16th January 1817: James Large & Joseph Allen sentenced to 14 years transportation for frame-breaking at Leicester

On Thursday 16th January 1817, Joseph Allen & James Large were convicted of frame-breaking at Leicester Quarter Sessions and sentenced to 14 years transportation.

Their case had come to court after Allen had voluntarily confessed the previous December.  The frame-breaking incident took place on 17th June 1815. It is not clear when James Large had become involved, since the previous press article mentions only a man named John Ross as an accomplice at that stage, and he was not charged due to lack of evidence.

30th October 1816: Croppers lose wages case at Pontefract Sessions

A court case regarding Croppers' wages that came before Pontefract Sessions is a good example of how the spectre of Luddism was invoked to arguably alter the outcome. It is noteworthy that the case lasted 14 hours. The case was reported in the Leeds Mercury of 2nd November 1816:

COURT OF THE HONOUR OF PONTEFRACT.

[Illegible] [Beresford], Oct. 30th, 1816.

Before JOHN HARDY, ESQ.

[BROWBRIDGE] and KITCHEN, v. LISTER.

This was an action to recover the sum of £3 17s. 9d. due to the Plaintiff for wages on the balance of an account, three pounds and three pence was paid into Court; the only question was, whether the further sums of seventeen shillings was also due unto Plaintiffs. As this cause has excited some interest, we shall, without entering into a detail of the evidence, state the nature of it in as few words as possible.

The Plaintiffs are working cloth-dressers, and the Defendant is a master cloth-dresser, residing in this town. In the month of July last, the Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant to dress for him 23 pieces of cloth for the Russian contract. It was stated by the witnesses of the Defendant, that when about six of these pieces had been done, Mr. Lister stated to the Plaintiffs that the pieces were only to be backed and not half dressed, an operation which was explained as requiring less labour, and that the price would be reduced from five to four shillings a piece. This proposal being demurred to, Mr. Lister said he would give the same price as other dressers gave for goods dressed in a similar manner. No objection appears to have been made at the time to this proposal: but upon a settlement of accounts, the Plaintiffs demanded 5s. a piece, and refused to take less. Several witnesses were also called to shew that 4s. shillings a piece was as much as was given by other dressers, and was a fair and full price for this species of dressing, and that by reasonable industry 30s. a week might be earned at that rate. On the part of the Plaintiffs several witnesses were called, the object of whose evidence was to prove, that the alteration in the price had not been mentioned to them until the whole of the pieces, except three or four, had been dressed; it was also contended by the Plaintiffs, that as the whole 23 pieces had been delivered the Plaintiffs to dress at the understood price of 5s. a piece, no alteration in this parcel could take place without the consent of both parties. Mr. Hardy said, there were two questions for the Jury to decide: first, was there a special contract? if there was, was that contract four or five shillings a piece? If there was no contract, the Jury would then have to determine from the evidence, what was a full and fair price for the labour performed upon the cloth. If they found that there was a contract, and that the contract was for 5s. a piece, the Plaintiffs would be entitled to recover the sum claimed. If four shillings a piece was the contract, the Defendant would be entitled to a verdict. If there was no contract, the Jury would then find for the plaintiffs or for the Defendant, as the evidence should satisfy then, that five or four shillings was a fair price for the dressing of this cloth. Mr. Hardy said, the Jury were to dismiss from their minds all the insinuations which had been thrown out as to the Plaintiffs belonging to an illegal combination; this was a charge, which, whether true or false, they had nothing to do with. Mr. Hardy then proceeded to make some observations on the ruinous nature of these kind of combinations; he observed, that labour, like all other things, would best find its own level, and that all confederacies to keep it up were destructive, because they had a tendency to drive trade and manufactures to other countries, and he mentioned Nottingham as an instance of the fatal effects of this system, and stated, that in consequence of the frame-breaking, which had been so long carried on there, the manufacturers were rapidly removing from that town neighbourhood, and that these deluded men had taken the most effectual means of depriving themselves of the means of subsistence. The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.

The Court, with the adjournment of one hour, remained sitting from ten o'clock on Wednesday morning until about two o'clock in the morning of the following day.

