proved, there was one witness who proved the forcible attack by an armed party upon a dwelling-house in the town of Nottingham, and their breaking the frames there, and two other witnesses proved outrages of the same sort to have been committed in the county of Nottingham, at about fifteen miles distant from Nottingham. Therefore, if it were necessary to prove both parts of this allegation, I should think the evidence was sufficient. The next allegation is, that divers persons engaged in these outrages had been reputed to act under some supposed and unknown person called General Ludd, and had been commonly called Luddites. As to which the parol evidence proved that in two instances the persons committing these outrages called themselves Luddites, and spoke of General Ludd, and that that name was also chalked on the walls of Nottingham. Now this seems to me sufficient to substantiate the allegation, that persons who committed the outrages called themselves Luddites: and the name of General Ludd being chalked on the -walls of Nottingham was also evidence of the other part of the allegation, that they were reputed to act under a supposed leader of that name. As to his being an unknown person, Mr. Hobhouse proved that some persons might suppose there was a real person of that name, but that he considered him only as a fictitious person. This was certainly evidence in support of the introductory allegation, unless encountered by evidence on the other side. And that brings me to another objection, viz. that here evidence was received which ought not to have been received. This evidence consists of the king's proclamation, reciting that it had been represented that certain disturbances caused by persons employed in the stocking manufactories had taken place in Nottingham and several parts of the county, and offering a reward for the discovery and apprehension of offenders. There are likewise two acts of parliament reciting in their preambles the existence of these outrages, and making provision in the body of them, the first, for the more exemplary punishment of persons committing these outrages, the second,' for the better preserving the peace, by enforcing the duties of watching and warding. When the nature of these documents is considered, is it possible to say that they were not admissible, particularly as the libel refers to the conduct of the persons called Luddites, in destroying frames in Nottingham and the neighbourhood, and compares that conduct with the conduct of the military in America? Are not the documents material to shew that these disturbances existed in Nottingham, and existed to such a degree as to call for the interference of the executive government, and the legislature, to offer reward for their discovery, and to inflict a more exemplary punishment upon them, and to protect the peaceable inhabitants by compelling the observance of watch and ward? Surely they were evidence for this purpose, when the inquiry respected a libel of the description laid in the information, tending, as it is charged, to alienate the minds of the subjects from the king and government, and to make them think that what had been condemned at Nottingham by the government, was held laudable in America; when, according to the language of the libel, they were singing a new tune to an old song. I cannot see therefore any ground on which these public instruments could be objected to as inadmissible. They seem to me to go clearly to prove the facts which are alleged, because they shew in what way the executive government and the legislature acted upon them. The last objection is, that the Judge at the trial of this information left it to the jury upon their own personal knowledge, as evidence of the fact, to determine that these outrages had been committed. The Judge's report is an answer to this objection, for it states that he never left it to the jury to determine on their own personal knowledge that acts of outrage had been committed, but that he left that question to them upon the evidence. But in order perhaps to obviate tome observations that might have been made to the jury, to induce them to disbelieve the witnesses who spoke to these transactions as having been eyewitnesses, the Judge might advert to facts which were notorious to them as doing away the weight of any such observations. It seems to me therefore that we ought not to grant a new trial in this case, and that in refusing it we are doing nothing but what is perfectly consistent with the rule, which I admit to be a fundamental one, that where improper evidence has been received at the trial, the Court cannot sift it in order to see whether there be not enough which was admissible to sustain the verdict; because they cannot say on what part of the evidence the verdict was founded. 

BAYLEY J. Although I have not been free from doubt at times, yet on the best consideration that I am able to give to this case, I think that no evidence was received that was not admissible. And if the evidence had been confined to one branch of the allegation, either to outrages in Nottingham, or in the neighbourhood of Nottingham, I should have thought it a divisible allegation, and that such evidence would have been sufficient. The fact of outrages having been committed was proved not only by eye-witnesses, but the libel itself furnished strong evidence, upon its own admission, that such outrages had been committed; because the libel adverts to the breaking of frames as existing acts; and then the supposed writer speaks of what he and his son have done in Nottingham, there being no other acts mentioned as done by him but the breaking of frames: so that the libel itself goes to shew that outrages of this sort had been committed. The question then is reduced to this, whether the verdict is ill on account of the admission ,of the king's proclamation, and the two acts of parliament, in evidence. The proclamation sets forth, that it had been represented to the Prince Regent that a number of persons, chiefly of those employed in the stocking manufactories, had actually committed various acts of outrage; it is therefore an assertion on the part of His Royal Highness, that such a representation had been made to him, and he proceeds to act upon it, by offering a reward for the discovery of such offenders. This I think was evidence to this extent, and no farther, that a representation was made to, the executive government that such outrages existed, and that the executive government thought fit to act upon it; for they so far acted as to promulgate an act of state upon it. Therefore I cannot say that it was to be rejected, where there was other evidence. The preambles to the two acts of parliament I think are still more free from objection than the proclamation, and they assume as facts that outrages did exist. When we consider in what manner an act of parliament is passed, and that it is a public proceeding in all its stages, and challenges public enquiry, and when passed, is in contemplation of law the act of the whole body, it seems to me that its recital must be taken as admissible evidence (m), and in this case was confirmatory evidence. There is one point upon which for some time I entertained a doubt, namely, as to the allegation that these persons were reputed to act under some supposed and unknown person, whether this did not imply an existing person; but what has fallen from my Lord and my brother Le Blanc, has in a great measure removed that doubt; and I am not so convinced that it does import. an existing person as to differ in any respect from the rest of the Court.

Rule discharged.

Having lost his appeal, the guilty verdict given against Sutton at the Nottinghamshire Summer Assizes of 1815 was upheld, and Sutton would be sentenced in 8 days time.

References:

(a) Per Willes C.J., Willes, 556.
(b) 3 BI. Com. 374.
(c) Kitchen v. Manwaring, cited Andr. 321. But as to whether a juryman's offering evidence to his companions without being sworn, will avoid the verdict, see 2 Hale P. C. 306. Sid. 235, Goodman v. Cotherington. Styles, 233, Bennet v. Hundred of Hertford. Tri. per Pais, 209, Duke v. Ventris. Salk. 405, Anon. Bull. N. P. 313.
(d) Wells v. Williams, Ld. Raym, 283 per Treby C. J.
(e) Rex v. Holt, 5 T.R. 445. Per Buller J
(f) Rex v. Franklin, 9 St. Tr. 259.
(g) 1 Bl. Com. 185.
(h) Johnson's Dict.
(i) 31 H. 8. c.13.
(j) 41 G. 3. c.103.
(k) Rex v. Holt, 5 T.R. 442.
(l) Rex v. Franklin, 9 St. Tr. 255.
(m) Sec Co. Lit. 19. b. as to the rehearsal of a statute.

