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

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]

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.