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

My Lord

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

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

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

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

I have [etc]
C.W. Ethelston

Longsight
Manchr
Feby 11th 1818

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

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

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

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

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

Lincolns Inn
Jan. 26. 1813.

Sir,

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

I have [etc]
H. Hobhouse

[To] J Beckett Esq

[Written in margin]

27. —

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

13th November 1812: The Government authorises prosecuting one of the Manchester 38

Lincoln's Inn
13th Novr 1812

Sir

In pursuance of the directions contained in your Letter of the [illegible] inst transmitting (amongst others) copies of Informations agst Edmund Newton now confined in Lancaster Castle, I have laid a case before the Attorney and Solicitor General which I have the honor to inclose with their opinion thereon.

I am [etc]

H.Hobhouse

[To] J. Beckett Esq
&c &c &c

Case

The King agt. Edmund Newton

Among the 38 Persons who were tried at the Last Lancaster Assizes for administering an unlawful Oath to Saml. Fleming and acquitted, was Edmund Newton against whom some of the persons that took the benefit of the Indemnity Clause in the Act of the last Sessions escaped before the conclusion of the assizes that he had administered the like Oath to them. The Magistrates before whom these Depositions were made therefore retained Newton, and the Depositions have been transmitted to the Secretary of State, and are now laid before the Attorney and Solicitor General for their consideration and advice.

If the Acts of twisting in the several Persons stated in the Information were distinct from those for which Newton has been tried and acquitted, we think he seems a very proper object to be prosecuted for the offences stated in these Informations, but endeavours should be used to obtain confirmatory Evidence.—

Thos. Plumer
W Garrow
Lincoln's Inn
12 Nov: 1812.

16th October 1812: John Lloyd informs General Acland of a report from the Luddite turned spy, Yarwood

Genl.

The Information which Yarwood gave to me and, which I have now the honor to communicate was that Wm. Parry of the Higher Hillgate in Stockport remained a Delegate yet employed for the Weavers

That Joseph Nixon a lame man living in Holme Street Stockport told him (Yarwood) on Thursday the 8th Oct that he (Nixon) & 4 or 5 more were sworn to be faithful to the old concern, and the oath was administered at the Boars Head in Stockport — That there was to be a meeting at Offerton as last night (I sent out & have not yet got any report)—

Persons of the names of Leech Bancroft Schofield & David Nichols whose residence he describes are, he says, implicated in this newly formed confederacy

Yarwood says he has reason to know that the Dinner given upon the discharge of the 38 from Lancaster was paid for by Major Cartwright on Mr Brougham — and he also gave me Information of minor consequence — not that I think any thing important about the new society being formed—

I have the honor to be
General
Your very obedient
humble Servant

J. Lloyd

Huddersfield 16 Oct 1812

[To: General Acland]

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

Sir

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

I am [etc]
Josh Nadin

Manchester
Police Office
Octr 11th, 1812

[To: General Acland]

9th October 1812: The Stockport Solicitor, John Lloyd, informs the Home Office that Humphrey Yarwood is now employed as a spy

Private

Sir

We are applying Yarwood at manchester in consequence of the overtures made by some of the 38 discharged from  Lancaster — and I believe he now attends their meetings at manchester, and will communicate any particulars that may be material. —

I expect to find him at Stockport on my return tonight

Your very obedient
humble Servant
J Lloyd

Congleton 9th October 1812

[To: Home Secretary]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas Cooke. I have nothing to state.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Buckley. There is nothing I wish to say.

John Newton. I have nothing to say.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case of the defence was then concluded.

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

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

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

18th August 1812: John Knight of the 'Manchester 38' writes to his wife from Lancaster Castle

Unbeknown to them, the letters of the 'Manchester 38' - imprisoned and awaiting trial at Lancaster Castle - were being intercepted, copied and sent to the Home Office. This is John Knight's letter to his wife, written on  Tuesday 18th August 1812:

