2nd March 1813: Thomas Shillitoe visits the families of Thomas Smith, Nathan Hoyle & James Hey, and meet Joshua Schofields

On Tuesday 2nd March 1813, the Quaker missionary, Thomas Shillitoe, continued his visits to the families of the Luddites executed at York, accompanied again by Joseph Wood:

Third-day, accompanied by John King and James Lees, Friends of Brighouse meeting, we proceeded to Sutcliffe-wood-bottom, to sit with the parents of Thomas Smith, his sister, and her husband—he also suffered for rioting. At the time I was engaged in addressing the company, a young man opened the door, came in, and immediately left again; on which I felt a stop against proceeding, and was obliged to request the young man might be sought for to give us his company, which taking place, I was able to proceed. This young man's mind became so wrought upon in the opportunity, that it became evident to all present. After having closed what I had given me for the family, my mouth was again opened with nearly these words:—"It is not in man that walketh to direct his own steps aright, the Lord alone must have the ordering of them, who does at times order our steps, but we know it not; which appears to me to have been the case this day with the young man who came in amongst us;" after which, my companion addressed him in a very feeling manner. After the opportunity was over, he walked with us a short distance: his mind appeared much broken, and under a remarkable visitation. He told my companion, he had been apprehended with the rest of the prisoners, and confined in the castle, but was discharged on bail; that he was twenty-two years of age, and his name was Joshua Schofield; that he knew nothing of our being in the house, nor could tell what brought him there, as he had no business with the family.

In the afternoon we went to Scar-coat-green. Our first visit was to the widow and five children of Nathaniel Hoyle—he suffered for robbery: they lived with her aged father and sister, who sat with us, and who appeared to be under great difficulty themselves, to procure the necessaries of life: their situation to us appeared to be a very pitiable one. We next proceeded to the house of James [Hey], who left a widow, not twenty-one years of age, and two children: the sufferer's parents gave us their company; we were favoured with a comfortable time together. We went into the cottage of the parents; had a satisfactory opportunity with two brothers of the sufferer, and then proceeded to Hand-green: the father of James [Hey] very acceptably gave us his company.

16th January 1813: Lieutenant Cooper informs General Acland of the preparation for the funerals of Luddites near Elland

Elland 16th January [1813]

Sir

I have the Honor to acknowledge the receipt of yours of this day containing your Orders for circumspection at the Funerals of the Culprits executed this Morning and shall take great care to perform the duty enjoined me to your satisfaction.

The two Men who lived in North Deane, (Job Hay and John Hill) should their Bodies be brought home, will probably be buried at Elland. Two of them (James Hey and Nathan Hoyle) who lived at Skircoate Green, within a Mile of Halifax, will I should think be buried at the latter place, and the other two William Hartley and Joseph Crowther of Sowerby, where there is or was a Detachment of the Stirling, will be buried there, and the two latter places being so near Halifax could have Troops in case of emergency more suddenly from that place I could attend myself, I shall however, unless I receive orders from you to the contrary, have Agents to attend each funeral that I may Report to you the sensations and conduct of the people attending.

If it meets Your approbation I will send a Copy of your Instructions to me, concerning the Funerals, to Major Bruce.

I have had many of the principle Inhabitants of Elland with me this morning who are greatly alarmed at the prospect of the Soldiers leaving them, they have call’d a Meeting and I will have the Honor of reporting fully to morrow according to the directions I received from you on Thursday last.

The Orderly reports all is quiet on his Road hither

I have [etc]
Alf. Cooper Lieut.
West Suffolk Militia

[To] Major General Acland,
&c. &c. &c.
Wakefield.

16th January 1813: The 14 convicted Luddites are executed at York Castle

A contemporary illustration, from York Castle Prison, of an execution at the 'New Drop' after 1802.

On Saturday 16th January 1813, the fourteen Luddites sentenced to death 4 days previously were hanged at York Castle. It had been decided to hang them in two groups of seven: an anecdote has it that the counsel for the prosecution asked Baron Thomson after sentencing if they were to be hung together, and he responded "Well no, sir, I consider they would hang more comfortably on two."