7th November 1815: Charles Sutton appeals to the Court of King's Bench

Almost four months after his trial for political libel and guilty verdict at Nottingham Assizes, Charles Sutton and his legal team had applied to have the verdict set aside. The hearing was held on Tuesday 7th November 1815 at the Court of King's Bench in London.

The Nottingham Review of 10th November 1815 carried a lengthy account of the hearing, which is below:

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, 

Tuesday, Nov. 7.

THE KING v. SUTTON, 

Mr. Denman moved to set aside the verdict given against the Defendant, who was tried in Nottingham for a Libel, the last Lammas Assizes. The grounds on which he made this motion were first, that improper evidence had been received; second, that the learned Judge had misdirected the Jury in point of law. It had been found necessary, on the part of the prosecution, to introduce into the information a variety of averments of facts regarding the riots that took place in Nottingham and in its neighbourhood, headed, or supposed to be headed, by a person of the name of Ludd. One of the averments was, that divers of the persons engaged in the perpetration of these offences, &c. were reputed to act under the direction and orders of some supposed and unknown person, called General Ludd, and that the rioters were generally called and known by that name of Luddites. In order to make intelligible the innuendos charged in the libel, it was necessary these allegations should be proved, and for that purpose, after evidence of the publication, the Counsel for the prosecution put in the Proclamation of the Prince Regent, of December 18, 1811, which stated "that it had been represented to his Royal Highness, that such acts of outrage had been committed." The Counsel for the defendant objected to this piece of evidence, contending, that even supposing it had distinctly and positively asserted the fact, the Proclamation could then only be considered as a certificate, which, in the case in Wills, 556, had been rejected as inadmissible. Mr. Baron Graham, however, over-ruled the objection at the trial. 

Mr. Justice LeBlanc.—From your statement of the averment, it seems that certain persons called Luddites were reputed to act under the control of a supposed person called General Ludd. Does that appear in the Proclamation? 

Mr. Denman.—I am not certain of that, 

Lord Ellenborough.—If it had, that might have been evidence of the supposed person, because the Prince Regent recites such a supposition. 

Mr. Denman could state most distinctly, that the Proclamation was adduced as evidence, not of the supposition, but the acts of outrage stated in the information. He conceived also, that the next head of evidence had been improperly admitted by the learned Judge. It consisted of the preambles of two Acts of Parliament, 52 Geo. III. c.16 and 17, the first of which, without mentioning the name of Ludd, recited, merely, that the provisions of former acts had been found insufficient to prevent the outrages, and that they had been carried to an alarming extent: and the second, that a number of disorderly persons had assembled together, and had had recourse to measures of force and violence, whereby the property of his Majesty's subjects, &c. was injured. The defendant’s Counsel at the trial had also resisted the admission of this evidence, on the ground that the recital of a fact in the preamble of a statute was not evidence to go to jury, and that even supposing the act had contained an assertion, that the house of an individual named had been feloniously destroyed, so as to enable the owner to bring an action against the Hundred, yet that the preamble of the statute could not be sufficient evidence to support such action. All the facts that were to influence the Jury in their verdict, ought to be proved by witnesses upon oath. 

The Court observed, that these were public Acts of Parliament. 

 Mr. Denman admitted, that upon all great state questions of peace or war, the recital of the legislature was to be taken as the best evidence, but there was, he conceived, a material distinction between those and the present. In order to put this in a clearer point of view, he had extracted the preambles of two acts, the first of which was the 7th Anne, c.12 reciting that most that "whereas several turbulent and disorderly persons have, in a most outrageous manner, insulted the person of the Ambassador of the Emperor of Russia, &c., by arresting him, and taking him by violence out of his coach, in the public street," &c. He submitted, that if it were necessary, in any proceeding, to prove that arrest, it would not be enough merely to produce the statue. The second was the 9th Anne, c.16. reciting that, "whereas Anthony de Gulscard, &c. was charged with holding a traitorous correspondence with France, &c. and being under examination before the Privy Council for the same, perceiving his said treason to have been fully detected, being fully conscious of his guilt, and dreading the pain and infamy of his approaching punishment, &c. did with a pen-knife in a barbarous and felonious manner, stab the Right Honorable Robert Harley, Esq. &c. and endeavoured to wound others of her Majesty's Privy Council, &c." If the Marquis de Gulscard, had survived the momentary indignation excited by that attempt, and had been incited for murder, Mr. D. apprehended that the Act could not be employed as proof of the murder. For the same reasons in the present case, the preambles of the 58d Geo. III. c.16 and 17, could not be admissible evidence of the averments in the information. The distinction, he submitted, was this, that Acts of Parliament were evidence of all great acts of State, such as the making of peace, declaring war, treaties, &c. of which all persons are bound to take notice. 

Mr Justice Baillie.—As you state it, the Acts of Parliament would not establish all the allegations, and the residue was made out by the proclamation. 

Mr. Denman continued, that some parole evidence had been adduced in addition, but so defective, that he had contended that the prosecutors had made out no case to go to the jury. The learned Judge, however, was of a different opinion and it was then argued by the counsel for the defendant that the averments were not sufficiently established. The second ground on which Mr. D. now supported his motion to set aside the verdict was, the misdirection of Mr. Baron Graham in point of law, who, in his charge to the jury, had supported the assertion of the counsel for the prosecution, that to supply any defects in evidence the jury might retort resort to their own personal knowledge. 

Lord Ellenborough—I apprehended that the rule now is, that if any one of the Jury is to supply a defect by his own knowledge, he must be regularly sworn, and examined as a witness. 

Mr. Denman, in support of his Lordship’s opinion, read the following passage from Blackst. Com. III. 375, "But this doctrine was gradually exploded when attaints began to be disused, and new trials introduced in their stead. And therefore the practice seems to have been first introduced, which now universally obtains, that of a Juror knows any thing of the matter in issue, he may be sworn as a witness, and give his evidence publicly to Court." 

Lord Ellenborough wished to hear the precise terms of the Learned Judge’s direction; and Mr. Denman read them from his own note taken at the time, stating that the Jury was at liberty to resort to their own personal knowledge, if they had ever seen any acts of outrage committed. 

The rule to shew cause was granted, and the Attorney-General consented, that the defendant (whose presence on such applications is required in Court) should continue at large under his former recognizance.

Sutton's case would not be heard until the new year.

22nd July 1815: The trial of Charles Sutton, proprietor of the Nottingham Review, for political libel

On Saturday 22nd July 1815, the proprietor of the Nottingham Review, Charles Sutton, stood trial at Nottingham Summer Assizes for political libel. This account of the trial is from Sutton's newspaper of the following Friday, 28th July 1815.