24th July 1816: Bury Quarter Sessions ends with sentences for machine-breakers and others

The Bury & Norwich Post of 31st July 1816 carried details of the sentences for prisoners tried at the Bury Quarter Sessions for various events that had taken place in east Anglia in previous months:

Bury Quarter Sessions did not terminate till Wednesday afternoon, when the following sentences were passed on the several prisoners, convicted subsequent to our last week's paper being put to the press:— 

Thomas Meers, Geo. Farrant, sen. Stephen Clarke, Mary Jackson, and Richard Rogers, for breaking a threshing machine at Stoke by Clare, the property of Mr. J. Wales, 12 months’ imprisonment each; George Farrant, jun. and W. Jackson, 6 months; George Frost, 3 months; C. Meers, T. Swallow, Wm. Turner, John Deeks, Sarah Jackson, and J. Angel were discharged on their own recognizance. 

Jonas Taylor, Wm. Seeley, and Jeremiah Osborn, for destroying two threshing machines, the property of Mr. Thos. Kemp, 13 months’ imprisonment; and Jas. Seeley, Jas. Howard, and Jas. Burroughs, were acquitted. 

William Edwards, for conspiring with several others with a view of inducing labourers to form themselves into a society for raising their wages, &c. at Wattisham, and elsewhere, 9 months’ imprisonment, and to find sureties for his good behaviour for one year.—No true bills against Wm. Abbott and John Payne, charged with the same offence. 

Robert Leader, Henry Poole, Robt. Durham, John Smith, John Abbott, Wm. Howe, Wm. Halls, for riotously assembling at Rattlesden and breaking a mole plough, the property of Mr. Benjamin Morgan, of Gedding; the said Robt. Leader, (styled commander) two years’ imprisonment in one of his Majesty's gaols, and the other six 12 months each; J. Button, Benj. Buxton, J. Chinnery, T. Durham, B. Steggles, R. Osborn, M. Moore, R. Baxter, Chas. and r. Cobble, Ezekiel Buxton, Mesach Moore, Jas. Southgate, J. Bird, G. King, J. Folkerd, John Steggles, T. Mattock, and J. Clover, 3 months each, or until they find sureties to keep the peace for one year, which they all procured in Court and were discharged; Wm. Richer, W. Nunn, R. Folkerd, and R. Gladwell, pleaded guilty, and were allowed to be at large on their own recognizance; & J. Golding was acquitted.

A week later, the Bury & Norwich Post corrected their coverage of the trial of another incident at Clare with the following information:

In the account of our quarter-sessions last week, we omitted the names of Jacob Halls, Sam. Gridley, Rhinaldo Bareham, and Henry Atherton, convicted of burning a threshing machine at Clare: the former of whom were sentenced to 13 months, and the latter to 9 months' imprisonment.

19th July 1816: 7 labourers jailed for assault at Cambridge Quarter Sessions

On Friday 19th July 1816 at Cambridge Quarter Sessions, 7 labourers who had assembled with others at Swaffham Bulbeck in May to demand higher wages were tried. The Cambridge Chronicle of 26th July carried a brief report:

At the Quarter Sessions for this county, on Friday last, William Ullyar [actually Hullier], James Thompson, John Stickwood, Joseph Flack, John Fordham, and William Clements, were indicted for riotously assembling at Swaffham Bulbeck, in May last, and also for assaulting William Manning.—It appeared that about 50 labouring men, amongst whom were the prisoners, assembled together for the purpose of demanding an increase of wages, and that they endeavoured to persuade Manning to accompany them; on his refusal, they assaulted him, and treated him very ill. The evidence of the riotous conduct of the prisoners was not sufficient for conviction, but they were all found guilty of the assault, and the three former sentenced to be imprisoned six months, and the latter three months, in the county gaol.—

16th July 1816: One rioter imprisoned for Norwich riot in May 1816

On Tuesday 16th July 1816, the Norwich Quarter Sessions commenced & the trials included cases of rioting that took place in the city in May.

The Bury & Norwich Post of 24th July reported the following:

Robert Hatton, the younger, was tried for a misdemeanour, in having, together with other persons unknown, riotously assembled in the Market-place of this city, on the evening of the 17th of May last, and acted in a violent and tumultuous manner. On being called upon for his defence, the prisoner threw himself upon the mercy of the jury, who after a few minutes deliberation, returned a verdict of Guilty, but recommended the prisoner to the mercy of the Court. He was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment in Norwich Bridewell.—No true bill was found against Hardy Sheppard, who had been committed for a similar offence.