There are two main contemporary accounts of the execution in both the Leeds papers, with the longest being printed in the Leeds Mercury of 23rd January 1813. This is below, with notes added in square brackets.

After sentence of death had been passed upon the persons convicted of making the attack on Mr. Cartwright’s Mill, at Rawfolds, and of the Burglaries, fifteen in number, all of them except John Lumb, who was reprieved, were removed to the condemned-ward, and their behaviour in that place was very suitable to their unhappy situation. They confessed that they had offended against the laws of God and their Country, but on the subject of the offence, for which the sentence of death was passed upon them, they were very reserved; yet all of them except one, tacitly confessed that they were guilty of the crimes which they stood convicted, when they were asked if any of them could say they were not guilty, they all remain silent except James Haigh and Nathan Hoyle, the former of whom said, “I am guilty,” and the latter, “I am innocent;” this was the day before the execution; but Hoyle did not make any declaration to that effect when brought to the platform. Their minds for the most part had attained an extraordinary degree of composure; except the mind of John Ogden—he appeared some time to be much disturbed, but on the question being put to him whether his agitation arose from any discovery that he had to make, and with the weight of which his conscience was oppressed? he answered, no; his agitation arose from the terrors of his situation.

And here it seems proper to observe, that if any of these unfortunate men possessed any secret that it might have been important to the public to know, they suffered it to die with them. Their discoveries were meagre in the extreme. Not one of them impeached any of their accomplices, nor did they state, as might reasonably have been expected, where the depot of arms, in the collection of which some of them had been personally engaged, was to be found. When interrogated on this point, some of them disclaimed all knowledge of the place, and others said, Benjamin Walker, the informer against Mellor, Thorpe, and Smith, could give the best information about the arms, as he had been present at most of the depredations. On the question being put to them whether they knew who was concerned in the robbery of a mill (not Rawfolds) near Cleckheaton; James Hey said, “I and Carter the informer were present at the robbery.” It was observed to James Hey, that it was very extraordinary, that he who had the advantage of a religious education, his Father being of the Methodist Society, should have come to such a disgraceful situation; to which replied, in a manner that shewed that his vices, however flagrant, had not extinguished in his bosom the feelings of filial affection, I hope, said he, “the son’s crimes will never be imputed to his father.” The principal part of these ill-fated men were married and have left families. William Hartley, has left seven children, their mother, happily for herself, died about half a year ago. John Ogden, wife and two children; Nathan Hoyle, wife and seven children; Joseph Crowther, wife pregnant, and four children; John Hill, wife and two children; John Walker, wife and five children; Jonathan Dean, wife and seven children; Thomas Brook, wife and three children; John Swallow, wife and six children; John Batley, wife and one child; John Fisher, wife and three children; Job Hey, wife and seven children; James Hey, wife and two children; James Haigh, wife, but no children. On the morning before the execution, the eldest daughter of Hartley obtain permission to visit a wretched parent, when a scene took place which we will not attempt to describe. The heart-broken father wished to have been spared the anguish of this parting interval, but the importunate intreaties of his child a last prevailed, and they met to take a long farewell, never again to be repeated in this world. What must be the feelings of an affectionate father, (for such in this trying moment he appears to have shewn himself,) when, though standing on the brink of eternity, he declines to see a darling child; how great an aggravation of his punishment must those parting pangs of inflicted, and how loud an admonition does this melancholy incident suggest to the Fathers of families against entering into combinations that may place them in the same inexpressibly afflicted situations. It was Hartley’s particular request that the public should be informed of the number and unprovided situation of his orphan family.

At 11 o'clock on Saturday morning, the Under Sheriff went to demand the bodies of John Ogden, Nathan Hoyle, Joseph Crowther, John Hill, John Walker, Jonathan Dean, and Thomas Brook. They were all engaged in singing a hymn:

Behold the Saviour of Mankind,
Nail’d to the shameful tree;
How vast the love that him inclin’d
To bleed and for me, &c.

Which one of them [John Walker, according to the Leeds Intelligencer] dictated in a firm tone of voice; and in this religious service they continued on their way to the platform, and some time after they had arrived at the fatal spot. They then join the ordinary with great fervency in the prayers appointed to be read on such occasions, and after that gentleman had taken his final leave of them, ejaculations to the throne of mercy rose from every part of the crowded platform.

