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.

11th November 1812: Government legal advisers give their assessment of the cases for the York Assizes

My Lord

We have very attentively considered the evidence, upon which the several Prisoners have been committed to the Castle of York for Trial: and we have the honour to report your Lordship that there appears to us to be satisfactory evidence against the Men, charged with the Murder of Mr. Horsfall, and probability of conviction: and it is not probable that, by delaying the trial, any new light can be obtained upon this case.

There seems to be probable ground for expecting convictions in the cases of those concerned in robbing Moxon's house, Savage’s house, & of those also from administering unlawful Oaths to McDonald, although this latter case, it is to be observed, is attended with some very singular circumstances.

We are sorry to observe that in most of the other cases, the evidence is extremely slight. In all of them, there is strong ground of suspicion, upon which, in the perturbed state of the County, we do not wonder the Magistrates acted, but few of them furnish any proof, except the testimony of accomplices, unconfirmed by other witnesses.

There is no evidence whatever against the 14 persons charged with the attack made upon Mr Cartwright’s Mill; nor against the 10 persons charged with breaking the Shears of Mr Vickerman & of Mr Hirst, except that of Hall, the accomplice; and therefore it would be impossible even to expect the Grand Jury to find a Bill upon his unsupported testimony: and yet both these offences are of so serious a nature; & naturally excited such alarm in the County of York, that a conviction of the Perpetrators of them would produce the most salutary effect.

We therefore think it advisable to send from London a Gentleman of experience, & well acquainted with criminal business, who might direct enquiries of the Agents, who might be able to give accurate information to Government of the probability of procuring better evidence at a future time, & who might also cause the witnesses to be more accurately & minutely examined.

If no better evidence can be procured (and if it cannot be procured within a month, there is no great probability that it ever will) there seems to be a hardship in keeping these men confined till the General Gaol Delivery in March, if they must then be discharge for want of prosecution: & we are not aware of any other mode of liberating them before that time, but by a Special Commission. If, on the other hand, better evidence can be procured, it is most fitting that they, as well as the others, against whom the evidence is more complete, should be brought, from the peace & security of the County, to immediate trial & punishment.

Under all these circumstances, & taking also into our consideration, the present overloaded state of the Castle of York, it appears to us that a Special Commission should issue.

We have [etc]

Thos. Plumer.
W Garrow
J A Park
Lincolns Inn
11 Nov: 1812.

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

5th November 1812: The Government's law officers sanction the case against George Mellor, William Thorpe & Thomas Smith

On Thursday 5th November, after viewing all the statements and correspondence collected thus far about the case against the three men accused of assassinating William Horsfall, the senior law officers of the government sanctioned the proceedings against them in one paragraph:

The prosecution must go on against all the three Prisoners who have been committed, and Walker must be admitted a Witness for the Crown.—

Thos. Plumer
W Garrow
Lincolns Inn
5 Nov: 1812

24th October 1812: Attack on watchmen at Lindley, near Huddersfield

Between 11.00 p.m. & 12.00 p.m. on Saturday 24th October 1812, a party of watchmen at Lindley, near Huddersfield came under attack from at least 6 men.

A party of three, led by a Special Constable John Cockshut, was attacked with stones and a brawl ensued. One of the men, John Jagger a cropper, seems to have been singled out for the worst treatment and was knocked unconscious by a blow to the head from a stone, although he later recovered.

The following day, the three men (which including a John Wilkinson) gave statements to Joseph Radcliffe, and named the following men as being the attackers: James Smithies (labourer); James Broom (cropper); David Dyson, Thomas Dyson, James Wood and Jonas Wood (all Masons). All three mentioned Smithies.

Radcliffe wanted to take the case to the next York Assizes, and sought assurances that the government would underwrite the costs, but in their response the Attorney General Thomas Plumer and the Solicitor General William Garrow wanted more details about what had happened and why before agreeing to Radcliffe's suggestion. The case did not subsequently appear at the following York Assizes.

17th September 1812: Cases for seditious language brought by Joseph Radcliffe are rejected by the Government's lawyers

Case.

The Secretary of State has transmitted the accompanying Depositions to the Solicitor of the Treasury to be laid before the Attorney & Solicitor General viz

For uttering seditious and inflammatory words.—

James Todd against Samuel Rhodes
Hugh Tomlinson against John Burgess
James Todd agt the Same
Robert Parish agt Charles Horrabin, Joshua Byron and John Rathwell

For threatening the lives of the special Constables—

David Harrison agt John Sykes, Benjamin Scholefield

Joshua Byron is in custody and the others have been bound over for their appearance at the next Quarter Sessions—

Copies of all Mr. Radcliffe's and Mr Lloyd’s letters forwarding the same are also left herewith—

The Opinion of the Attorney & Solicitor General is requested—

‘As to what course it will be most adviseable to pursue in the several Cases above-mentioned?—

The confessions which the Depositions ascribe to these Persons are certainly very mischievous and naturally tend to excite strong suspicions against the persons uttering them, but considering all the circumstances we rather think it more advisable not to make any of them the subject of criminal prosecution.

Thos. Plumer
W Garrow Lincolns Inn
17 Sep: 1812.