Meanwhile, the Norfolk Chronicle of 20th July carried the following report:

Robert Hatton, the younger, was tried for a misdemeanour in having together with other persons unknown routously and riotously assembled in the Market-place of this city, on the evening of the 17th of May last, and for having acted in a violent and tumultuous manner upon that occasion. By the evidence of several very respectable persons, it was proved that the prisoner had on the above occasion, distinguished himself amongst the mob by exciting others to assist him in acts of violence, and particularly by endeavouring to frighten the horses upon which the cavalry were mounted, by means of a fireball, at a time when the cavalry were called out to aid the police in preserving or restoring the public peace. On being called upon for his defence, the prisoner threw himself upon the mercy of the jury, who after a few minutes deliberation returned a verdict of guilty, but recommended the prisoner to the mercy of the court. 

He was sentenced to three months present in Norwich Bridewell.  

No true bill was found against Hardy Sheppard, who had been committed for a similar offence.

19th January 1816: 19 men imprisoned for machine-breaking in Suffolk in 1815

On Friday 19th January 1816, the Cambridge Chronicle carried reports from two recent Quarter Sessions in the county, where cases of machine breaking that had taken place in Suffolk in 1815 were dealt with.

At the Ipswich Quarter Sessions 12 men (4 more than were initially charged) were tried for destroying a threshing machine at Holbrook, Suffolk the previous August:

At Ipswich sessions, Daniel Grimwood, Thomas Seager, Joseph Cook, Martin Gosling, ____ Sells, John Driver, Jerry Lucas, ____ Bayley, Robert Payne, Samuel Page, Robert Page, and S. Turner, were indicted for appearing in a riotous manner in the parish of Holbrook, on the 3d of August last, and there breaking and destroying a threshing machine, the property of John Roper, of Wilby.—Mr. Stocks, for the prosecutions, insisted upon the urgent necessity of supporting the laws, and after the evidence, which was full and conclusive, had been gone through, the prisoners were called upon for their defence, but they had little to urge except the difficulty of gaining employment, which they attributed to the use of machines.—Several persons were called, who gave them excellent characters. The Jury brought in the whole Guilty, and the sentence of the Court was,  that Grimwood, Seager, Cook, and Gosling should be imprisoned for twelve calendar months; Sells and two others, for nine months, and the remainder of the prisoners for six months.

At Woodbridge Quarter Sessions, a total of 7 men were tried for destroying 3 threshing machines in disturbances that had involved a total of 100 people the previous November:

At the quarter sessions at Woodbridge, Edmund Prime, Wm. Garnham, Wm. Bannister, John Abbott, Wm. Barker, and Thos, Stevens, charged with breaking machines in the parishes of Kenton and [Monk]-soham, and also for subsequent riot and misdemeanour, were found Guilty, and ordered to be imprisoned twelve months in the county gaol.—John Brunwin, for the like offence, was sentenced to be imprisoned six months in the same gaol.—It is much to be hoped that these necessary examples will have the effect of preventing such excesses for the future—excesses not only disastrous to the objects of them, but ruinous to the perpetrators.

16th January 1816: The Leeds Cloth Dressers Union case comes to court

On Tuesday 16th January 1816, the case of the Union Officers arrested and charged with aiding and abetting an illegal combination (i.e. Trade Union) by Leeds Magistrates in December was heard at Leeds Borough Quarter Sessions. The Leeds Mercury of 20th January 1816 gave a good summary of the proceedings:

TILLOTSON, SUNDERLAND, & OTHERS, Appellants, REX, Respondent. 