Joseph Crowther addressing himself to the spectators said, “Farewell Lads;” another whose name we could not collect said, “I am prepared for the Lord,” and John Hill, advancing a step or two on the platform, said, “Friends! all take warning by my fate; for three years I followed the Lord, but about half a year since, I began to fall away; and fell by little and little, and at last I am come to this; persevere in the ways of godliness, and O! take warning by my fate!” The executioner then proceeded to the discharge of his duty, and the falling of the platform soon after, forced an involuntary shriek from the vast concourse of spectators assembled to witness this tremendous sacrifice to the injured laws of the country.

The bodies having remained suspended for the usual time [12.00 p.m.], they were removed, and while the place of execution was yet warm with the blood of the former victims, the remaining seven, namely, John Swallow, John Batley, Joseph Fisher, William Hartley, James Haigh, James Hey, and Job Hey, were led at half-past one o'clock from their cell to the fatal stage, their behaviour, like that of their deceased confederates, was contrite and becoming; James Haigh expressed deep contrition for his offences. John Swallow said he had been led away by wicked and unprincipled men, and hoped his fate would be a warning to all, and teach them to live a life of sobriety and uprightness. They all united in prayer with an earnestness that is seldom witnessed in the services of devotion, except in the immediate prospect of death [the Leeds Intelligencer said they sung the same hymn as those executed earlier]. A few moments closed their mortal existence, and placed at the bar differing from all earthly tribunal's in this infinitely important particular—here, owing to the imperfections of all human institutions, repentance though sincere, cannot procure forgiveness—there, we have the authority of God himself for saying, that the cries of the contrite and broken-hearted shall not be despised. Charity hopeth all things.

The criminal records of Yorkshire do not perhaps afford an instance of so many victims having been offered in one day to the injured laws of the country. The scene was inexpressibly awful, and the large body of soldiers, both horse and foot, who guarded the approach to the castle, and were planted in front of the fatal tree, gave to the scene a peculiar degree of terror, and exhibited the appearance of a military execution. The spectators, particularly in the morning, were unusually numerous, and their behaviour on both occasions, were strictly decorous and unbecoming.

The site of the 'New Drop', where the executions took place (Google Street View)

12th January 1813: The trial of James Hey, Joseph Crowther & Nathan Hoyle for a robbery at Fartown

On Tuesday 12th January 1813, the remaining trials of the York Special Commission were held.

The first case was against James Hey (aged 25, a woollen-spinner), Joseph Crowther (31, a cotton-spinner) & Nathan Hoyle (45, a weaver) for the robbery of James Brook at Fartown on 29th November 1812 & for stealing from him and placing him in fear. All three pleaded Not Guilty.

James Alan Park set out the case of the prosecution, stating that James Brook was himself a poor man, a coal-miner and went to describe the prisoners “men in an inferior station in life”. An accomplice, Joseph Carter, was again witness for the Crown.

Park went on to describe the circumstances leading up to the raid: that a witness, Edward Crowther, took part in a conversation with Nathan Hoyle and another man called Jonas Mitchell on the day of the robberies at Deighton and Fartown where the plans for that evening were laid out, and it was proposed to meet at 7.00 p.m. that evening. The two other men did not turn up, but they met Hoyle the next day at noon, and Hoyle said the group had done ‘exceedingly well’.

Park stated that, in the evidence he gave when he was examined on 16th December, Joseph Crowther admitted he had taken part in the robberies, but that he was led on by the others.

A description of the raid was given, and the case was summed up by Mr. Justice Le Blanc. After that, James Brook gave evidence and related the raid in detail. Throughout his evidence, Brook would not positively swear that James Hey was the leader of the group who spoke to him that night.

Next, the witness for the Crown, Joseph Carter, gave evidence. Carter had taken part in the raids at Deighton & Fartown that night. Carter’s account of the raid at James Brook’s differed in some respects from the evidence given by Brook himself, principally in that he did not witness the words spoken and also threats made against Brook’s children in the house. Carter admitted that he had given evidence against his accomplices in the hope that it would save him.