THE KING V. SUTTON.

On Saturday morning, the Crown Court, in the County Hall, was crowded to excess, as soon as permission could be obtained, by persons of all ranks and ages, eager to hear this long pending and extraordinary trial, which had been removed from the Town to the County by the prosecutors, or instigators, of this indictment, probably with a view of administering justice more securely to Mr.. Sutton, as it might have been difficult to have found twelve such good, honest, unbiassed, and straightforward gentleman in the Town as were selected in the County, the names of whom we shall give at the close.

At nine o'clock, Baron Graham took his seat; and, after the Jury were sworn,

Mr. John Balguy opened his pleadings, by stating that this indictment was instituted by the Attorney-General against the defendant for an article which appeared in the Nottingham Review, dated the 14th of October, 1814, signed "General Ludd," and which contained libellous reflections on the conduct of his Majesty's army engaged in taking the City of Washington, in America, and also indictments to the re-commencement of those riotous proceedings which disgraced this neighbourhood a short time previous to such publication; which libel had a manifest tendency to injure the King, and this peaceable, well disposed, and loving subjects. The indictment was then read over, and contained the substance of the information filed by the Attorney-General, of which we give a copy.

"OF MICHAELMAS TERM, 55TH GEO. 3D.

"Town and County of the}
Town of Nottingham.}         TO WIT.

Be it remembered that Sir William Garrow, Knight, Attorney-General of our Sovereign Lord the King, who prosecutes for our said Lord the King, in this behalf cometh here into the Court of our said Lord the King, before the King himself, at Westminster, on Monday next after the morrow of all souls in this same term, and four are said Lord the King giveth the Court here to understand and be informed, that at divers and very many times before the publication of the scandalous, malicious, and seditious libel hereinafter mentioned, to wit, in the years of our Lord 1811 and 1812, divers and very many acts of outrage had been committed by divers disorderly and ill-disposed persons, in and in the neighbourhood of Nottingham, against the property of divers of his Majesty’s liege and peaceable subjects, to and particularly against the Framework-knitted Stocking and Framework Lace Manufactory, whereby the property of many of his Majesty’s subjects had in several instances been wholly destroyed: And whereas divers of the persons engaged, and suspected to be engaged, in the perpetration of such outrages, had been reputed to act under the direction of some supposed and unknown person called General Ludd, and had been generally been called Luddites, (to wit,) at the parish of Saint Peter, in the town and county of the town of Nottingham; and that before and at the time of the publication of the scandalous, malicious, and seditious libels hereinafter-mentioned, an open and public war was prosecuted and carried on between our said Lord the King and his subjects, and the United States of America and the citizens of same States, enemies of our said Lord the King and his subjects, (to wit,) at the parish aforesaid, in the town and county of the town of Nottingham aforesaid; nevertheless—

"CHARLES SUTTON, late of the parish aforesaid, in town and county of the town aforesaid, Printer, well knowing the premises, but being a malicious and ill-disposed person, and unlawfully and maliciously devising and intending to excite discontent and disaffection in the minds of the liege subjects of our said Lord the King, against our said Lord the King and his Government, and to bring the Government of our said Lord the King into public hatred and contempt, and to excite divers persons to break and disturb the peace of our said Lord the King, and to commit acts of violence and outrage heretofore, (to wit,) of the 14th day of October, in the 54th year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the 3rd, by the grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland King, at the parish aforesaid, in town and county of the town aforesaid, unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously did print and publish, and did cause and procure to be printed and published, a certain scandalous, malicious, and seditious libel, of and concerning the acts of outrage aforesaid, and the persons concerned in the perpetration thereof, and of and concerning his said Majesty’s Government, and the employment of his troops, to the tenor and effect following, (that is to say)—

"GENERAL LUDD.

(Meaning the said supposed and unknown person called General Ludd.)

"TO THE EDITOR OF THE NOTTINGHAM REVIEW

"SIR—I take the liberty of dropping you a few lines to inform you of the good fortune of one of my sons, (meaning of one of the said person called Luddites) who is come to very high honor. You must know that some time ago, owing to a little imprudent conduct, my eldest son, NED, decamped, and enlisted into his Majesty’s service, (meaning the military service of our said Lord the King,) and as he was notorious for heroism and honorable enterprize, he was entrusted with a commission to exercise his prowess against the Americans, and I am happy to say he has acquitted himself in a way which will establish his fame to generations yet unborn.

"I assure you, Mr. Editor, I scarcely know how to keep my feelings within bounds, for while all our former and united efforts in breaking frames, &c. (meaning such acts of outrage as aforesaid) were commented upon with some severity, and in a way which cast an odium upon my character and that of my family, I now find the scales are turned, and our enemies are converted into friends; they sing a new tune to an old song, and the mighty deeds of my son are trumpeted forth in every loyal paper in the kingdom. My son is not now confined to the breaking of a few frames, having the sanction of government, (meaning the government of our said Lord the King) he can now not only wield his great hammer to break printing presses and types, but he has a licence to set fire to places and property which he deems obnoxious, and now and then even a little private pillage is winked at. Even the GAZETTE EDITOR at Mr. Tupman's who was formerly one of my greatest enemies, and threatened to pursue both me and my family to the uttermost, is now in my favor, and is to become a patron, and an admirer of my son, on account of his achievements in Washington. There is one thing though in the conduct of this Gentleman which has created me some little uneasiness; a few weeks ago he strongly recommended to the magistrates to offer a very large reward, to any person who would disclose our secret system of operation in this neighbourhood: he went so far as to say 5000l. (meaning five thousand pounds) ought to be offered; enough he said to enable the informer to live independent in another country, intimating such a character would not be considered as a proper person for the society of this country, and therefore he would emigrate to seek other associates. I hope it is not true that this notorious Editor has any secrets to disclose about me and my family, and that he is waiting for this large reward to be offered, that he may avail himself of such an opportunity of making his fortune, and fleeing his country. Now, I really think, as my son is become truly loyal, and is working for his country's good, and all under the sanction of the Crown, and as his achievements have been of the first rate, ‘old grievances ought not to be repeated;’ though, bye the bye, I am of opinion that all which I and my son have done in Nottingham and neighbourhood, (meaning the said acts of outrage) is not half so bad as what my son has done in America; but then you know he has supreme orders, from indisputable authority, (meaning the authority of our said Lord the King,) for his operations in America, and that makes all the difference.

"I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
"GENERAL LUDD"

"Ludd Hall, October 5, 1814.

"In contempt of our said Lord the King and his laws, to the evil example of all others, and against the peace of our said Lord the King his crown and dignity.