The Appellants, who are cloth-dressers, were convicted on Tuesday, the 19th of December last, by Whittell York, Esq. Mayor, and Thomas Ikin, Esq. on a charge of combining to hinder Messrs. Oates and Hardisty, cloth-merchants, of this town, from employing Thomas Marshall, as a cloth-dresser. Mr. Williams, who came from Preston for the purpose of sustaining the appeal, had been especially retained by the Appellants at a very considerable expence. His assistance, however, turned out to be unnecessary, as Mr. Maud, who was Counsel in support of the Conviction, stated to the bench that it was impossible the conviction could be legally sustained, as the Magistrates before whom the the conviction had taken place had no jurisdiction in the case, the act having especially provided, "that no Justice, being a master in any trade or manufacture, concerning which any offence is charged to have been committed should act in execution thereof." On this ground Mr. Maud said, the conviction must necessarily be quashed, for if that Court should affirm it, the Court of King's Bench would, would, under the circumstances of the case set such conviction aside. He concluded with moving that the conviction be quashed, to which the Court of course assented.—Conviction quashed.

17th July 1813: An attempted prosecution for Sedition at Bradford Sessions

On Saturday 17th July 1813 James Chapman, a worker at Bradley Mills in Huddersfield, stood trial at the Quarter Sessions at Bradford for uttering seditious expressions. The main witness against him was the zealous Huddersfield Constable George Whitehead, whom the Luddites had tried to assassinate in April 1812. The Leeds Mercury of 24th July carried a full report of the trial:

BRADFORD SESSIONS, July 17.

SEDITION CAUSE.

Mr. Wailes opened the pleadings by stating that James Chapman, the Defendant, by trade a Dyer, at Bradley Mills, was indicted for having a the 28th day of March last, in a public-house at Royds-Hall, near Huddersfield, used the following seditious words, with an intent to bring the Government of this country into contempt, and to alienate the minds of his Majesty's liege subjects:—"Damn the King, he is superannuated, and has been so for the last six and twenty years. We are governed by nothing but a set of damned whores, rogues and thieves. The Prince of Wales is a damned rogue, and the Princess of Wales a damned whore."

Mr. Maude very briefly stated the case for the prosecution. Some years ago he said offences of this nature were not uncommon, but happily of late charges of this kind very rarely engage the attention of the tribunals of this country. He lamented that a man in any situation should have subjected himself to be indicted for the use of such words as those charged upon the defendant, but more particularly that a person residing in a neighbourhood which had so recently been the scene of so much lawless outrage, should have expressed himself in such indecent and inflammatory language. It might have been supposed that the sacred character of Majesty with which the Prince Regent is at present clothed—that the deplorable malady under which it was the misfortune of our venerable sovereign at present to labour—and that the well established innocence of the Princess of Wales, after one of the most severe investigations that ever female conduct had been submitted to, would have protected those distinguished personages against the shafts of the defendant’s seditious malevolence; but this had not been the case, and he understood that the plea to be set up this day in his favour was drunkenness; but such a defence would not avail him, for it was well known that the effects of liquor were not to suggest seditious thoughts, but merely to remove those restraints under which evil disposed men were held by the terrors of the law while in a state of sobriety. If such a plea as this was to be admitted, Government would soon be brought into contempt and abhorrence, for it would then only be necessary for any man to drench himself with liquor, and he might while in that state be allowed to say or do whatever he thought proper. But such a defence, he was convinced, should not be tolerated by an intelligent Jury; for so far was drunkenness from forming a justification that it did in reality from an aggravation of the offence.

George Whitehead, the first witness called, said that he was the Constable of Huddersfield, and that on Sunday the 28th of March last, between eight and nine o'clock in the evening, he went to the house of Mrs. Haigh, who is a publican at Royds Hall. He found there five persons sitting drinking, Chapman the defendant, Crossley, Hanson, Thornton and Cliff, and when the witness had been in the house about twenty minutes he heard James Chapman use the seditious words stated in the indictment. He did not seem to be drunk, but was in a condition to understand the import of what he said.

On his cross examination by Mr. Hardy, the witness said, that the public-house where they were drinking is better than a mile from Huddersfield, it is out of his jurisdiction, and he got a glass of ale, are perhaps two. He entered into conversation with the company, and something was said about MAJOR CARTWRIGHT and Parliamentary Reform, but he does not recollect what. Something too was said about the Princess of Wales, but he cannot recollect what. He did not hear the defendant say that she had been ill used. Cannot recollect what the conversation was about, that brought all this abuse from Chapman! Witness dare say that he himself says something about the Princess of Wales and Major Cartwright, but does not remember what! He cannot charge his memory with any thing that was said that day but the words stated in the indictment! and these words were all spoken in succession and in connected sentences. All the other persons were present when these words were used, but he cannot remember whether they said any thing or nothing; except Hanson, who spoke highly in praise of Major Cartwright. The seditious conversation took place nearly at the time he was going out, and he thinks, what cannot be certain, that the information was laid the following day. He does not know whether a representation of this conversation has been made to Government or not.