“Soon after our arrival here we had the audacity to petition to be indulged with a Newspaper at our own Expence—on which occasion our Governor told us the Bible would suit us better and be more useful to us and with which our Day room was furnished—Accordingly I have sometimes spent an Hour in looking therein, and I there often find the Rich accused with oppressing the poor—the author of the Book of Proverbs condemns the oppressor, so does the writer of Job, Psalms, Ecclesiates, and the Prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, but these writers always represent the Rich as oppressing the poor, nor have I been able to find one Instance where the poor are accused of oppressing the Rich—but now things seem to be changed, the poor are now considered as being a burden to the rich, how can this change have come to pass think you, is it not done by a System of Legislation which instantaniously converts the produce of the Labour of the poor into the property of the Rich, and this to such a Degree that in some cases the Industrious Poor are dependent upon the Bounty of the Rich for a maintenance the Produce of their Labor being insufficient for the purpose—We read also of those who add House to House and Field to Field by taking the poor man's Labor for nought, and is not this attempted to be affected three Ways, ie, First by advancing the Rent of Land (though we read the Earth is the Lords and the people the Sheep of his Pasture—Second by increasing the System of Taxation. Third by the rapid Improvements in machinery by which they render manual Labor less necessary therefore redundant and then reduce the Wages thereof. We also read “thou shalt not muzzle the Ox that treadeth out the Corn,” from which Saint Paul infers, that if the Law secured to the laboring Ox a maintenance there could be no doubt of the laboring man being entitled to a maintenance see 1 Cor IX Chapter.”

30th July 1812: General Maitland writes to the Home Office about enforcing the Peace Preservation Act

Buxton 30th July
1812

My dear Sir

I received the Bill last night, & will write you what is done under it.

We have a sad Practise of being extremely ready to apply, for an extension of Authority, and great remissness when it comes of carrying it into effect.

My own view of the Subject, which I shall enforce as much as I can is, to carry into effect the Provisions of the 2nd Clause generally, and mildly, & to reserve the 1st Clause for particular Cases, of strong suspicion or positive Information and my Opinion is, that the carrying the 2nd into general effect, will go a great Way to preclude the necessity of acting in the first.

General Acland received a letter yesterday, from Major of Brigade Chamberlain who has been collecting Information at Chelmsford, he has sent down the General Heads but not the particulars, Pray be good enough to forward them.

I have no particular Information to give you, and still think, the thing will be got under. They now are cloaking their Meetings under the Colour of Peace and Parliamentary Reform, and are levying Subscriptions to pay the Expence of the Trials of the ensuing Assizes at Lancaster.

They have all a long shewn great solicitude, about the 37 men that were seized at one Meeting, as you may recollect at Manchester, and I am much afraid, unless new Evidence can be procured, most of these will be acquitted, which would be a thing infinitely to be regretted, for though we might not be able to get legal Proof I have no doubt of their Guilt.

Ever
Your’s
T Maitland

[To] John Beckett Esqr
Under Secretary of State
&c &c &c

25th July 1812: Captain Francis Raynes informs General Maitland of a Luddite meeting near Stockport

The Arden Arms on Ashton Road, Bredbury - photo copyright David Dixon

Roe cross near Mottram
25th July 1812

Sir,

I think it necessary to inform you a meeting of the Luddites, is to take place tomorrow afternoon about 4 o'clock in the Ardens Arms Castle Hill two miles from Stockport

The Meeting as far as I can learn is for the purpose of collecting money for the Prisoners in Lancaster Jail—

I request Sir, to be informed of the result, tomorrow night, by two or three persons I know will be there.

I have [etc]
Francis Raynes Capt
Stirlingshire &c Militia

To
Lieutenant General Maitland
&c &c &c

7th July 1812: Colonel Fletcher & his spy, John Stones, observe the 'Manchester 38' in Gaol

In his account of the arrest and trial of the 'Manchester 38', John Knight recounts a chilling episode that took place at the New Bailey prison in Salford on either Tuesday the 7th or Wednesday 8th July 1812:

On the 7th or 8th July, Higgins, the gaoler, accompanied by a magistrate of Bolton, named Ralph Fletcher, and a notorious character, of the name of Stones, came into each yard, and ordered in every yard the prisoners belonging to the thirty-eight, to separate themselves from the other, and then viewed our persons minutely, for a considerable time, with earnest attention.

This was no doubt aimed at fixing any of the '38' that John Stones had come across during his infiltration of the underground workers' organisations during the last few months.

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

Lancaster Castle 4 July 1812

Sir,

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

Your most obedient Servant

John Higgin,

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

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

J. Read

10th July 1812.*

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

23rd June 1812: Colonel Ralph Fletcher informs the Home Office about links between Huddersfield & Manchester

Bolton 23 June 1812

Dear Sir

The following Extract from B’s weekly report I think it proper to transmit

“Subscriptions are set on foot to relieve the 38 men committed from Manchester last Week — and also for the Relief of their Families. The Citizens say that the ablest Council in the Kingdom are returned to defend them — amongst whom are Scarlett—Williams—Brougham & Halley.