The second count of the Information, charges the said CHARLES SUTTON, that "he did print and publish and cause to be printed and published a certain other scandalous malicious libel, &c.of and concerning his said Majesty’s government, and the employment of his troops.

The third count.— "That the said CHARLES SUTTON did print and publish, and cause and procure to be printed and published, a certain other scandalous malicious and seditious libel, concerning his said Majesty’s government, and the employment of his troops.

The fourth count— "That the said CHARLES SUTTON did print and publish, and cause and procure to be printed and published, a certain other scandalous, malicious and inflammatory libel containing therein, (among other things,) divers scandalous, malicious, and inflammatory matters, of and concerning acts of outrage aforesaid, and the persons concerned in the perpetration thereof.

The fifth count.—"That the said CHARLES SUTTON did print and publish, and cause to procure to be printed and published, a certain other scandalous, malicious, and inflammatory libel, containing therein, (among other things,) divers scandalous, malicious, and inflammatory matters, of and concerning the acts of outrage aforesaid, and the persons concerned the perpetration thereof.

The sixth count.—"And the said Attorney-General of our said Lord the King, for our said Lord the King giveth the Court here further to understand and be informed, that on divers and very many times before the publication of the scandalous, malicious, and seditious libel hereinafter next mentioned, (to wit,) in the said years of our Lord 1811 and 1812, divers and very many acts of outrage had been committed by divers disorderly and ill-disposed persons, in and in the neighbourhood of Nottingham, against the property of divers of his Majesty’s liege and peaceable subjects and particularly against the framework-knitted stocking and framework lace manufactories, whereby the property of his Majesty’s subjects had in several instances been wholly destroyed, (to wit,) at the parish aforesaid, in the town and county of the town of Nottingham aforesaid, and that before and at the time of the publication of the scandalous, malicious, and seditious libel hereinafter next mentioned, an open and public war was prosecuted and carried on between our said Lord the King in his subjects, and the United States of America and the citizens of the same states, enemies of our said Lord the King and his subjects, (to wit,) at the parish aforesaid, in the town and county and the town of Nottingham aforesaid; nevertheless, the said CHARLES SUTTON, well knowing the premises last aforesaid, but being such malicious and ill-disposed person, and unlawfully and maliciously devising and intending to excite disaffection and discontent in the minds of the liege subjects of our said Lord the King, against our said Lord the King in his Government, and to bring the Government of our said Lord the King into public hatred and contempt afterwards, (to wit,) of the said 14th day of October, in the 54th year of the reign aforesaid, and the parish aforesaid, in the town and county of the town of Nottingham aforesaid, unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously did print and publish, and cause to be printed and published, a certain other scandalous, malicious, and seditious libel, containing therein, among other things, divers scandalous, malicious, and seditious matters, of and concerning the last mentioned acts of outrage and the persons concerned in the perpetration thereof, and of and concerning his said Majesty’s Government, and the employment of his troops.

The seventh count—"That the said CHARLES SUTTON, on 14th of October, in the said 54th year, at the parish aforesaid, in the town and county of the town of Nottingham aforesaid, did print and publish, and did cause and procure to be printed and published, certain other scandalous, malicious, and inflammatory libel, containing in therein among other things, divers scandalous, malicious, and inflammatory matters, of and concerning the last mentioned acts of outrage, and the persons concerned in the perpetration thereof.

"Whereupon the said Attorney-General of our said Lord the King, who for our said Lord the King in this behalf, prosecuteth for our said Lord the King, prayeth the consideration of the court here in the premises, and that due process of law may be awarded against him the said CHARLES SUTTON, in this behalf, to make him answer to our said Lord the King, touching and concerning the premises aforesaid."

Mr. Clarke then addressed the court and the jury in the following effect:—Gentleman, the libel to which my learned friend has just called your attention, is one of a most mischievous tendency, and very properly calculated to slander the brave army which was so honorably engaged against aggressive and a bitter foe; and also to produce the other consequences alluded to by my learned friend. But it is necessary to state to you, gentlemen of the jury, a few circumstances which happened previous to the publication of this libel, though such circumstances cannot but be well known to you already, from their notoriety and the locality of your situation, and the necessary and honorable duty which devolved upon many of you on those occasions. Then, gentlemen, it was notorious that great disturbances took place in this and the neighbouring counties during the years 1811 and 1812—that lawless associations were formed for the purpose of destroying frames, and doing other mischief to the property of many of his Majesty’s peaceably disposed subjects—that such associations became too formidable that the civil power to resist—that the depraved and wicked members of these associations under the name of Luddites, assailed dwelling-houses in the night—did the mischief which they intended to do, and then retired in attitudes of hostile defiance—and that, on some occasions, assassination had been the consequence.

Mr. Clarke then stated, that, at the time of the publication of this libel, a person was in prison on suspicion of frame-breaking—that a plan was agreed upon for murdering the evidence against the prisoner—that the attack was made, and an innocent man was murdered—that the publication of the libel gave general disgust—and that its tendency was to raise resistance to the laws, and to dishonor the army by comparing British soldiers with persons who had committed such outrages. I shall hope to hear, if possible, from my Learned Friend, who appears for the defendant, what other end it could possibly answer. It is, said he, a gross libel on the government. When friends were broken, the cry of the depredators was "Ned, do your duty"—was not this a proof that the supposed Ned Ludd was a framebreaker? and that the author of this libel, in signing himself "General Ludd" intended to excite frame-breaking? Mr. Clarke now read the article, charged as a libel, by piecemeal, and commented upon it as he proceeded, commencing with that part which relates to the devastation committed in America. News arrived, said he, of the capture of Washington, and out comes this libel to disgrace the army. The Editor of the Nottingham Review states that brave army to be commanded by "General Ludd," who is made to say, that though his men had previously been guilty of a little imprudent conduct in the breaking of frames, they had now the sanction of government, and can not only wield their greatest hammers to break printing-presses and types, but they have a licence to set fire to places and property; and now and then even a little private pillage is winked at—And so, continued the Counsel, frame-breaking is to be designated as a "little imprudent conduct," which is heightened into "honorable enterprise" when Ned is supposed to have the "the sanction of government" to commit outrages in America! Is it to be endured that the army, fighting honorably against an enemy that unprovokedly went to war with us in hopes of aiding a tyrant of France to blot us out from the rank of nations? an enemy that had no cause of complaint, except her own trumpeted up and imaginary grievances—is it to be endured, that our brave army, fighting against such an enemy, shall thus be libelled by comparison with the Luddites? Nay, this is a libel upon our ministers too, for it says that the acts committed in America, which are represented as so much more extensively mischievous than those committed here by the Luddites, were sanctioned by government, and that a little private pillage was winked at—nay more, this is a libel upon the King; for he is supposed to have given the orders! This is not to be borne, gentlemen, this is not to be borne! Is our good King to be libelled too by comparison with the Luddites? this is not to be borne!