John Cliff, the next witness called for the prosecution, said he was at Haigh Hall on the night of the 28th of March, and was in company with Chapman and Whitehead, some conversation took place about the Princess of Wales, and Chapman in reply to an observation made, he thinks by Whitehead, said, "then I must say that we are governed by a set of damned whores, rogues and thieves;" but he did not, in his hearing, apply any such terms as those mentioned by the former witness to either the King or the Prince of Wales, or the Princess of Wales. Witness had no acquaintance with Chapman, he never saw him before that day. He, the witness, was not "right steady," and he thinks Chapman was not "right steady." Nothing material came out in the man's examination, except that the witness was out of the room about twenty minutes.

John Thornton the third and last witness called for the prosecution, said, he was in the room at the time that Whitehead came in. They were talking about Parliamentary Reform, and Chapman, in answer to some remark made by Whitehead, said, "We are governed then by a set of damned whores, rogues and thieves. What would have become of the poor woman (meaning the Princess of Wales) if they had found her guilty? I suppose they would have hanged her." Witness heard Chapman say this, but he heard him say nothing about the King of the Prince of Wales. The evidence against the Defendant having closed,

Mr. HARDY rose and spoke in substance as follows: "I beg leave to claim the attention of the Court and Jury for a few moments, and only a few moments will be necessary to defeat this attempt to fix upon my client the words imputed to him in this indictment. I regret extremely that this prosecution should ever have been instituted—if it could be supposed that such a proceeding had the connivance of Government, the natural consequence would be, to bring the persons intrusted with the administration of our public affairs into contempt and derision; but I will venture to say, that it has been instituted without any direction from Government, and that though they have no doubt had before them the deposition of this notable Mr. Whitehead, they have very properly refused to take a single step in the business, and I wish it to be distinctly understood, that this is not a Government prosecution, but that it is Mr. Whitehead's prosecution. This party, it appears, were all sitting drinking in a public-house on the Sunday evening, and the conversation turned upon Major Cartwright and Parliamentary Reform; and the defendant, I imagine, spoke in terms of approbation of the Major, but there is, I hope, no sedition in that. Major Cartwright had been called, and deservedly so, the Veteran of Parliamentary Reform, for I believe he acts under the influence of motives the most pure and patriotic; and though for myself I may not coincide in sentiment with the Major, knowing, as I do, that there is no country under heaven where so much liberty and happiness is enjoyed as in this country, and feeling that the reform he contemplates might endanger these inestimable privileges, yet I must say, that whoever see, or imagine they see, any corruption in the State, it is a sacred duty due from them to their country, to endeavour to stem that corruption and to remove that abuse. Passing from these general observations to an examination of the evidence in support of this temporary prosecution, we find that Mr. Whitehead, whose memory is so tenacious as to recollect the worst said in the indictment with marvellous precision, can recollect nothing else; and these persons that are brought to bolster up this prosecution, not only do not confirm Mr. Whitehead’s testimony, but they absolutely contradict it. Mr. Whitehead swears that the observations of Chapman was not in reply to any remarks made by himself, the other witnesses say it was.