A Delegate from Glasgow past through Manchester on Tuesday 17th instant he is for London and says that the People think the time long & some of them are impatient for a Start whilst others relax in their Efforts as believing the Business cannot be done this Season—They have (taken in 40 miles round Glasgow) 56,000 men who can be depended on. He lamented the Blow given to the Cause by the Manchester Apprehensions & Commitments, as the then intended Petitioning might have united the Whole of the Country. He declined giving his address—but his Name is Robinson. He is about 5 feet 4 Inches high—dark complexion His nose rather sharp, about 40 years of age—dressed in Blue, with short Boots. He expects to return in Twelve days intending to pass through Leeds and to stop a day or two there if possible, and should cause Information to be sent to our Town such as is necessary to be known.”

B acquaints me that the Huddersfield Luddites—according to their Delegates report – have 300 Stand of arms in one depot and 225 Stand in another – also 9 Blunderbusses – and a vast (or abundance) of Pistols, which last they keep by them for an Emergency. When a General meeting takes place among them, he said, it consists of Captains of Hundred – and Commanders of Thousands—and these when sent on any Delegacy are sworn to Secrecy & to do their duty to the best of their power—There men are regularly classed in a thousand each—and Seven of such Classes to constitute a Legion—They (viz the Huddersfield Luds) will pay their Subscriptions towards defraying the Expenses of defending the Prisoners at Lancaster. B is directing his endeavours to discover the Depots before alluded to—and untill I receive his particular Communication in this respect – I think it will be unnecessary to mention it to General Maitland, but as soon as any probable Situation where these arms are collected can be ascertained I will lose not a moment in making the Information known to him according to your directions as contained in your last—I conveyed Job Fletchers declaration to the General on Saturday last—

My principal motive for troubling yourself this Communication – was to describe Robinson the Glasgow delegates person that if he could be recognized & watched to his hiding place in London it might be possible to grasp at the persons who compose the superior Committee there & their place of meeting

I have [etc]
Ra: Fletcher

To John Beckett Esqr

17th June 1812: General Maitland expresses concerns about the prosecution of the Manchester 38

Manchester
17th June
1812

My dear Lord.

Since I addressed, you yesterday, I have grounds, for thinking, the Men, taken up here lately, will not, be liable, to severe Punishment, unless the fact, of their administering, Illegal Oaths, can be brought home, which at present, I own is extremely doubtful.

I am endeavouring, to try, to get some of them, to inform, and am not, without hopes, this may be accomplished, with the Aid, of some Money, and a little management.

The collecting of Arms, and Nocturnal Meetings, has gone, very great lengths indeed, and generally speaking, their mode of acting, shows much greater caution, and organization, than could be wished, their Signals, are extremely well established, and have hitherto, defeated every attempt, to get hold of them.

The Reports, of their intentions, are various, but notwithstanding, the repetition of these Meetings, I certainly do not believe, either in the extent, of their Numbers, or in their organization, for any End, further, than the stealing of Arms.

I am going, as I mentioned yesterday, to meet the Magistrates, of Stockport, when your Lordship, shall hear, further from me, and you may rely upon it, there shall, be no want, of execution on my part, to get at the bottom, of the whole, of this unpleasant Business, which I am confident much exaggerated but still not to be slept on.

I am [etc]
T Maitland
Right Honble
Lord Viscount
Sidmouth
&c &c &c

17th June 1812: The Manchester Magistrates send information about the Manchester 38 to the Home Office

[Copy]

Gent.

I am sorry to have occasion to transmit to you Informations &c against 38 Men who were assembled at a meeting on Thursday night the 11th Inst at a Public House a sign of the Prince Regents Arms in Ancoats Lane kept by one Brown = Nadin having Private Information of this Meeting, went with Military Assistance to the Place—surrounded the House and apprehended every Man at the Meeting—The Prisoners on their Examination which took place on Saturday last endeavoured to Shelter themselves under the pretence of being assembled for the purpose of preparing an address to the Prince Regent and a Petition to the House of Commons for Peace and some Papers to this effect were found in the Room—but I have no doubt this was a mere pretext, if there be any Truth in our Information the meeting was not for this but for the purpose of aiding and assisting in a most wicked conspiracy tending to overturn the Constitution and Government of this Country, you will see the Plot pretty fully explained by Samuel Fleming in this Information now sent to you, he gave Nadin notice of this meeting and was employed to attend the Meeting to be twisted in, which he accomplished and gave Information to the Magistrates—I trust he will be so far confirmed that by his Testimony these wicked Men will be brought to Justice—I do not know how the Witness is to be protected ‘till the Assizes, his Life no doubt is in danger and has been threatened, he has been obliged to fly from his House, and he, his Wife and three Children are now under our Protection. He and his House and little property are guarded by the Military—You will have the goodness to give us your directions how this Man and his Family shall be disposed of that we may have the benefit of his Testimony at the Assizes, and that he may be protected from Violence notwithstanding the great Vigilance and attention paid by the Magistrates to preserve the Peace, I am sorry to say things bear a very serious aspect in this, and the neighbouring Counties. Please to favour me with an Answer,