The Editor of Mr. Tupman's Gazette is not spared by this libel—that gentleman is lampooned for holding out that a great award should be offered to any one that should inform of the Luddites.—The reader should here be informed that Mr. Tupman has held out, that as much money should be offered to an informer as would enable him to leave, and live out of the country; but Mr. Clarke endeavoured to cast the odium upon Mr. Sutton; for said he , is not this attempt to shew the necessity of an informer’s leaving the country, an encouragement to Luddites, by disapproving of information against them? Mr. Clarke concluded his address by cautioning the jury against having their judgments led astray by the eloquence of the defendant's Counsel.

The article charged as a libel, was then read. (The reader will find a copy of it in the information, already inserted, but he is to take notice, that that part which is in italics, was not in the original, but is an interpolation, made by the Attorney General.)

Mr. Hobhouse, attorney to the King, was now called to prove the entry of the Review at the General Stamp-Office, which having done he read, by order of the Judge, a royal proclamation, against frame-breaking and other outrages, issued in December, 1811; the London Gazette of Saturday, October 17, 1812, containing a proclamation of reprisals against the United States of America, and the preambles to the Watch and Ward, and Frame-breaking Acts, passed in 1812, the former the 20th of March, and the latter the 13th of October. The reading of these articles was legally and ably opposed by Mr. Denman, leading counsel for the defendant; but his arguments; though powerful were overruled by the Judge. This was not the case with the convictions against Pooly, Green, and Marshall, who had at a former assize been found guilty of frame-breaking, which were attempted to be read as evidence against the defendant; for, in this case, even the Judge thought the prosecuting counsel were doing too much; and they were therefore overruled.

After this dispute was ended, Serjeant Vaughan, on the part of the prosecution, put the following questions to Mr. Hobhouse:—

Q. Sir, have you read the libel?—A. Yes.

Q. What do you understand by General Ludd?—A. I understand General Ludd to mean the supposed person who led the mobs of frame-breakers in the neighbourhood.

Q. What you understand by General Ludd’s son?—A. I understand it to mean a Luddite.

Q. What do you conceive the libel to mean when it speaks of his Majesty's service?—A. The army.

Q. What you understand by frame-breaking?—A. By that I understand the consequences of the riots in this neighbourhood in 1811 and the early part of 1812.

Q. What you understand the libel to mean when it speaks of government?—A. The King’s government.

Q. What you understand the figure 5, three noughts and the letter l.to mean?—A. Five thousand pounds.

Q. I observe the words "all that I and my son have done," how did you understand that?—A. All the acts which the Luddites have committed in the neighbourhood of Nottingham.

Q. What you understand the libel to mean when it speaks of indisputable authority?—A. The Kings government.

Cross-examined by Mr. Denman.

Q. Why do you understand it as meaning the Kings government?—A. Because it says supreme government.

Q. You speak of General Ludd as being a leader, &c.; did you imagine that there was a real person, who, as General Ludd, was a real reader, &c.—A. I never supposed there was such person as General Ludd, but that he was an imaginary person.

Q. Did you understand that his Son was a Commander in the Army?—A. No.

Mr. Reader then called Mr. Woodcock.

Q. Were you a solicitor in Mansfield, in the years 1811 and 1812?—A. I was.

Q. During those years were there any riots and disturbances committed?—A. I believe there were. Question from the Judge—Was you a witness to any of them?—A. I was, at Sutton-in-Ashfield.

Q. Did you see any frames that had been broken?—A. Many.

Question by Counsel—Did they appear to you to have been recently broken?—A. Yes.

Q. Were they broken in places and houses where many persons were assembled?—A. They were broken in a place where I saw many persons running away

Question from the Judge—And some of whom you afterwards took?—A. They were taken afterwards, in houses, where frames were broken.

Question by Counsel—Was it notorious that acts of outrage, &c. had been committed?

This question was quashed.

Q. What did these persons call themselves?—A. Luddites.

Q. Was there any person under whom they pretended to act?—A. I have heard of General Ludd; and I have heard of some that were afterwards committed for frame-breaking—they were called Luddites.

Q. Then, have you never heard the frame-breakers call themselves Luddites?—A. I have heard Ludd songs sung, and seen the name of Ned Ludd written on the walls of Nottingham in chalk.

Cross-examined by Mr. Phillips.

Q. You said you had seen frames broken in Sutton-in-Ashfield.—A. I did not see any outrage committed in Sutton-in-Ashfield—I did not see any riot—saw some persons running away—did not see any great mob.

Q. Did the persons who were taken by you or your party, call themselves Luddites at the time?—A. I do not know that they did.

Question by Mr. Reader—Were there any military?—A. A part of the Mansfield Yeomanry.

Q. Did the person run away upon these military coming up?—Yes, and one of the persons was convicted, who were taken in a house in Sutton-in-Ashfield.

James Stevens examined.

Q. I believe you are a wine-merchant, of Mansfield.—A. Yes.

Q. Do you know of any outrages committed in this county?—A. Yes, in November 1811—saw a great quantity of people, and a great number of broken frames—saw them in two houses—in the inside of one house, and the outside of another—saw a number of persons late in the evening, before the house of a man named Naylor—saw them in different parts of the town afterwards—but in one place, in the front of Maylor’s house, from 50 to 100 people—Naylor’s was one of the houses where the friends were broken.

William Benson examined.

Q. Where do you live?—A. In Nottingham, with my father, a framework-knitter—he had frames in his house on 12th of January, 1812, which were broken at six o'clock at night, by about twenty persons, armed with pistols, and disguised with handkerchiefs tied round about their faces—they forced us into the back place, and told us they would take away our lives if we did not go immediately—they broke one frame and then said, "Ned, do your work well"—they afterwards went up stairs and broken seven more.

Q. What you understand by Ned?—A. They said, Ned, go up stairs and do your work well—did not understand what they meant by "Ned."

Here the case closed on the part of the prosecution, when  Mr. Denman submits his Lordship, that no evidence had been adduced substantially to connect the fictitious name of Ludd, assumed by the writer of the article alleged to be a libel, with the crime of frame-breaking; not had it been proved at all, that the Luddites had broken frames in the neighbourhood of Nottingham, as stated in the Indictment, for the evidence of Benson did not substantiate the fact, since the name of Ludd was not mentioned by those who broke his father's frames; and, as to Sutton-in-Ashfield, it was fifteen miles off, and of course could not be called the neighbourhood of Nottingham; therefore, in his opinion, he was entitled to a verdict, in point of law, as well as of fact, without the case being left to the decision of the jury. But these positions were over-ruled by the Judge, when the learned Counsel addressed the jury in a most able speech, which occupied an hour, to which, we can only say, we will do the most justice in our power; being conscious we shall not support it without dignity with which it fell from the orator’s lips.