Mr. Whitehead says the defendant damned the King, the Prince of Wales, and even the Princess of Wales; but the other witnesses, though Mr. Whitehead has positively sworn that they were all present, declare that they heard no such expressions: and it is perfectly clear that no such words were used; for is it to be imagined that a man supporting the Princess of Wales, commiserating her unfortunate situation, condemning her persecution, should stigmatize the person whose character he was endeavouring to uphold, with the opprobrious epithet sworn to by Whitehead? The defendant too, it is to be observed, was at the time in question, and still is, in the employment of Mr. Atkinson, of Bradley-Mills: and can it be supposed that a man of Mr. Atkinson's well-known loyalty would retain in his employment a wretch so destitute of every loyal and virtuous feeling as to express himself in the way stated by Mr. Whitehead? Certainly not; and Mr. Atkinson is perfectly convinced that Mr. Whitehead, in the blaze of his loyalty, if he has not foisted words into defendant’s mouth, has at least put a construction upon his expressions that they would not fairly bear. What application could such expressions have to the subject of Parliamentary Reform; or how could they be supplied to our Governors? The Government of this country is vested in the three estates of the realm;—and how Mr. Whitehead can make the King, Lords, and Commons into "whores" he can best explain.—(a laugh)—Is this a case for a prosecution for sedition? Sedition implies an intention to bring the Government into hatred and contempt:—this is the essence, the gist of the offence, and where, I should be glad to know, is the proof of such an intent to be found in this pot house conversation? In sedition, as in murder, the attendant circumstances constitute the crime. I may kill a man without committing murder; and I may use expressions in one situation, and under certain circumstances, that would, in other situations, and under different circumstances, be grossly seditious. If the defendant, instead of talking politics in a public-house, (as Englishmen are in a constant habit of doing, and to do which they have an undoubted right) had stood up in the market-place at Huddersfield, and endeavoured to excite the populace to tumult—then malice might have been inferred from his conduct; but where, I should be glad to know, are we to look for malice in this case, or for a design to bring the Government into contempt and abhorrence? Mr. Justice Foster, in his observations on the Act passed in the reign of Anne, inflicting the penalty of praemunire on any person that should, by preaching, &c. deny the competency of Parliament, says—"a rash expression will not render a man criminal: words are transient, easily misunderstood, and often misrepresented; and therefore a wicked intention must be shown to constitute the offence:" and this definition of the law was given after a long life of legal experience. I will put the case. Suppose, while I am engaged in my study, and enter on some subject that I wish to pursue without interruption, my servant should come and say—"The Tax-Gatherer, Sir, has called for the Taxes:"—and I should reply, in the moment of irritation—"The devil take the Tax-Gatherer!"—could it be fairly inferred that I was seditiously inclined, and that I really meant to consign this officer of the public revenue to perdition? All this, you will perceive, I have said on the supposition that the other witnesses have confirmed Whitehead's testimony; tho’, what is the fact, they have not confirmed, but, as I have already stated, they have contradicted him.

But I will not waste more of your time. You cannot, and I am sure you will not, under such circumstances, give a verdict against the defendant. To your hands I commit him, and if you would not be called to account for every hasty word you utter—if you can discriminate between truth and error—if you have a veneration for the laws, and wish to guard them against being perverted to vindictive purposes, you will return a verdict of not guilty, and thereby prove, that you concur with the Government of your country considering this trumpery prosecution as too despicable to occupy the attention of a Court of Justice.—(Loud cheers burst from every part of the Court at the conclusion of Mr. Hardy’s eloquent and argumentative to speech, of which the above is a mere outline.)

The Bench conceiving that there could be only one opinion on the subject, sent the cause to the Jury without summing up the evidence; and the Jury, without a moment’s hesitation, returned a verdict of Not Guilty, to the universal satisfaction of a crowded Court.

25th April 1812: One man committed for Manchester Exchange riot

The Lancaster Gazette of 25th April 1812 reported that at the recent Salford Quarter Sessions held at the New Bayley prison, a Charles Duffy was before the Judge for "riotously breaking furniture and lamps belonging to the Manchester Exchange" at the riots on 8th April. His case was traversed to the next Quarter Sessions, but being unable to post bail, he was committed to prison until them.

13th January 1812: 'Luddite fundraisers' discharged at Nottingham Quarter Sessions

On Monday 13th January, the Epiphany Quarter Sessions commenced in Nottingham. Several prisoners that had been committed for collecting money to support Luddism the previous December were brought to trial, these being Job Hezledine, Job Farnworth, John Hickling, George Taylor, Thomas Langley, William Padley, John Leivers, Michael Leivers, Joseph Needham, and Henry Leverton.

However, there being no indictment ('no bill') from the grand jury, they were discharged with, according to the Nottingham Review "appropriate admonition from the Bench".