I am for self & Partners*

(JB)

(Signed) Nathanial Milne

Manchester
June 17th. 1812.

16th June 1812: General Maitland updates the new Home Secretary, Lord Sidmouth, about the situation in the North West

Manchester
16th June
1812

My Lord

On my Way here, I met the General Officers, of the Inland District at Derby.

Their information, relative to the State of the Country, was in general satisfactory, and in particular, the account, of the Local Militia, was in all points, exactly what we could wish.

In Nottinghamshire, the numerous Detachments, which had antecedently, been scattered, about the Country, were generally called in, and it had been attended, with no evil effect, or only apparent uneasiness, on the part of the Country Gentleman.

I am sorry however, to be obliged, to report, that the Aspect of things here, is by no means improved.

[Nocturnal Meetings, are more frequent than ever, and stealing of Arms, carried on, with great perseverance]

The Site of these Movements, is in the corner of Cheshire, touching upon Yorkshire, and Lancashire, in the Neighbourhood, and to the Eastward, of Ashton, Stockport, and Mottram. Peculiar difficulty, occurs to the Military, doing any thing, in this Quarter, from the total want, of Magistracy, and objections, are made, but all the Magistrates, to act and reside there. “To Wit” Mottram and its Neighbourhood.

At the same time, it is evidently necessary, but a stop, should be put, to these illegal proceedings, without delay. [I therefore wish to be distinctly informed, how far according to Law, the Military have right to act, against such Meetings, where some are Armed, without the interference, of a Magistrate.

If this, be decided, in favor of the Military, being able to act, I have no doubt, we shall be able, to get at them, but on the other hand, if a Magistrate, must attend, I fear we have little to expect.]

I propose however tomorrow, to call a Meeting, of the Magistracy, at Stockport, where I shall state, my readiness, to make such a disposition, as will enable us, to get at some, of these Meetings, provided, they will find, any Body, to act with us, and see, what we can make out.

I own however, from them, I expect, but little. On this important Subject, I shall have occasion, to trouble you, tomorrow.

You will have hear’d e’er now, that 38 were seized, at a Meeting, in this Place, I doubt however, whether it would not, have been much better, to have let, the thing go on, till we were more deeply, informed as to the extent of their Views. At present nothing attaches, unless they can bring home, the Administering Illegal Oaths. I understand the Parties are most of them, Men of suspicious Characters.

I have [etc]
T Maitland

[To] Rt Honble
Lord Viscount
Sidmouth
&c &c &c

10 OClock PM

Since writing the enclosed I have received by Express from Major Genl Dyott the accompanying letters, which sufficiently explain themselves—

I have further the honor of enclosing you the Answers I have sent both Public and Private.

TM.

14th June 1812: William Robert Hay informs the Home Office of the arrest and committal of the 'Manchester 38'

Police Office Manchester 14 June 1812.

Sir,

I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated June 11th and have to state for Lord Sidmouths information that 38 persons are at present here under commitment to Lancaster Castle on a charge of administering an unlawful Oath to a man of the name of Samuel Fleming & of being present at and consenting to the administration of such Oath.

Of these men 37 had met at a public house in this town on Thursday night — there were delegates from different parts of the Country — the proposed purpose of their meeting was to promote a petition and address the peace & parliamentary reform. At this meeting Fleming was twisted in, and, having got away, information was conveyed to the Constable who with the assistance of military at ½ past eleven surrounded the house, and took the whole party into custody. The 38th man was the person who introduced Fleming to be twisted in, but did not remain in the room, but waited down Stairs. The informations I will direct to be forwarded as soon as may be, but they are long, and took the whole of yesterday in preparing. I have the honor to be, Sir, with great respect,

Your [etc]
William Robert Hay

To
John Beckett Esqr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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