Gentlemen, said Mr. Denman, it has now fallen to my lot to address you, as the great inquest of this county, in behalf of my client; and while I feel a consciousness of my own inability to expel from your fancy that fine flow of eloquence which my Learned Friend, as leading Counsel in this case, has just impressed upon you; while I have to combat the powerful phalanx of learning and talent which we see marshalled against us on this occasion, I feel strong in the justice of my cause, coupled with the sterling integrity of a British jury, composed, as is the one I have now the honor of addressing, whose characters in life will be a sufficient guarantee against being guided by any undue influence—against being governed in their decision by prejudice or party bias. On these grounds, gentlemen, I shall expect, with full confidence, a verdict in favor of my client at your hands. My Learned Friend has proved the existence of certain outrages in this county, outrages which I, in common with every honorable man, most ardently deplore, and which no one ever deplored more than my client has done, and none more than himself hath endeavoured to suppress, in the situation of life in which he is placed; therefore we will adopt the strong phrases of my Learned Friend, with reference to these outrages, and their fullest sense. But, it is right, at the same time, to see how they apply to the case in question. I wish my Learned Friend had stated when the outrages, which principally existed in 1811-12 had ceased—if he had done so he would have proved most distinctly the contrary of what he intended to have proved—he would have proved that they could have no reference to the article which is charged in this indictment as a libel, because they had ceased long previous to the time of its publication; and all the twisting, contriving, and inventing, in the drawing up of this record might have been spared—all the attempts to connect guilt with innocence; and to make innocence accountable for guilt, would then have been unavailing, as I hope and trust they will be still. As to the attempt made by my Learned Friend to connect the outrage committed Basford, the night of the publication of this article, with the article itself,—in that he has completely failed; for the intention and plan of that outrage were well known to the magistrates of Nottingham many days before the publication of the article in question, and who had provided for the reception of the depredators; therefore to charge the commission of the outrage upon the publication, the views, or intentions of my client; or that such publications could be any wise incitive to its commission, would itself be an unpardonable outrage upon common sense, and which you, Gentlemen of the Jury cannot listen to for a moment. Had that outrage, which was streaked with the blood of innocence—which was ensanguined by the blood of guilt—which was darkened by the crime of murder—had that happened just before the publication of this article; why then my Learned Friend might have imputed some base design to my client. But here the reverse is the case; and from the subsequent conduct of my client—from the proud attitude of his universal character, for peace, humanity, and justice—from the respectable rank he holds in society—from his great liability to be made one of the first victims to infuriated violence, if, (which God forbid,) violence were to supersede law—from his close attention to the duties of domestic and social life—from these things, I take the liberty of proudly submitting, that the reverse of evil intention on his part is the case; and that the reverse of such intention must be the conclusion of every honest, every honorable mind. Let us see, said Mr. Denman, what was said of this horrid outrage in the Nottingham Review, when the defendant could not be influenced by any motive except what arose out of the nature of the case itself—when the idea of prosecuting him for a libel had scarcely been generated, even by those secret enemies who made justly be supposed to have given an impetus to the present action. His language on that, as on every occasion when it was found necessary to reprobate violations of the law, was strong, nervous, and energetic; but let his paper, in the publication immediately following the outrage at Basford speak for itself—it says, "A most painful task devolves upon us this week, in the having to record and publish to our country, acts of sanguinary violence and assassination, committed in the vicinity of Nottingham, which are disgraceful to the character of Englishmen, and to humanity. We allude to the foul and horrid attempt to murder Mr. Thomas Garton, and the actual murder of Mr. William Kilby, committed last Friday evening at New Basford; the circumstances of which have excited universal indignation and sympathy in this town and neighbourhood, &c. The surviving perpetrators of these atrocious crimes have escaped, but, however at present they may be unknown, we hope and trust they will not long elude detection, and that the just vengeance of the offended laws of God and their country, will finally overtake them." Produce me, said the learned Gentleman, a Newspaper in the whole kingdom which more properly reprobated, and painted in stronger and more feeling language this horrid deed! Indeed, continued he, with much emphasis, if we want language reprobative of violence—condemnatory of a violation of our country’s laws—illustrative of the danger of suffering the human passions to supersede the rules of reason and recommendatory of good order in the intercourse between man and man, we shall find that language pervading the columns of the Nottingham Review. If we want language to extol the merit of our brave countrymen in arms, when their deeds have called for honest praise, and when the patriot’s soul follows their martial progress, we shall find such language in the Nottingham Review; and it really shocks me to see the pains my Learned Friend has taken to connect improper motives to the conduct of my client on this occasion; when he knows so well, from his long career and almost constant practice at the bar, that the most strong and clear circumstances are necessary to prove a tendency in the conduct of the most ordinary individual in the excitement to discord; while in the case before us—to say nothing of his duty, of which we have every manifestation of a strict attention to—the undoubted interest, the universality of bias to propriety, and an unimpeached purity of intention, give a direct negative to such an intention; and, as far as presumptive evidence can go, establish the contrary fact. In the light and satirical manner in which the article in question is written, my client is charged with having committed a political sin—he is charged in the second allegation with having compared the conduct of our army and the sacking of Washington, with that of the Luddites in the pursuit of their lawless system of spoilation. And, Gentlemen of the Jury, let me bring this question home to yourselves as Englishmen—is it not a right, inherent in our constitution, for Englishmen to discuss public questions? Nay is it not a duty incumbent upon the conductors of public journals to shew us the foul as well as the fair side of the national measures? If the right of discussion be denied to men whose writings ought to be directed to the promotion of public liberty, and whose political illustrations have such an effect in directing national opinion—if the right of discussion be denied to these men, in what does the liberty of the press consists? Does this right consisting composing petty paragraphs to conceal guilt, to give a bright colouring to measures of iniquity?—in keeping from public view, by a species of hypocritical cant, the debaucheries and other immoralities too frequent in high life—and in writing panegyrics on princes? Or rather does not this right, this proud distinction of Britons, consist in a bold and manly display of independence in bringing great delinquents to the bar of public opinion; that, if screened by wealth and influence against the just retribution of the law, they may be arrested in their progress by the counteracting hand of public disapprobation? Once destroy the right of free discussion to the editors of newspapers, and a band of unprincipled men, that might have cunning enough to impose upon the good nature of the prince (and princes, we know, are subject to human infirmities like other men,) might push measures on to the utter ruin of our country—the conduct of ministers ought to be canvassed—if they be acting right, they have nothing to fear—if they be acting wrong, public discussion may save the country, by driving them from their seats. Laws have been restored for the good of society, which despotic monarchs had laid aside, and others have been made, which form alike the ground work and the outlines of the constitution; and that constitution is safeguard of discussion, as discussion is the safeguard of the constitution. I THEREFORE, said Mr. Denman, CLAIM THE RIGHT OF FREELY DISCUSSING PUBLIC QUESTIONS AS THE BIRTH-RIGHT, AS THE INHERITANCE OF EVERY ENGLISHMAN—I CLAIM THIS RIGHT FOR MR. SUTTON—I CLAIM IT FOR ALL HIS MAJESTY'S SUBJECTS—AND I CLAIM IT FOR THE WHOLE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND. That men should differ in opinion on political subjects is as natural as it is for us to breathe; but that any man should be bold enough to maintain, that the sort of warfare carried on against America was equally honorable with our achievments in Spain and Portugal, he thought morally impossible. Was it not proper said he, to discuss the merits of the expeditions sent to America, where war was made on palaces of peace, and on printing-offices? and what was more natural than to the editor of an independent newspaper, who was himself an admirer of liberality, to express his indignation against his countrymen making war on printing types; a species of warfare which directed its vengeance against literature and the general progress of information? Was the pillaging at Alexandria honorable warfare? Were our renowned deeds in arms in Europe to be disgraced by a comparison with our conquest over the inhabitants of Washington? The former were calculated to rouse the latent energies of the soul—to call forth the patriot to action—to nerve the arm of the sage—to make the sick man forget his pain, and the spendthrift his vices; while the latter was only calculated to provoke resistance and retaliation, and give activity to the angry passions of the human heart. And I maintain, said Mr. Denman, that, in writing on the subject of the capture of Washington, my client, as an Englishman, had a right to use the expressions which we find in the article alledged to be a libel. For, in using these expressions he was only honestly expressing his indignation, and what he conceived, had brought disgrace on his country; while, by comparing those proceedings with the conduct of the Luddites, he was manifestly shewing his marked disapprobation of such conduct—if you say he has disgraced the soldiers, he has, in a corresponding degree, branded the conduct of Luddites—and if you say he had a design to exalt the conduct of the Luddites, and urge them on to fresh mischief by comparison, he has not disgraced, or did not intend to disgrace the soldiers. And, as intention is necessary to constitute the libel, it is impossible that the two allegations in the indictment can stand—the one destroys the other. As to the charge made by my Learned Friend, of this being a libel against the King, the subject is almost too trifling to merit a reply; for my Learned Friend well knows that the King can do no wrong, that the ministers are the legal advisers of the crown, and that they are responsible for the advice they give; therefore the King is nowise included in this matter. I would just asked my Learned Friend, if the same observations had been made in Parliament, as those here stated to be libellous, whether he thinks the Attorney-General would have visited their author with his vengeance?—Certainly not! But, Gentlemen, there is a point in which this question should be viewed, which has entirely escaped my Learned Friend. How it has happened that the circumstances has escaped my Learned Friend—how it has happened that he has missed this point, so contrary to his usual practice, is not for me to say; for, that his towering genius—his commanding eloquence—his redundancy of thought—his keenness of expression—his insinuation of address are still in the noontide of perfection, and bid defiance to time and the silvery honors on his brow, he has this day given us the fullest proof. Still, however, by some unaccountable circumstance he has omitted to notice this one point, on which too rests the whole jet of the question. Perhaps my Learned Friend thought there was danger in alluding to it; and that will account for the omission; which omission, with its legal interest, must be placed to the credit of Mr. Sutton.—You all know, Gentlemen, that a short time ago there was a newspaper in this town called the "Nottingham Gazette;" and most of you are very well acquainted with the captious manner in which that paper frequently took up local and political questions, and that it sometimes formed an object of ridicule to the Nottingham Review. Now, Gentlemen, read the article which is the subject of this information, and you will clearly see, that it is the mere squabbling between these two papers which gave occasion to this article being written. The Gazette had proposed a sum sufficiently large being offered to any Luddite that would inform of his companions, to enable such informer to leave the country, that his life need not be in danger from his enraged associates—this was commented on in the article in question, and ludicrously perverted into an opinion, that the Editor of the Nottingham Gazette had got into the secrets of the Luddites; and that such Editor recommended this very large reward that he might take advantage of it, to enable him to leave his country and troubles altogether. And yet this silly dispute—these, attacks, replies, and rejoinders of two Editors have at length formed a subject, which has been considered by some persons (and their feelings are not to be envied) sufficiently serious to call for a visitation from the Attorney-General. Will not this action be considered in the light of political animosity, in pouring a vial of wrath upon the head of Mr. Sutton, in consequence of the defeat of his wrangling opponent? If this should, unfortunately, be a conclusion drawn, it will reduce this species of prosecution, in public estimation, very much indeed, and it is a question well worthy the mature deliberation of you Gentlemen of the Jury, before you can think for a moment of giving a verdict against Mr. Sutton.—Gentlemen, I feel almost ashamed at occupying your attention so long, and that too on a subject which, taking the full and candid view of it, which I doubt not you will, seems so easy of determination in favor of my client. But, there is one other thing which I cannot avoid calling your attention to—why has the Attorney-General been induced to take up this question by an information ex-officio, and thus pervert the law from its natural channel, by depriving the defendant of the benefit of Grand Jury? The Grand Inquest of a county [is] always supposed to act from motives the most pure—there are no acts of counsel—no influence from the bench can operate—there every case appears in its native shape, and receives a direction according to its own intrinsic merits—Then why, I ask again, has the defendant been deprived of this shield of innocence—of this grand bulwark of the law? Gentlemen, under an impression that my feeble efforts may have been useful to you, in enabling you to perform a right judgement of the case; and that you will lay your hands on your hearts, and as Englishmen give a verdict consistent with your consciences and the liberty of the subject, I cheerfully and consistently commit the case of my client into your hands; being fully convinced that your verdict will be according to the evidence given in court; and not formed from the extraneous opinions, or information received before your coming here, a position, which I have no doubt his Lordship will inform you is correct.