The men that had got cold feet, Jonas Mitchell & Edward Crowther, also gave detailed evidence. Both men had given evidence to the magistrate, Joseph Radcliffe, after they had heard what had happened or had been taken up respectively.

The Huddersfield solicitor, John Allison, gave evidence that Joseph Crowther had given evidence of what had happened before Joseph Radcliffe freely ‘without promises of threats’, and Crowther’s evidence was read out in Court.

Two employers of James Hey, Robert Thomas Bradbury of Copley Mill and a Stephen Broadbent spoke about the good character of Hey. No one spoke for the two other prisoners.

The Jury retired at 12.20 p.m. and returned five minutes later, finding all three men Guilty.

19th December 1812: General Acland informs the Home Office about the suspects committed for the recent robberies

Huddersfield 19th December 1812.

My dear Sir.

I had in part anticipated your wishes previous to the receipt of your note to the 15th Inst—

But the cases were thought so good against

William Hill

Joseph Crowther

Job Hay

William Hartley

Nathan Hoyle

that they were committed yesterday and are gone this morning to York Castle.

Mr. Lloyd told me previous to commitment the cases were so strong, he should have no difficulty in going to trial at any time. The most doubtful case I apprehend to be Hoyle’s. The others acknowledge generally or in fact.

James Hay & [Carter] are committed to Wakefield, [Carter] is admitted on Evidence—Hay seems not only willing to speak out, but certainly can give much information, however whether it may be advisable to allow it now or after conviction Mr. Hobhouse will be the judge, to whom Mr. Lloyd rights by this Post & sends up the examinations — from whom you will therefore get particulars now fully detail’d, [till] I am enabled to do—

Three others are recommitted for further examination on Monday, but as far as any opinion can be form’d at present, it is most probable they will then be discharg’d—

I wrote to General Maitland on Thursday, but as I find he was to leave London yesterday, I take the liberty of sending you for Lord Sidmouth’s information a copy of my letter with an enclosure—

But as General Maitland during his stay in London is in daily communication with you, I consider’d it more regular to correspond with him, than to intrude myself unnecessarily on Lord Sidmouth or Yourself.

believe me My dear Sir
Yrs most faithfully

Wroth: P: Ackland

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

14th December 1812: James Hey confesses to robberies at Deighton & Fartown, implicates others

On Monday 14th December 1812, Major Hankin of the 2nd Dragoons took the confession of a man recently arrested under suspicion of being involved in the robberies at Deighton & Fartown on 29th November last.

James Hey was a 25 year-old wollen-spinner from Skircoat. Hey admitted to being involved in the robberies with 3 others only: Joseph Holroyd (alias Carter), Joseph Crowther (a 31 year-old cotton-spinner from Sowerby) and Nathan Hoyle (a 45 year-old weaver from Skircoat). He deposed that after the robberies had taken place, they had planned to divide the cash and goods at the house of Holroyd, but decided against when Holroyd said his mother was living with him. Instead, they went to Hey's house. The two watches seized were old for 40 shillings, and this money was divided equally.

Hey went on to discuss how the group of Luddites he said he belonged to was organised: in groups ('classes') of ten men, with one 'head man' over them - that his 'head man' was Job Hey, a man seized five days previously. That although he belonged to a larger division of 200 Luddites, the 'head man' never 'communicated particulars' to the ten men, only when they were needed, and what for, and what role they would play on that occasion. Despite describing himself as a Luddite, James Hey stated that he had never sworn an illegal oath, nor been assigned a number.

A day later, Hey added to his confession, stating that the gunpowder found at the 'head man' Job Hey's house was for use by his class of ten men.

Aspects of Hey's evidence contradicted that given by those robbed on 29th November: in particular, Joshua Thornton was clear that 6 men had entered his home that night, and John Woods had desposed that 9 men had been involved, and that afterwards each of the Luddites had given their number when the roll had been called. We do not know what pressure was brought to bear on Hey, but one of those he implicated, Joseph Holroyd, was later to crack and turn King's Evidence against the other 3.