In reporting Mr. Clarke’s reply, we shall confine ourselves to what appeared as fresh matter; for it would be no gratification to the reader to have his first speech a second time related, with the mere variation of shape.—The substance of his speech is as follows:—Gentlemen of the Jury, it now becomes my duty, as leading Counsel for the crown on this occasion, to address you again on the part of the prosecution, and to give answers to the reasons set forth by the Learned Gentleman, who has just addressed you at such length, so eloquently, and with such ingenuity on the part of the defendant. And I am really at a loss to conceive what observations of mine could have justified him in imputing to me the views he has done respecting the riots, as bearing upon his client; for I only meant to show, that the events were alive about that time, and that the spirit of disturbance existed as strong as it ever did at any other time in this town and neighbourhood. Gentleman, a great deal has been said on political matters; but I cannot suppose that which my Learned Friend supposes on this subject—it is contended by him, that ALL public matters have a right to be brought under the pen of discussion; and that the business of our American expeditions formed one of these matters. The public writers have a right to discuss public matters I readily admit, but not in the way which this libeller has done on the subject in question! For, it is to be endured, that our brave army shall be traduced by comparison with the Luddites, merely because their conduct is punishing a most perfidious enemy did not comport with his political views and desires? The Americans had made war upon as at a moment when they flattered themselves that their aid would kick the beam against us, when the tyrant of the continent was pouring out the vials of his wrath against our very existence as a great nation. But there is no analogy between the two cases—we were at war with America; but can it be said that we were at war the Luddites? It is true, and I am sorry to say too true, that these miscreants made war upon the peaceable inhabitants of this town and neighbourhood, and that the law, as far as it's salutary effects could reach them, made war upon them in return; but it is to be endured, I ask again, that the conduct of our army in America is to be traduced, dishonored, and abused by comparison with the lawless proceedings of these wretches? Besides, we have no evidence in court, that our army committed these violences at Washington which are imputed to their conduct, nor are they to be believed; therefore, supposing for a moment that such charges were true, they cannot be admitted in extenuation, much more in exculpation of the guilt which I charge upon the defendant. But, Gentlemen, let me ask, is there any analogy in the two cases? the Luddites violated every law, human and divine—they took the peaceable inhabitants by surprise, and committed every sort of outrage which you can conceive; while at Washington there were no pillage—no private robberies—no assassinations: all was honorable warfare!!!—My Learned Friend stated to you Gentlemen of the Jury, that you were wholly to confine yourselves to the matter of fact contained in the evidence adduced in court, relative to the formation of your verdict. Here I shall take the liberty of differing with my Learned Friend; and distinctly [obscured] that the Gentleman of the Jury have a right to take into their consideration, their previous knowledge of the circumstances of the case. And, as to the intention of the libeller—that is clear—perfectly clear—the publication proves the tendency, and the tendency proves the intention. And, Gentlemen, I hope, that by your verdict you will put a step stop to such publications. My learned friend cast out some remarks on the Attorney General's interference in this business, and said, that thereby the defendant had been deprived of the benefit of a Grand Jury. In reply to which I will observe, that it is the duty of the Kings Attorney-General to guard the country against the consequences of such publications as the libel in question: and that, if the manner matter had been brought before the Grand Inquest of the county, the defendant would have stood in a far worse situation than he does at present; for he would then have had the opinion of a Grand Jury against him—to have prepossessed the court against his interest; whereas in the present case he has nothing but the honest opinions of you Gentlemen to dread; and I hope and trust, that such will be your verdict, as to convince him and the country at large, of the evil tendency of his conduct.

The Learned Judge now addressed the Jury; and in attempting to give a brief statement of what fell from his Lordship on this occasion, we are free to acknowledge, that our difficulty, in the reporting this trial, most materially increases; for, in the first place, were we to give the address as actually delivered, we should very much doubt that any man, who was not in Court at the time, would give credit to our relation; and, in the second place, the warmth and rapidity with which his Lordship spoke, rendered it impossible to follow him with that correctness, which alone would have enabled us to give his speech with precision.

His Lordship began by recapitulating the nature of the indictment, which he divided into two allegations, namely, the one relating to the riots, and the other as connected with the assault upon Washington. On the former his Lordship contended, in reply to the objections submitted by Mr. Denman of a want of evidence to connect the name of Ludd with frame-breaking as stated in the indictment, "that the libeller himself had supplied the deficiency, by attaching the name of General Ludd to his infamous publication;" and emphatically asked, whether any Englishman could lay his hand on his heart and say, that such publication was not a libel? His Lordship, the course of his address, said, God forbid, that the day should arrive when public writers should not be allowed to discuss the conduct of public men—even, I wish not myself to be spared, if my conduct should be thought worthy of animadversion: but, continued his Lordship, it is not to be borne for disaffected libellers to disseminate their poison by traducing the army by comparison with the conduct of a set of wretches that outrage all order, and resist obedience to the law. And continued his Lordship, what could be the motive of this libeller in writing the article in question? he knew that the embers of discord were laid at rest, for which it should seem he was sorry; and he writes this very libel to call them into action again, and to give fresh fury to their violence. As to the proper exercise of the Attorney-General's power being called in question on this occasion, his Lordship saw no reason for that at all; as that power was the proper bulwark of the constitution to guard it against libellers and other disaffected people; nor did any man call that power in question, except a few wild theorists, who talked about what they did not understand. His Lordship took occasion to justify the doctrine advanced by Mr. Clarke (and we believe this is the first time it was advanced in a court of justice) that a juryman has a right to bring into the box opinions on the question before him already formed, and which may enable him to give a right verdict in the case.

When the Judge had closed, the court was all anxiety, which was shortly relieved; for after a consultation by the Jury which lasted something less than a minute, Samuel Wright, Esq. the foreman, exclaimed aloud, "We pronounce the prisoner GUILTY." This however Mr. Wright was instructed to amend, and delivered with an audible voice, "We pronounce the defendant GUILTY."

NAMES OF THE JURORS.
FROM THE SPECIAL JURY LIST.
SAMUEL WRIGHT, OF GUNTHORPE, ESQ. (Foreman)
THOMAS FISHER OF CODRINGTON, ESQ.
JOHN BRETTLE, OF THURGARTON, ESQ.
JOHN NEED, OF MANSFIELD WOODHOUSE, ESQ.
CHARLES STANTON, OF MANSFIELD, ESQ.
THOMAS BOLGER, OF FISHERTON, ESQ.
HENRY HAWLEY, OF SOUTHWELL, ESQ.
JOHN HANDLEY, OF WOODTHORPE, ESQ.

We understand that six or seven of the above Gentlemen are Members of the Nottingham Pitt Club.

FROM THE PETIT JURY LIST.
RICHARD WARRINER, OF LANEHAM, GENT.
THOMAS STANTON, OF MANSFIELD, GENT.
HENRY HOLE, OF SOUTH MUSKHAM, GENT.
JOHN HARVEY, OF CODDINGTON, GENT.

COUNSEL FOR THE PROSECUTION,
MR. CLARKE, SERJEANT VAUGHAN, MR. READER, MR. REYNOLDS, and MR. JOHN BALGUY.
Solicitors—Messers. ALLSOPP and WELLS.

COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT,
MR. DENMAN and MR. PHILLIPS.
Solicitor—Mr. HURST.

Sutton was not sentenced at these Assizes: he subsequently appealed, and later articles will cover this.